Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education [1st ed. 2019] 978-3-030-11351-3, 978-3-030-11352-0

Citation preview

Walter Leal Filho Editor

Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education

Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education

Walter Leal Filho Editor

Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education With 274 Figures and 164 Tables

Editor Walter Leal Filho Faculty of Life Sciences World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Germany

ISBN 978-3-030-11351-3 ISBN 978-3-030-11352-0 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-030-11353-7 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The issue of sustainability in a higher education context is, to some extent, a recent theme. Since over 600 universities worldwide have committed themselves toward sustainability by signing international agreements and conventions such as the Bologna Charter, the Halifax Declaration, the Talloires Declaration, and the Copernicus Charter for Sustainable Development, sustainability is no longer a marginal area. Rather, it has now become an established research field. This is more so since the “Agenda 2030” was agreed by the UN General Assembly in November 2015 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were established. These recent developments mean that, more than ever, higher education institutions should engage on the implementation of sustainable development across all subject areas. But despite the wide discussions on sustainable development taking place today, there is a paucity of publications that comprehensively describe the range of terms associated with it, or which offer a holistic overview of the many ramifications of sustainability as it relates to higher education. The aim of the Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education is to provide up-to-date information on new developments and trends on sustainability in a higher education context, and to catalyze networking and information exchange on sustainable development as a whole, and on the SDGs in particular, on a global basis. This encyclopedia serves as a tool to support universities across the world to implement sustainable development in higher education in a number of key areas such as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Policy-making, visioning, structures, management, and strategies Teaching, learning, and competencies Research and transformation Campus greening, design, operations, and carbon impacts Students and stakeholders’ initiatives and involvement

The encyclopedia will be of special interest to administrators and managers at higher education institutions, academic staff (e.g., lecturers, professors, researchers), technical staff, and students. Also, other groups working outside higher education, but interested in the theory and practice of sustainable development, will find its contents useful.

v

vi

Preface

Thanks to its nature, the Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education is expected to substantially contribute to the further development of this fast-growing field. We thank the associate editors, the editorial assistants (Amanda Lange Salvia and Ali Beynaghi), and the authors for sharing their knowledge and know-how. We also thank the many reviewers who have assisted with the peerreview of the papers. We hope the Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education will further support for the development of sustainable research and teaching, worldwide. Hamburg, Germany Autumn 2019

Walter Leal Filho Editor

List of Topics

All Terms Section Editor: Walter Leal Filho Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

Campus Greening, Design, Operations, and Carbon Impacts Section Editors: Markus Will, Isabel Novo-Corti, Luis Eduardo Velázquez Contreras, and Erin A. Hopkins Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems Campus Sustainability Policies Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development Composting and Sustainable Development Ecology and Sustainable Development Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil Green Education and Sustainable Development Green Living Guide and Sustainable Development Green Marketing and Sustainable Development Green Washing Higher Education Sustainability Professionals Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development LEED O + M and Sustainable Development Management Review Occupational Health and Sustainability On-Campus Mobility for Sustainable Development Pollution Prevention for Sustainability Real-Time Water Monitoring and Sustainable Development Recycle Relevance and Sustainable Development Resident Behaviors and Sustainable Development Sustainability in Higher Education Sustainability Management System Sustainable Higher Education Systems Sustainable Organizations Waste Diversion and Sustainability

vii

viii

Waste Management Evaluations and Sustainability Waste Reduction and Sustainable Development Water Demand Reduction and Sustainability

Policy-Making, Visioning, Structures, Management, and Strategies Section Editors: Ulisses Azeiteiro, Rudi Pretorius, Evangelos Manolas, and Madhavi Venkatesan “Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability Action Research on Sustainable Development Attitude Change to Sustainable Development Behavior Change for Sustainable Development Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development Conservation and Sustainable Development Continuous Improvements and Sustainability Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education Divestment and Sustainable Development Economic Equity and Sustainable Development Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development Externalities and Sustainability Processes Global Campus Sustainability Ranking Grassroots Activism and Sustainable Development Greenhouse Gases and Sustainable Development Higher Education and Sustainability Initiatives Higher Education’s Sustainability Assessment Procedures

List of Topics

Importance of Sustainability Indicators Incorporation of Sustainability Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Investor Activism Towards Sustainability Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Leadership and Sustainability Metrics for Sustainable Development Online Classes and Sustainability Personal Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Possibilities and Limits of Life Cycle Assessment in Sustainability Reviews Procurement Policy for Sustainable Development Professional Development and Sustainability Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development Religion, Spirituality, and Sustainability Renewable Resources and Sustainable Development Risk Assessment and Sustainable Development Risk Management for Sustainable Development Social Justice in Sustainable Development Social Responsibility and Sustainability Social Welfare and Sustainability Socially Responsible Investing in Sustainable Development Stakeholder Analysis Through Sustainability Issues Stakeholder Mapping and Sustainable Development Sustainability and Education Policy Sustainability Assessment in Ghana’s Higher Educational Institutions Using the Assessment Questionnaire as a Tool Sustainability Barriers Sustainability Challenges

List of Topics

Sustainability Commitments, Institutional Level Sustainability Declarations, Effectiveness Sustainability Dialogues in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) Sustainability Domains in Higher Education Sustainability Indicators Sustainability Integration Sustainability on Campus Sustainability Perceptions Sustainability Policies Sustainability Transitions Sustainable Development Innovation: Education, Research, and Enterprise Activities at Universities Sustainable Facilities Management in Higher Education Institutions Sustainable Transportation Methods Sustainable University Profiles Transformative Responses to Sustainability Value-Based Investments in Sustainability Waste Management Strategies for Sustainable Development Water Conservation Strategies for Sustainable Development Research and Transformation Section Editors: José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, Ingrid Molderez, and Pinar Gökçin Özuyar Aesthetics and Sustainability Anthropocene and Sustainable Development Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability Blended Learning and Sustainable Development Business Education for Sustainable Development Climate Change and Sustainable Development Community Outreach on Sustainability Complex Systems and Sustainable Development Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education Deep Learning on Sustainable Development Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

