Search results

When sustainable development (SD) is only taught in specific courses, it is questionable if engineering students are able to integrate it into their engineering practices and technical designs. For this reason, sustainability should also be integrated into regular engineering courses, e.g. design courses, materials courses or processing technology. The SD education plan adopted by the board of Delft University of Technology (DUT) in 1998 was based on this philosophy. It consists of three interconnected activities for all engineering curricula: the implementation of an elementary course “Technology in sustainable development”; the development of a graduation program in sustainable development for students who want to specialize; and the integration of sustainable development in all regular courses, wherever applicable. This paper describes various activities that the project group carried out to stimulate and support the third strategy: SD integration. It turned out that top‐down attempts to influence the content of courses often triggered resistance among lecturers, as they feared the intermingling of laymen into their scientific/engineering discipline. Interaction was important but was often impossible by lack of mutual understanding. Participation in a national project aimed to stimulate discussion by making disciplinary sustainability reviews of academic/engineering disciplines. This approach was promising as it created the base for serious discussions. However, the reports often ended in the bureaucracies of the departments. More positive results were achieved with a semi‐consultant approach directed at discussing SD issues with individual lecturers. Many lecturers were willing to discuss their courses, and were interested in practical ideas to integrate sustainability. This interactive approach is promising because it does not conflict with academic culture and keeps the lecturer in charge of his own course.

There is a widely held belief that sustainable development (SD) policies are essential for universities to successfully engage in matters related to sustainability, and are an indicator of the extent to which they are active in this field. This paper aims to examine the evidence which currently exists to support this assumption. It surveys a sample of universities in Brazil, Germany, Greece, Portugal, South Africa and the UK and the USA to ascertain the extent to which universities that are active in the field of sustainable development have formal policies on sustainable development, and whether such policies are a pre-condition for successful sustainability efforts.

The study involved 35 universities in seven countries (five universities respectively). A mixed-methods approach has been used, ranging from document analysis, website analysis, questionnaires and interviewing.

Although only 60 per cent of the sampled universities had a policy that specifically addressed SD, this cannot be regarded as an indicator that the remaining 40 per cent are not engaged with substantial actions that address SD. Indeed, all of the universities in the sample, regardless of the existence of a SD formal policy, demonstrated engagement with environmental sustainability policies or procedures in some form or another. This research has been limited by the availability and ability to procure information from the sampled universities. Despite this, it is one of the largest research efforts of this kind ever performed.

This research has been limited by the availability and ability to procure information from the sampled universities.

The findings provide some valuable insights into the connections between SD policies on the one hand and the practice of sustainable development in higher education institutions on the other.

Universities with SD policies can contribute to models of economic growth consistent with sustainable development.

The study is the one of the largest research efforts of this kind ever performed.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) should play a fundamental role in achieving the international 2030 sustainable development (SD) agenda. Quality education is the fourth of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and one of the targets related to this is to ensure that by 2030 all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote SD. Therefore, the SDGs provide a motive for HEIs to integrate SD concepts into their day-to-day practices. This study aims to introduce a framework for HEIs’ sustainable development assessment. Such a framework guides HEIs and educational leaders to support their countries’ commitments to achieving the SDGs.

This paper presents the results of a case study analysis of the role and successful techniques of HEIs in achieving SD in three countries, namely, Germany, Japan and Egypt. Primary data was collected by semi-structured interviews with three Cairo University officials, while secondary data was collected by reviewing the universities' official websites, reports, publications and related papers. This study introduces a novel framework for HEIs' SD analysis and assessment, which guides HEIs and educational leaders to support SD to fulfill their countries' commitments to achieving the SDGs. This framework is based on the following five categories: strategic direction and institutional working practices, supporting students, supporting university staff competencies, supporting society's stakeholders and networking and sustainable campus. Consideration is given to the potential role of HEIs to support SD in each of these areas.

Cairo University could learn from the novel and pioneer practices of the Leuphana University of Lüneburg, and the University of Tokyo to fill in the gaps it has in different roles. It can also put more effort into adopting the suggested higher education programs of Egypt's Vision 2030.

This paper is limited to a case analysis comparing three countries, Germany, Japan and Egypt. Second, this study has not considered school education, which is equally essential in countries' SD.

HEIs can use the framework and the findings in this paper to evaluate their current roles in supporting SD, identify the gaps and take actions accordingly to address their weaknesses.

The paper compares three universities, one in each of the case study countries. It draws conclusions that identify ways in which the paper's framework and findings can guide SD practice in HEIs internationally, especially those in the developing world.