ix

Ecopsychology and Sustainable Development E-Learning and Sustainable Development Environmental Education and Sustainable Development Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development Global Change and Sustainable Development Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development Global Warming and Sustainable Development Green Universities and Sustainable Development Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development Institutional Sustainability Assessment Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development Norms and Values for Sustainable Development Obstacles to Implementation of Sustainable Development at Higher Education Institutions Overall Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development Participative Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development Role of Teachers on Education for Sustainable Development Service-Learning and Sustainability Education Simulation and Sustainability Students’ Perception on Sustainability Sustainability and Life Cycle Cost Analysis Sustainable Development Sustainable Diets for Sustainable Development, Importance of Sustainable Education Methods Sustainable Literacy Sustainable University Accreditation and Certification Systems Thinking and Sustainable Development Transdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Water Security and Sustainability Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Sustainability Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability

x

Students and Stakeholders’ Initiatives and Involvement Section Editors: Petra Molthan-Hill, Mark Christopher Mifsud, Izael da Silva, and Patrizia Lombardi Accountability and Sustainable Development Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education Assessment of Sustainability Competencies Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Digital Learning and Sustainable Development Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development Empowerment in Sustainability Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development Environmental and Sustainability Clubs Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development Future Trends in Sustainable Development Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development Green Campuses and Sustainable Development Green Labeling and Sustainable Development Greenhouse Gas Management and Sustainable Development Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development League Tables and Sustainability Living Labs for Sustainability Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Mindfulness in Sustainability Multidisciplinary Approach to Environmental Problems and Sustainability oikos, International Student Organization for Sustainability in Economics and Management Education Participation and Sustainable Development

List of Topics

Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) Initiative Public Policies on Education for Sustainable Development Resilience Thinking and Sustainable Development School Actions Plans for Sustainable Development Serious Games and Sustainability Social Solidarity and Sustainable Development Soft Skills and Sustainable Development Storytelling for Sustainable Development Strategic Thinking and Sustainable Development Sustainability Balance Sustainability Literacy Test Sustainability Mindset Sustainability Weeks and Sustainable Development Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable Development Goals and Networks as a Collaboration Model Sustainable Future Sustainable Mobility TED Talks on Environment Issues for Sustainable Development Value Creation and Sustainable Development

Teaching, Learning, and Competencies Section Editors: Nelson Amaro, Luciana Brandli, Judy Rogers, Noor Adelyna Mohammed Akib, Tehmina Khan, and Joy Kcenia O’Neil Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development Awareness of Sustainability Issues Campus Greening and Sustainable Development Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level Community Learning on Sustainability Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development Constructivism and Sustainable Development Contextual Learning for Sustainability Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

List of Topics

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development Curricular Innovation for Sustainability Ecocentric Education Eco-schools and Sustainable Development Energy Management Tools for Sustainability Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development Fair Trade and Sustainable Development Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development Green Revolution and Sustainable Development How Worldview Development Influences Knowledge and Beliefs About Sustainability Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development Intergenerational and Sustainable Development International Networks and Sustainable Development Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges

xi

Migration and Sustainable Development Multi-disciplinarity Prosocial Behavior and Sustainable Development Quality of Life and Sustainable Development Reflective Actions for Sustainable Development Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development Role of Education for Sustainable Development Social Engagement Aspects of Sustainability Student Empowerment and Sustainability Students’ Perspectives on Sustainability Sustainability Evaluation Sustainable Urban Transformation Sustainable Waste Management Systems in Higher Institutions: Overview and Advances in Central University Miotso, Ghana Sustainable Water Management and Higher Education Technological Enhancement and Sustainability Technological Innovation for Sustainability Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development Transdisciplinary Processes for Sustainable Development Transferring Knowledge for Sustainable Development Transformative Learning for Sustainability Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development University Operations for Sustainable Development Wellbeing and Sustainability Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

About the Editor

Walter Leal Filho Faculty of Life Sciences,World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany Professor Walter Leal (B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Phil., D.L., F.R.G.S., F.R.S.A., F.R.S.B.) is a biologist and has various doctorates in subjects relating to the environment and sustainable development issues. He is Director of the Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management” and the “European School of Sustainability Science and Research” at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany, where he is in charge of a number of European projects. He has authored, coauthored, or edited over 400 publications on the subjects of the environment, sustainable development, and climate change. Professor Leal is also the initiator of the Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Programme (IUSDRP), a network of 128 universities sharing a common interest on sustainability research. He is the founding editor of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education and the World Sustainability Series with Springer. He sits on the editorial board of various journals. Professor Leal is fluent in English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish and has a good knowledge of French. He is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on matters related to sustainable development.

xiii

About the Editorial Assistants

Amanda Lange Salvia University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Ali Beynaghi Office of Sustainability, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

xv

About the Associate Editors

Teaching, Learning, and Competencies

Nelson Amaro Galileo University, Institute of Sustainable Development, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Luciana Londero Brandli Brazil

University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS,

xvii

xviii

About the Associate Editors

Judy Rogers School of Architecture and Urban Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Noor Adelyna Mohammed Akib Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, USM, Penang, Malaysia School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, USM, Penang, Malaysia

Tehmina Khan School of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

About the Associate Editors

xix

Joy Kcenia O’Neil School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Policy-Making, Visioning, Structures, Management, and Strategies

Ulisses Azeiteiro Department of Biology, CESAM Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Rudi Pretorius Department of Geography, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

xx

About the Associate Editors

Evangelos Manolas Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, School of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, Greece

Madhavi Venkatesan Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Research and Transformation

José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

About the Associate Editors

xxi

Ingrid Molderez KU Leuven, Leuven, Brussels, Belgium

Pinar Gökçin Özuyar Industrial Ecologist, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey

Campus Greening, Design, Operations, and Carbon Impacts

Markus Will Department Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Zittau/Görlitz, Zittau, Germany

xxii

About the Associate Editors

Isabel Novo-Corti Department of Economics, EDaSS Research Group on Economic Development and Social Sustainability, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of A Coruña – Spain, Coruña, Spain

Luis Eduardo Velázquez Contreras Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico

Erin A. Hopkins Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

About the Associate Editors

xxiii

Students and Stakeholders’ Initiatives and Involvement

Petra Molthan-Hill NTU Green Academy, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Mark Christopher Mifsud Centre for Environmental Education and Research, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Izael da Silva Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya

Patrizia Lombardi Urban Planning Evaluation and Project Appraisal, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

Contributors

Ismaila Rimi Abubakar College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Carla D. Aceves-Avila Center of Economic and Management Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico B. Adugna Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia Noé Aguilar-Rivera Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz, Mexico Yusuf A. Aina Department of Geomatics Engineering Technology, Yanbu Industrial College, Yanbu, Madinah, Saudi Arabia Tomohiro Akiyama Department of Socio-Cultural Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Ana Marta Aleixo Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal Denis Alexeev Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St. Petersburg, Russia Aaron S. Allen Environment and Sustainability Program, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA Stephen Allen University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Arthur Henrique Allocca Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Paulo Santos Almeida University of São Paulo, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, São Paulo, Brazil Mohammad Al-Saidi Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Habib M. Alshuwaikhat Department of City and Regional Planning, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Aleix Altimiras-Martin Department of Science and Technology Policy, Institute of Geosciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil xxv

xxvi

Geisla Aparecida Donizete Alves Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT São Paulo, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Mutiu K. Amosa Department for Management of Science and Technology Development, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam René Pereira Anderson Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Rosley Anholon Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Michael Aprill School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Phyllis Margaret Araneo Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia Reza Arjmandi Department of Environmental Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Viktoria Arnold Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany Gabriela Farias Asmus Center for Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Santo André, Sao Paulo, Brazil Tamara Avellan Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES), United Nations University, Dresden, Germany Tatjana Bagrova Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St. Petersburg, Russia Michal J. Bardecki Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and Graduate Programs in Environmental Applied Science and Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada Lauren Barredo Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, NY, USA Luana Dandara Barreto Torres Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Santo André, Sao Paulo, Brazil Whitney A. Bauman Department of Religious Studies, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA Sara Becker Faculty of Cultural and Social Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany Interdisciplinary Distance Studies of Environmental Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Contributors

Contributors

xxvii

Denbel Bedo St. Mary’s University , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Anna Belousova C&E Consulting und Engineering GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany Chrysanthi Kadji Beltran School of Education, Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus Issa Ibrahim Berchin Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Marco A. Berger-García Center of Economic and Management Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico Hermano Bernardo School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal Institute for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Jennifer Bernstein Spatial Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Daniel S. Boshoff School of Geo and Spatial Science, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa Greg Bothun Department of Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA Sharon Bramwell-Lalor The University of the West Indies (Mona), Kingston, Jamaica Luciana Londero Brandli University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil Fernanda da Rocha Brando Department of Biology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil Louis Brown University of Manchester, Birmingham, UK Hannah Budnitz School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Renata Buriti Institute for Technology and Resources Management in the Tropics and Subtropics, TH Köln/University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany Sally Caird Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Juan Fernando Cárdenas-González Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria Unidad Zona Media, San Luis Potosí, Mexico

xxviii

João Pedro Carpanezi dos Santos Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Jean-Christophe Carteron KEDGE Business School – Sulitest, Talence, France Caio Cesar Makalski Carvalho Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Clinton Cassar University of Malta, Msida, Malta Carla Kazue Nakao Cavaliero Department of Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Xingxing Chen Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Eva Chiu Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Stella Choi School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, China Katarzyna Cichos Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Mike J. Clifford University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Eleonora Concina Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padova, Padova, Italy Robert Eduardo Cooper-Ordoñez Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Materials, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil R. B. Cordeiro Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/ CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Cristiane Moura Ribeiro Correia Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Cristiano Galrão Corrêa Conde Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Maria Cortes-Puch Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, NY, USA Ann Crabbé Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Group Environment and Society, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Marc Craps Faculty of Economics and Business Management, Centre for Corporate Sustainability, KU Leuven, Brussels, Belgium

Contributors

Contributors

xxix

Sônia Regina da Cal Seixas Centre for Environmental Studies and Research, NEPAM, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Sthefanie Aguiar da Silva Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Kelly Cristina da Silva Pascoalino Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Diego Martins Dalbem University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Rafael de Almeida Lizzio Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Cláudia de Assunção Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Tainá Nicolau de Campos Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Júlio César de Lima Ribeiro Department of Law, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Missulia de Lima Ribeiro Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil João Luiz de Moraes Hoefel Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Tábata Sabrina Lourenço de Morais Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Estevam Tiene Amorim de Oliveira Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Sara Aparecida de Paula Centre for Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences, Master’s Candidate on the Programme of International Political Economy, Federal University of ABC, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil

xxx

Contributors

María Fátima de Poza-Vilches Educational Methodology Research Department, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Faculty of Science Education Department MIDE, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Aurélien Decamps KEDGE Business School – Sulitest, Talence, France Priyanka deSouza Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Karine Hellen Fonseca Dias Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Chukwuemeka Jude Diji Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Arminda do Paço Department of Management and Economics, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal Christoph Dobler Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany Marcos dos Santos Simões Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Glory Ikponmwosa Edwards Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands Soraya Giovanetti El-Deir Environmental Management Research Group in Pernambuco, Postgraduate Program in Environmental Engineering, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil Tatiana Eremina Russian St. Petersburg, Russia

State

Hydrometeorological

University,

Lina Erlandsson Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK Alexandra Ershova Russian St. Petersburg, Russia

State

Hydrometeorological

University,

Yirgalem Eshete Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia Saeid Eslamian Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran Javier Esquer Graduate Sustainability Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Akinsiku Esther Department of Business Economics, Lagos State Polytechnic, Lagos, Nigeria

Contributors

xxxi

Daniela Godoy Falco Department of Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Mathias Falkenstein Higher Education Management Group, Germany

Berlin,

School of Management, International Centre for Higher Education Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK Therese Ferguson School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica Louise Michelle Fitzgerald School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Marcos Antonio Leite Frandoloso Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Pascal Frank Faculty of Sustainability, Working Group Sustainable Consumption and Sustainability Communication, Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication (INFU), Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany Leonardo Freire de Mello Centre for Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences, Territorial Planning Department, Federal University of ABC, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil Julia Fries Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Jingyan Fu Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Lydia Fucsko Department Humanities and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Robert Gabriel Faculty Business Administration and International Finance, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Nuertingen, Germany Jessica L. Gaffney School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA T. Gammie Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia B. Gebeyehu Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia Bill Gething Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK Thamires Cesário Gimenes Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Svetlana Globa Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

xxxii

Fiona Goodwin EAUC, Cheltenham, UK Thomas Skou Grindsted Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Aida Guerra Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability under the auspices of UNESCO, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark José Gutiérrez-Pérez Department of Educational Methodology Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Hector Guzman Graduate Sustainability Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Caroline Persson Hager Oslo, Norway Lorelei L. Hanson Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada Chelsey Harmer Boston, MA, USA Stephen A. Harwood University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UK Sibte Hasan University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Ali Hasantabar-Amiri Department of Civil Engineering, Lenjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lenjan, Isfahan, Iran Mauri Luiz Heerdt Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Marc-André Heidelmann Research Group Innovation – Organization – Networks, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany Ann Hindley International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK Oanh Thi-Kieu Ho School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Jette E. Holgaard Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability under the auspices of UNESCO, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Sandra Hopkins International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK Jolita Horbacauskiene Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