The Brundtland Commission report has been widely cited in debates about sustainable development (SD), but disagreements still exist about what SD is and the role or importance of ecology are central to the debate. SD is a movement that seeks to address social and economic issues to meet the needs of the entire community through alternative methods of development. The Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), World Summit on Sustainable Development, and Rio+20 have all been significant initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This book focused on the development of sustainable infrastructure, which is linked to seven of the recently established Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Researchers emphasized the importance of developing an objective definition of SD. The most used definition of SD is proposed in the World Conference on Environment and Development (WCED) report, which emphasizes harmony among the three pillars: social, ecological, and economic. However, Lehtonen (2004) contends that separating the terms ‘social’ and ‘economic’ will isolate economic problems from their larger social context. This SD model recognizes that economic activities must be carried out for the benefit of society and that initiatives affecting humanity’s social context must be completed within ecological bounds. Mebratu (1998) classified SD definitions and origins into three categories: functional, conceptual, and intellectual. Hopwood et al. (2005) demonstrated the many ecological, social, and economic implications of SD. O’Riordan (1988) and Robinson (2004) define sustainability as an integral concept with a strong emphasis on nature. SD is a conservationist approach to natural resource allocation that focuses on technology to address pollution and resource depletion issues. To achieve development, current institutions must be transformed, with an emphasis on meeting people’s wants and interests in a way that is consistent with economic, equitable, and environmental concerns. It is frequently used to describe outdated economic development that disregards the environment. SD is viewed differently by different authors. Mitcham (1995) discovered ‘investigated or creative ambiguity’ in the term, which is a strength, not a flaw. O’Riordan (1988) admitted that the ambiguity surrounding the concept’s definition has sparked debate. Dresner (2008) demonstrated that the confusion surrounding SD does not render it ineffective. The Forum for the Future’s 5-capitals model and the triple bottom line (TBL) model are two examples of SD models that promote SD, but technological and scientific progress has been slow. The definition of SD is ambiguous, with various perspectives and insights from various authors. This section examined the body of knowledge on sustainability and its underlying concepts and principles, with references and a discussion of the TBL.

The importance of multidimensional and engaging instruction for sustainable development goals (SDGs) in higher education cannot be overstated. Such instructions should motivate students not only to memorize and contemplate these goals but also to actively participate in addressing SDG-related challenges. Consequently, this study aims to develop practical and appropriate instructional approaches to education for sustainable development (ESD) in higher education to enhance students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors concerning sustainability.

By using a quasi-experimental design, this ESD study was conducted at a university in central Taiwan. A total of 121 students from diverse academic backgrounds participated in the 16-week experiment, which was divided into three groups. Lecturing, thematic teaching and design-thinking strategies were applied to these respective groups.

The thematic-teaching and design-thinking groups displaying improved cognitive performance. However, the quantity results revealed that the design-thinking group surpassed the other two groups in sustainability knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and mind map tasks. The qualitative findings further indicated that design thinking – through multiple practical problem-solving activities – guided college students to think independently and sustainably, as well as enabled them to internalize the value of sustainable development. By implementing these effective approaches, the core goals of ESD-related personal and societal transformations may be realized.

This study proposed a goal-oriented ESD instructional model for educators, demonstrating the efficacy of design thinking in cultivating higher-order thinking and affection for ESD in students. Additionally, this study introduced an innovative evaluation approach – mind mapping – to the ESD domain, which may compensate for the limitations of the survey method.

This study provides empirical evidence for the effectiveness of design thinking and thematic-based pedagogies in sustainable development higher education. Additionally, it also offers a practical ESD instructional model with reference value for scholars and multi-domain instructors. Moreover, the study highlights that by examining organizational governance from the perspectives of design thinking and higher-order affection, sustainable and economic development need not be mutually exclusive concepts. Instead, pursuing SDGs can be viewed as investment opportunities for organizations rather than mere costs.

The aim of this paper is to identify the impact of two Canton Geneva pedagogical tools devised to sensibilise the local population to sustainable development issues.

The survey attempts to verify individuals' awareness and opinion towards sustainable development, as well as the influence of both tools on their routines. In total, 992 people who live and work in Canton Geneva answered a questionnaire that was administered between January and February 2008.

People feel concerned by sustainable development issues and seem to be motivated to adapt their routines to comply with its needs. However, they feel not to be sufficiently informed: experiencing either or both pedagogical tools seems to positively influence individuals' behaviours.

The paper provides some measures about the impact of educational driven programmes on individuals' awareness and behaviours towards sustainable development.