Contributors

Contributors

xxxiii

Carolina Shizue Hoshino Neta Department of Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil Dzintra Iliško Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia Bila-Isia Inogwabini Center for Research and Communication in Sustainable Development (CERED), Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, The Jesuit Loyola University of Congo, Kinshasa, Congo Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Tolulase Michael Ishola Department of Agroclimatology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria Esther Temilola Ishola Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria V^ania Fernandes Garcia Ita Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Usha Iyer-Raniga School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Ana Valquiria Jonck Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Christopher Burr Jones School of Public Policy and Administration, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA Kurian Joseph Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai, India Junaidi Universitas Indonesia, Office of UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, Depok, Indonesia Aaron W. Kadoch School of Education, College of Professional Studies, The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Qudsia Kalsoom School of Education, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore, Pakistan Rabiya Karani Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Joseph Karuzis Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan Erika Kessler Comparative International Education Program/Department of International and Transcultural Studies, Teachers College Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Kathleen Kevany Faculty of Agriculture, Rural Research, Department of Business and Social Sciences, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada

xxxiv

Olga Khaimina Russian St. Petersburg, Russia

Contributors

State

Hydrometeorological

University,

Ali Kharrazi Advanced Systems Analysis Group, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria Center for the Development of Global Leadership Education, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Sheila Killian Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Dione Kitzmann Instituto de Oceanografia (IO), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Rio Grande, RS, Brazil Kathleen Klaniecki Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany Helen Kopnina The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, Netherlands Katerina Kosta Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Aristea Kounani Department of Environment, University of The Aegean, Mytilene, Greece Chhabi Kumar Department of Sociology and Social Work, Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India Maria Sinara Alves de Lacerda Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Chance Lamberth Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Elizabeth A. Lange St. Francis Xavier University (on leave), Antigonish, NS, Canada Rozélia Laurett Department of Management and Economics, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal Vincent T. Law School of Professional and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Anh Le Hung Institute for Environmental Science, Engineering and Management, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Walter Leal Filho Faculty of Life Sciences, World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany Roxanne Lee Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Contributors

xxxv

Tiffany C. H. Leung School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Todd LeVasseur Religious Studies Department and Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program, College of Charleston, Charleston, Santa Catarina, USA Branden Lewis School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA College of Culinary Arts, Johnson and Wales University, Providence, RI, USA Georgia Liarakou Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece Florencia Librizzi PRME, UN Global Compact, New York, NY, USA Raphael Cruz Lima Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Man Fung Lo School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong Joshua Long Environmental Studies Program, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX, USA Anderson Soares Lopes Member of the research group Hospitality in Service Competitiveness (Anhembi Morumbi University) and CIDSGAM – CIDSGAM – City, Sustainability and Environmental Management (EACH/ USP), São Paulo, Brazil Abigail López-Alcarria Department of Research Methods in Education, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Laryssa Puszkarek Lucio Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Abigail Lynam School of Leadership Studies, Human and Organizational Development PhD Program, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Micheli Kowalczuk Machado Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Cheyenne Maddox Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York, NY, USA Suellen Cristina Oliveira Magri Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

xxxvi

Naomi M. Maina-Okori University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Emerson Wagner Mainardes FUCAPE Business School, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil Silvia Sayuri Mandai School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Michael Ekow Manuel World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden Maryam Marani-Barzani Department of Geography, Faculty Art and Social Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Elena Marco Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK S. Mariwah Institute for Oil and Gas Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Julio Cesar Marques Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Vitor William Batista Martins Department Production Engineering, State University of Pará, Belém, Brazil Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Materials (UNICAMP), University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil Carla Matheus Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/ CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Lucas Marques Matos Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Gisele Mazon Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, Tubarão, Santa Catarina, Brazil Denise Meakin International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK Centre for Work Related Studies, University of Chester, Chester, UK Hossein Meiboudi Department of Environmental Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Abate Mekuriaw College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Yolanda Mendoza-Cavazos Faculty of Commerce and Administration Sustainability Committee, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico Andreas Meyer Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany

Contributors

Contributors

xxxvii

Junlong Mi Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Jessica Ostrow Michel Higher and Postsecondary Education Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Christian Michel-Cuello Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria Unidad Zona Media, San Luis Potosí, Mexico Richard Millican University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK Denise Minott The Mico University College, Kingston, Jamaica Garth Minott United Theological College of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica Ahmed Mohammed Selale University, Fiche, Ethiopia Petra Molthan-Hill NTU Green Academy, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK Joanna Moore Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Nigel Moore Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Leila Dal Moro University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil John Motloch Education, Sustainability and Transformation, Sterling, VA, USA Never Mujere Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Irene Muller Faculty of Education – School of Mathematics, Science and Technology, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa Nora E. Munguia Vega Graduate Sustainability Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Jaylene Murray University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Grace M. Mwaura African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya Tabani Ndlovu Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK Katarzyna Negacz Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Mohsen Nekooei Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran Artie W. Ng School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

xxxviii

Francesco Nicolli European University Institute, Florence School of Regulation - Climate, Fiesole, (Florence), Italy Edward Kweku Nunoo Department of Environment and Development Studies, Central University Miotso, Miotso, Ghana Institute for Oil and Gas Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Joy Kcenia O’Neil School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Philip O’Regan Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Pedi Obani Department of Public Law, University of Benin, Benin, Nigeria Alberto Olivares-Vicente University of Granada, Granada, Spain Filipe Tadeu Oliveira School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal Institute for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Sonja Oliveira Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK Kelly Elaine dos Santos Oliveira Centre for Environmental Studies and Research, NEPAM, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil María Dolores Olvera-Lobo Department of Information and Communication, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Maruf O. Orewole National Centre for Technology Management (NACETEM), Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria CSIR- National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi, India Violeta Orlovic Lovren Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran Eva Österlind Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Daniel Otto Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany Interdisciplinary Distance Studies of Environmental Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Contributors

Contributors

xxxix

Tania Ouariachi Professorship Communication, Behavior and the Sustainable Society, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands Anette Oxenswärdh Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Quality Technology – Campus Gotland, Uppsala University, Visby, Sweden Arminda Paço Department of Management and Economics, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal Luis Alberto Padilla International Relations and Peace Research Institute (IRIPAZ), Guatemala City, Guatemala Eric Pallant Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA, USA Umesh Chandra Pandey IGNOU Regional Evaluation Center, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Bhopal, India Mariam Patsatsia oikos International, St. Gallen, Switzerland Iain Patton EAUC, Cheltenham, UK Lynn Payne The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Krystal M. Perkins Department of Psychology, Purchase College, SUNY, New York, NY, USA Elena Pertceva Department of Project Management, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Johannes Platje WSB University in Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland Elizabeth M. Potter-Nelson School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Mª. Teresa Pozo-Llorente Educational Methodology Research Department, University of Granada, Granada, Spain J. Christopher Proctor oikos International, St. Gallen, Switzerland Alina Prylipko Blackpool and The Fylde College, Fleetwood, Lancashire, UK Cristian Guzmán Guatemala

Quaharre IRE,

Galileo

University,

Guatemala,

Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves Quelhas Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Cristiane Gularte Quintana Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação Ambiental (PPGEA), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Rio Grande, RS, Brazil Izabela Simon Rampasso School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

xl

Marcos Guilherme Raymundo Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Michelle Renk Centre for Environmental Studies and Research, NEPAM, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil João Marcelo Pereira Ribeiro Department of International Relations, University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Peter Martins Ribeiro Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Isabel Rimanoczy PRME Working Group on the Sustainability Mindset, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA Rocío Robinson Center for Latin American Studies (CLS-HSG), School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS), University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland Jorge Rocha Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Rolando M. Rodríguez Lima Faculty of Education of Galileo University, Guatemala city, Guatemala Katrina S. Rogers Human and Organization Development, School of Leadership Studies, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Lisa Rossetti Positive Lives, Chester, and Lapidus International, Bristol, UK Robin Roy Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Belinda J. Rudinger College of Professional Education, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI, USA Arto O. Salonen Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland Amanda Lange Salvia University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany Edgar Enrique Miranda Sandoval IRE, Galileo University, Guatemala, Guatemala Stephane Louise Boca Santa Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Tubarão, Santa Catarina, Brazil Riri Fitri Sari Universitas Indonesia, Office of UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, Depok, Indonesia

Contributors

Contributors

xli

Boria Sax Mercy College, New York, NY, USA Gabriela L. Schmitz Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação em Ciências: Química da Vida e Saúde, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil Petra Schneider Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany Jonas Schneider University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Lucas Leandro Schneider University of Vale do Taquari, Lajeado, Brazil Farzam Babaei Semiromi Department of Environmental Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran S. Shafic Suleman Institute for Oil and Gas Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Hongtao Shen Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Michael Shen Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Geoffrey Qiping Shen Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, China Mikhail Shilin Russian St. Petersburg, Russia

State

Hydrometeorological

University,

Jani Siirilä School of Vocational Teacher Education, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Patrick Vinicius Fonseca da Silva Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Adriana Aparecida Magri da Silva Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Giovana Dominicci Silva Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Tamara Cintra e Silva Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Vanessa Gabriela Silva Rodrigues Pinto Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Rachel Silverman Northeastern University, Boston, USA

xlii

Contributors

Belay Simane College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Subarna Sivapalan Centre for Social Transformation for Sustainable Lifestyles, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia Associate, School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Constantina Skanavis Department of Environment, University of The Aegean, Mytilene, Greece Marta Skorek The Institute of Scandinavian Studies, The University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland Carla K. Smink Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Alastair M. Smith Global Sustainable Development, Cross-Faculty Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

School

of

Thiago Coelho Soares Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Xianzhong Song Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Samuel Autran Dourado e Souza Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação Ambiental (PPGEA), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Rio Grande, RS, Brazil Sarah Speight School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Tanja Srebotnjak Hixon Center for Sustainable Environmental Design, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, USA Egl_e Staniškien_e Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania Jurgis Kazimieras Staniškis Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania Meredith Storey Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Daniella Suger Bedorin Researcher at the Institute of Sustainable Development, Galileo University, Guatemala City, Guatemala Nyoman Suwartha Universitas Indonesia, Office of UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, Depok, Indonesia Hosein Talebmorad Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran Zita Tamašauskien_e Department of Economics, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania

Contributors

xliii

Pimtong Tavitiyaman College of Professional and Continuing Education, School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR Emma Thornton Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Gunawan Tjahjono Universitas Indonesia, Office of UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, Depok, Indonesia André José de Toledo Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Milan Topic Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria Karin Tschiggerl Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria Frédéric Vandermoere Department of Sociology, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium Paul Vare University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK Luis Velazquez Sustainability Graduate Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Sonora, Mexico Madhavi Venkatesan Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Tayse Valdira Vieira University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Yvonne N. Vizina University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Kim Wahl University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Ryan Walker Candidate for Master in Science in Engineering and Public Policy at Northeastern University, Portland, ME, USA Tony Wall International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK Centre for Work Related Studies, University of Chester, Chester, UK Calvin Wan School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, China Susanne Maria Weber Research Group Innovation – Organization – Networks, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany James P. C. Wong School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Adam Wong The School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong Jack Wu School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong

xliv

Katharina Wuropulos Faculty of Social Sciences, Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany Tai Ming Wut School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China X. Yang School of Education, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA Masaru Yarime Division of Public Policy, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College of London, London, UK Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Aravella Zachariou Cyprus Pedagogical Institute/Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus Mohammad Javad Zareian Department of Water Resources Research, Water Research Institute (WRI), Ministry of Energy, Tehran, Iran Catherine Zeman HRCS, Public Health and Health Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA David Slim Zepeda Quintana Graduate Sustainability Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Xinyan Zhang College of Professional and Continuing Education, School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR Qinlin Zhang Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Yang Zhao Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Skaidr_e Žičkien_e Department of Business and Public Management, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Maria Zyulyaeva Department of Project Management, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Contributors

A

Accessibility

Linkage Between Accountability and Sustainable Development to MNCs

▶ Sustainable Mobility

Accountability and Sustainable Development Tiffany C. H. Leung and Artie W. Ng School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Definition Accountability is a term that has been widely discussed and is defined as, “The duty to provide an account or reckoning of those actions for which one is held responsible. Accountability has two crucial components: it arises as a result of a relationship between two or more parties (be the individual, loose associations or organizations) and its nature is determined by the social and moral context in which the relationship is manifest” (Gray et al. 2014: 50). Accountability is often overlapped with other related concepts, such as transparency, responsibility, and clarity (Bovens 2007).