It is essential for developed nations to have adequate and functional infrastructure to sustain economic growth and well-being. Despite efforts to reduce the chances of infrastructure problems, several scholars have expressed concern about infrastructure standards deteriorating at an alarming rate and the need to ensure their sustainability. To achieve sustainable infrastructure development (SID), Sahely et al. (2005) proposed an uncomplicated strategy based on fundamental cooperation between infrastructure and ecological, economic, and social frameworks. Sustainable infrastructure is defined as the development and dependable management of a safe built environment based on efficient resource utilization and environmental standards. SID aims to mitigate or eliminate ecological problems and challenges while maximizing the potential social and economic benefits. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP, 2007) defines SID as infrastructure compatible with continued financial and environmental sustainability. Sustainable road development infrastructure (SRID) is a procedure for constructing infrastructure that incorporates all the essential sustainable development (SD) parameters and is complicated by the interdependence of multiple factors. Stakeholders are essential for the successful execution of infrastructure projects, and a comprehensive evaluation of stakeholder interests and requirements is necessary to achieve SRID goals while meeting the needs of all parties involved. To achieve SRID, it is necessary to understand the relationship between road infrastructure development (RID) processes and SD standards and to implement criteria and indicators that accurately depict the long-term viability of a development process. Al Sanad (2015) identified several factors that may impede the implementation of SD in the infrastructure sector. Shafii et al. (2006) identified insufficient knowledge of SID, lack of SID training, a perception of SID as expensive, acquisition concerns, administrative issues, expert capacities, and motivational factors for manufacturing local materials as potential obstacles. Serpell (2013) identified four categories of SID challenges, including knowledge, economic and financial, organizational, and go. Darko and Chan (2016) identified the most prevalent barriers as a lack of data, training, research, information, and expertise, high cost, government interest, premium and demand, and the absence of SID standards of practice. Azis et al. (2012) identified improved project efficiency, waste reduction in the construction industry, and energy efficiency as advantages of SID. Ametepey and Aigbavboa (2014) identified energy savings, environmental protection, contribution to a higher standard of living and a healthy work environment, resource preservation for future generations, reduction in lifecycle costs, promotion of sustainable economic development, and stakeholder satisfaction as the top benefits of sustainable construction (SC). Du Plessis (2007) identified technological factors, Al Sanad (2015) identified educational programmes, Serpell et al. (2013) identified transformation, economic, and stakeholder engagement as drivers of SC, and Hankinson and Breytenbach (2012) identified enhanced SC awareness. This chapter reviewed the literature on international infrastructure and sustainability development, discussing factors, and benefits promoting SID.

Humanity experiences challenges caused by gender inequality which further obstructs achievement of global sustainable development. Considering gender equality as human equality, this chapter emphasizes women empowerment's role in supporting global sustainable development. Based on literature review, this chapter aims to examine women empowerment's role in and contribution to UN SDGs (sustainable development goals). This chapter underlines that the gender inequality hinders and obstructs global sustainable development and achievement of SDGs. Furthermore, this chapter examines causes of gender inequality as they need to be identified and eliminated to achieve global sustainable development. Women empowerment plays a significant role in solving gender inequality related problems (e.g., health problems, education inequality, discrimination, crime, violence). Women empowerment achieved through supported gender equality can act as a multiplier factor in achieving synergy creation and influencing a sustainable future. This chapter highlights the influence of women empowerment and gender equality on all three pillars of sustainability. Furthermore, this chapter underlines the importance of women empowerment in all industries and politics for addressing the gender inequality problems. This chapter provides recommendations on how to enhance women empowerment to support achievement of all SDGs. Women empowerment based sustainable development policies can influence achievement of the SDGs. This chapter is expected to be useful to the academics and policymakers focusing on achievement of SDGs, sustainability, and sustainable development.

This paper aims to ask how the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has orchestrated a sustainable development (SD) agenda in its international policy since 2020.

By drawing on theoretical ideas around policy orchestration as a key UN governing strategy and applying them to the analysis of the progression of the SD agenda in the EHEA, the paper conducts a thematic analysis of six recent key EHEA international policy documents and 19 interviews with key Bologna stakeholders in France, Germany and Italy.

The resultant analysis uncovers three overarching key themes that show the EHEA has the capacity to mitigate pitfalls in the UN’s SD agenda; some weaknesses of the UN’s orchestration of SD are translated into weaknesses in the EHEA’s formulation of its SD agenda; and the further development of an SD agenda as an essential direction of EHEA’s work. The paper then goes on to discuss how EHEA policies only mention SD discourse, omit concrete plans for its implementation and keep the very meaning of SD ambiguous throughout international policy documents.

The authors offer three original recommendations that the EHEA should adopt in an attempt to mitigate the issues raised in the run-up to its 2030 deadline for implementing its policies: the EHEA should develop an explicit definition of SD; recognise the Euro-centredness of EHEA policies and open them up to other voices; and cite academic research when developing policy documents.

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to compare trends, drivers, and best sustainable development (SD) practices in the Nordic region and California, USA.Design/methodology/approach – Four research propositions are explored: (1) SD is driven by governmental, economic, and social/cultural influences. (2) Social democracy and mixed economies in the Nordic region influence SD differently than the free market system of the United States. (3) The profit-centered, short-term view in the United States impacts SD differently than the longer-term approach in the Nordic region. (4) The egalitarian culture in the Nordic region influences SD differently than the entrepreneurial culture in the United States. The study incorporates a comprehensive literature review, 34 field interviews and research observations in the United States and the Nordic region.Findings – California and the Nordics have similar market economies where SD is largely driven by private sector; however, the role of government more directly influences SD in the Nordic region. Also, the profit-centered, entrepreneurial view of the United States drives innovation in SD based on short-term profitability gains, which ultimately hinders long-term solutions. Alternatively, the egalitarian culture in the Nordic region manifests in more focused and quicker adoption of SD policies. Lastly, the Nordics have a broad range of SD goals and a competitive advantage in key SD technologies. Conversely, California pursues a large variety of technologies without clearly defined goals that tend to be less effective than the Nordic countries.Originality/value of chapter – The chapter identified similarities and differences in SD trends, best practices, policies, and attitudes: California compared to Nordic countries.