According to the above definition of accountability, each individual will have an innumerable relationship with different individuals, parties, and organizations. Each relationship could be in different purposes. What is considered acceptable behavior in the relationship? Different customs, different cultures, and different socioeconomic systems will have different acceptable standards and practices (Gray et al. 2014). The combination of the nature of the relationship and the certain form of governing the relationship in the context is called “ethic of accountability” that is suggested by Dillard (2007). Each particular relationship has a moral aspect strongly determined by the certain expectations and the nature of the relationship (Gray et al. 2014). In particular, one feature of this moral aspect is to provide “accounts” to elucidate one’s behavior, to express one’s intentions, and to provide justification of one’s intended actions (Gray et al. 2014). We always undertake accountability in various degrees of transparency, responsibility, and formality (Gray et al. 2014). These accounts could be broadly divided into two accounts: informal accounts and formal accounts (Gray et al. 2014). Informal accounts refer to Rawls’s (1972) “closeness” that is an intimacy, a physical closeness, and moral proximity between two or more parties, whereas formal accounts

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

2

normally require some formality in a written form, for example, public statements (Gray et al. 2014). Accountability usually involves two major responsibilities: an accountee (the responsibility to take certain actions) and an accountor (the responsibility to offer an account of those actions) (Gray et al. 2014). A simple model of accountability (Fig. 1) illustrates the relationship between an accountee (the principal) and an accountor (the agent) suggested by Gray et al. (2014). The flows between the two parties will take accountability and actions. The flows can be seen a function of the relationship between the parties (or a “contract” between the two parties) (Gray et al. 2014). The contract could be referred to “the Companies Acts” in the business setting. The Companies Acts show the social context of the relationship between the accountee and the accountor who may be individuals, groups, or organizations in the simple model of accountability as shown in Fig. 1 (Gray et al. 2014). Applying this model to the simple structure of an organization at the senior management level, this model shows the relationship between the principal (shareholders) and the agents (directors of a company). Shareholders often give instructions and expectations about certain actions to directors of a corporation, such as profit maximization, project investment, and maximizing shareholders value. If directors could meet certain

Accountability and Sustainable Development

targets set by shareholders, directors will receive monetary reward for return. Shareholders could have power to take over resources. By contrast, directors of a corporation normally have a responsibility to provide an account or information about certain actions on how they manage their business operation. In other words, directors should be accountable to shareholders, manage the company on behalf of shareholders, and act for shareholders’ interests. This relationship is typically based on economic incentives or financial objectives and requires formal accounts, i.e., the rules, regulations, and legislations. However, agency problems develop when directors pursue selfinterest over shareholders’ interests. How is accountability related to sustainability? The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of sustainability or sustainable development. According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987: 43), sustainable development has been widely defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainability and sustainable development have gradually received an attention in the early 1990s. In 1992, the United Nations organized the Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to discuss environmental policies and subsequently received approximately 170 signatures from

Accountability and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 The simple model of accountability (Source: Gray et al. 2014, p. 52)

Accountability and Sustainable Development

various countries (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Notably, the Earth Summit and Agenda 21 were a crucial step to enhance the development of environmental policies. In 1997, the United Nations held a summit in Kyoto (Japan) to impose countries to follow a protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emission (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Based on the successful achievement and accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the United Nations continued to establish the extended version of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda (The United Nations 2017b). In particular, the goal 17 states “Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” In order to achieve the targets of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, the global partnership and collaboration with governments, businesses, and the civil society are very crucial to mobilize the resources of the private sectors, to set a clear direction of the public sectors, and to enhance the power of international institutions (The United Nations 2017a). The United Nations established Framework Convention on Climate Change which is known as the Paris Agreement. This agreement brings all the nations into a common goal to solve the climate change issues. This agreement was signed by the nations on 22 April 2016 in New York and enforced on 4 November 2016, and almost 86% of parties have ratified to the Convention (The United Nations 2017c). The objective of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen the global partnership and collaboration to avoid a global temperature rise up to 2  C in order to remain a low greenhouse gas emission (The United Nations 2017c). Thus, developed countries have the obligations to provide sufficient financial resources and new technologies so as to build the potential capacity (The United Nations 2017c). This agreement requires all the parties to set “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and these parties report on their carbon emission level and their progress. The United Nations will access their greenhouse gas contributions for every 5 years. Importantly, the role of MNCs in most developed countries plays a significant contribution in sustainable development (Unerman et al. 2007). Most MNCs tend to incorporate and integrate

3

Elkington’s (1997) triple bottom line framework, including economic development, social equality, and environmental protection, into their business operation. Critical scholars contend that most of organizations tend to use the concept of sustainability as a part of business strategies in order to achieve the win-win or the triple wins scenario. Other organizations simply adopt sustainability as a public relation tactic to obtain approval from powerful stakeholders and gain societal support in the business context (Unerman et al. 2007).

Major Bodies Promote Accountability and Sustainable Reporting There are five major parties which extensively promote accountability and sustainable reporting, namely, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), AccountAbility, and the Global Compact (see Table 1). The following sections provide a general overview of the common accountability frameworks. First, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was formed with the World Industry Council for the Environment and Business Council for Sustainable Development in 1995. The WBCSD consists of around 200 multinational companies (MNCs) from over 60 countries. The Council identified the following categories for sustainable development in 2004: accountability and corporate reporting, advocacy Accountability and Sustainable Development, Table 1 The various reporting guidelines Organization The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) AccountAbility The Global Compact

Year 1995

Reporting requirement Voluntary

1996

Voluntary

1997

Voluntary

1999 2000

Voluntary Voluntary

Source: Adams and Narayanan (2007): 81

A

4

and communication, competence building, climate change, and energy saving and sustainable healthcare systems (Adams and Narayan 2007). The Council integrated the 17 SDGs and around 170 targets, which showed the new ambition to achieve the 2030 agenda as suggested by the United Nations in 2015, into their main four major missions: (1) energy, (2) food and land use, (3) cities and mobility, and (4) redefining value (WBCSD 2017). In particular, the fourth mission is redefining value which all companies adopt an integrated approach to disclose account not only for financial capital but also for nonfinancial capital (i.e., social and natural capital) valuation, measurement, and disclosure (WBCSD 2017). The Council will assist their members to prepare and produce such reporting so as to achieve the 2030 agenda for SDGs. Second, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent and nongovernmental organization that covers over 160 national standard bodies of around 150 countries (ISO 2017a). ISO brings professionals to exchange ideas and share practical knowledge in order to develop voluntary policies and procedural standards that provide guidance on what type of information to disclose and how to report for organizations (Adams and Narayan 2007). The ISO standards could be used to encourage organizations to report their sustainability performance and impact of their business operation (Adams and Narayan 2007). There are three main standards in relation to accountability and sustainable reporting practices, namely, ISO 14000, ISO 26000, and ISO 50001. In 1996, the ISO established ISO 14000 environmental management system that provides a series of standards that cover environmental management and helps organizations to improve their environmental performance in a number of areas: waste reduction, energy efficiency, resource allocation, competitive advantage, and stakeholder management (see ISO 2017b). • ISO 14001, ISO 14004, and ISO 14006: Environmental management system • ISO 14040 and ISO 14043: Environmental management – life cycle assessment

Accountability and Sustainable Development

• ISO 14010, ISO 14011, and ISO 14012: Environmental auditing • ISO 14032: Environmental performance evaluation • ISO 14064 -1: Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ISO 26000: 2010 – Guidance on social responsibility assists organizations to follow certain frameworks and guidelines to manage their operation in a socially responsible way in order to achieve sustainable development (ISO 2017c). This guideline is designed for all types of organization in different sizes and locations, provides clear definition of key terms, and helps companies to understand the linkage and association between social responsibility and SDGs (ISO 2014). There are core seven principles of social responsibility: accountability, transparency, ethical behavior, human rights, stakeholder interest, respect for the law, and follow international norms of behavior (ISO 2014). ISO 26000 is linked to international norms and common practices, namely, the GRI guideline, the UN Global Compact, International Labour Organization, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, The OECD Guidelines, and the United Nations working on the issues of business and human rights (ISO 2017c). ISO 50001: 2011 energy management system assists organizations to incorporate energy management into their business operation in order to enhance the overall quality on environmental management. This guideline includes installing new energy-efficient technologies, minimizing energy waste, or reducing energy costs. The ISO 50001 (2016: 6–8) offers a series of standards and related guidelines on energy savings and management portfolio: • ISO 50002: Energy audits • ISO 50003, ISO 50004, and ISO 50006: Energy management systems • ISO 50045: Energy saving evaluation • ISO 50046: General quantification methods for expected energy savings • ISO 50049: Calculation methods for energy efficiency and consumption variations at different levels (city, regional, and country)

Accountability and Sustainable Development

Third, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (the Guidelines) was established by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) with the assistance of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1997 (Crane and Matten 2016). The Guideline provides an international guideline for organizations to disclose not only the economic performance but also social and environmental performance and impacts of organizations voluntarily (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). The Guidelines are a multistakeholder approach that includes financial experts, professionals, auditors, labor unions, and civil society (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). The Guidelines for reporting sustainability and related issues are primarily based on reporting major principles of accuracy, auditability, completeness, comparability, neutrality, relevance, transparency, and timeliness (Adams and Narayan 2007). The standard disclosure of a sustainability report covers seven main areas: (i) corporate strategy, (ii) corporate profile, (iii) identification of material aspects and limitations, (iv) stakeholder engagement, (v) corporate disclosure profile, (vi) corporate governance, and (vii) ethics and integrity (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). The Guidelines involve three main disclosure categories: economic, social, and environmental dimensions. In particular, social categories are generally subdivided into four aspects that include human rights, employee working practices, impacts on society, and product responsibility (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). Environmental dimensions cover a number of major aspects, such as energy, emission, water, waste, environmental compliance and assessment. Some of these categories are closely linked to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Global Compact (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). Over 70% of the global companies have adopted the GRI guidelines in 2015 (Global Reporting Initiative 2015). Fourth, the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (AA1000) standard was established by AccountAbility that provides a clear standard and guideline on ethical and social accountability and reporting practice in the UK in 1999 (Adams and Narayan 2007). The AA1000

5

framework was designed with two major objectives: (1) to act as a separate framework to manage accountability and other relevant issues and (2) to integrate other sustainable development frameworks, such as Social Accountability International (SA 8000) standards, the ISO standards, and the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) (Adams and Narayan 2007). The AA1000 framework has been strongly affected by traditional financial accounting principle and accountability principle. In particular, an organization should integrate not only the principle of standard financial accounting but also the principle of accountability into its ethical and social accounting, auditing, and disclosure practices to business operation (Adams and Narayan 2007). The term “accountability” is referred to transparency, responsibility, and compliance with legal framework (Adams and Narayan 2007). Apart from accountability, inclusivity is another important principle that includes three main areas: (i) completeness, materiality, and timeliness; (ii) assurance, accessibility, and information quality; and (iii) continuous improvement (Adams and Narayan 2007). Fifth, the Global Compact is initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at New York Headquarters in 2000 and provides general guidance for organizations to address sustainability issues on voluntary basis. The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact mainly include four main dimensions: human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption. These principles and initiatives are often derived from the global institutions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (The United Nations Global Compact 2014). Over 8000 companies, mostly small medium enterprises (SME) from European countries and 4000 nonbusinesses, for example, NGOs, business associations, and academics, participated in the Global Compact (The United Nations Global Compact 2014). This requires both business and nonbusiness members to offer a platform for an annual Communication on Progress (COP) that reports how these participants incorporate the Ten

A

6

Principles into their strategies, operations, and management systems (The United Nations Global Compact 2014).

The Overall Sustainable Reporting Performance of MNCs The development of sustainability reports has gradually received attention over the past two decades. International companies tend to disclose their sustainability information in terms of economic, social, and environmental performance. A simple model of accountability (Fig. 1) illustrates the relationship between an accountee (the principal) and an accountor (the agent) (Gray et al. 2014). This model could apply to an organization that seeks to pursuit sustainability. This model represents the relationship between the principal (shareholders) and the agents (directors of a company). Shareholders tend to give certain instructions or particular expectations on how to achieve sustainability, such as community involvement, green investment, or environmental engagement, to directors of a corporation. If directors meet these targets set by shareholders, directors will receive monetary reward for achieving these targets. Therefore, directors of a corporation are expected to be accountable to shareholders for the extent to which the organization is working on economic, social, and environmental performance about sustainability. Thus, the members of the community may wish to hold the organization to account for its economic, social, and environmental performance (both favorable and unfavorable news) for record (Gray et al. 2014). Global 250 companies, such as Walmart, Royal Dutch Shell, and Apple, tend to produce different accounts on economic, social, and environmental information on sustainability reporting to external stakeholders. These companies tend to adopt the major reporting guidelines from five main bodies that promote accountability and sustainable reporting as discussed above (see Table 1). However, such information on sustainability reporting appears to be inconsistent, incomplete, and unverified (Crane and Matten 2016). Measurements of sustainability reporting practices vary

Accountability and Sustainable Development

across industry, country, and jurisdiction. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG), one of the four international accounting firms, has provided a continuous and systematic assessment on these voluntary sustainability reports of national and global companies since 1997 (Gray and Herremans 2012). Approximately 92% of the global 250 companies and around 75% of national 100 companies disclose sustainability and related issues in their annual reports and standalone sustainability reports (KPMG 2015). The main driver of such reporting practices continues to be mandatory rather than voluntary, since local governments require companies to disclose nonfinancial information (KPMG 2015; Leung 2015). Currently, the reporting rate of the traditionally and environmentally sensitive industries, namely, mining, utilities, and oil and gas, is nearly 80%, as these companies tend to report more environmental and social information on sustainability reports (KPMG 2015). However, the global reporting rate of some environmentally sensitive industries, such as transports and leisure, manufacturing and metals, and retail, is still below 65% in 2015 (KPMG 2015). The original aim of elevating sustainability reporting is to make it as creditable as financial reporting in terms of comparability, verifiability, and rigor (Crane and Matten 2016: 188). However, different companies in different industries intend to report on different types of information on sustainability reports. Thus, the latest G4 version of the GRI guideline emphasizes on materiality that companies could identify issues that are relevant for their business operations and important stakeholders (Crane and Matten 2016). Importantly, KPMG employs seven criteria to assess the quality of sustainability reporting: corporate strategy, risk management, materiality, key performance indicators, supply chain management, corporate governance, stakeholder engagement, and transparency (KPMG 2015). The KPMG’s report indicates that there has not been an overall improvement in the quality of sustainability reporting among the global 250 companies. Companies tend to disclose positive information rather than negative information in order to distract from stakeholders’ attention (Leung and Gray 2016; Leung and Snell 2017; Noronha et al. 2015). More pertinently, the third-

Accountability and Sustainable Development

party assurance of sustainability reporting is a standard practice for multinational companies. External assurance could show to stakeholders with confidence in the quality of sustainability information and enhance internal improvement (KPMG 2015). Approximately 65% of the global 250 companies have their sustainability information independently assured by the third party, such as major accountancy organizations (KPMG 2015). Half of the companies tended to choose to seek external assurance for the whole sustainability report, while one third selected to have particular performance indicators assured (KPMG 2015). Large companies in France, South Korea, and Greece tend to seek independent assurance of sustainability information.

Final Remarks Accountability of organizations toward sustainable development is expected to be growing significant concern as the world strives to improve sustainability performance. These organizations should include profit, nonprofit, and other governmental organizations that are supported by public funding. Accountability of multinationals that continue to expand across borders seeking market opportunities and possessing tremendous economics should be considered exceptionally for their potential impacts on sustainable development. Such weighted accountability could provide better check and balance against the hegemonic claims of businesses about their sustainable development (Gray 2010).

Cross-References ▶ Accountability and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainable Development Goals

References Adams C, Narayanan V (2007) The standardization of sustainability reporting. In: Unerman J, Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (eds) Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 70–85 Blowfield M, Murray A (2014) Corporate responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford

7 Bovens M (2007) New forms of accountability and EU-governance. Comp Eur Polit 5(1):104–120 Crane A, Matten D (2016) Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization, International edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dillard J (2007) Legitimating the social accounting project: an ethic of accountability. In: Unerman J, Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (eds) Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 37–54 Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford Global Reporting Initiative (2015) G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Netherlands Gray R (2010) Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Acc Organ Soc 35(1):47–62 Gray R, Herremans IM (2012) Sustainability and social responsibility reporting and the emergence of the external social audits: the struggle for accountability. In: Bansal P, Hoffman AJ (eds) The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 405–424 Gray R, Adams CA, Owen D (2014) Accountability, social responsibility and sustainability: accounting for society and the environment. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow ISO (2014) ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva ISO (2016) ISO 50001 energy management systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva ISO (2017a) About ISO. https://www.iso.org/about-us. html. Accessed 18 Sept 2017 ISO (2017b) ISO 14000 family – environmental management. https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmentalmanagement.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2017 ISO (2017c) ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility. https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsi bility.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2017 KPMG (2015) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Social Reporting 2015. Netherlands, KPMG Leung TCH (2015) An initial exploration of corporate social disclosure and responsible gambling disclosure in Macau’s gambling industry. In: Noronha C (ed) Corporate social disclosure: new observations in China and Japan. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp 153–197 Leung TCH, Gray R (2016) Social responsibility disclosure in the international gambling industry: a research note. Meditari Account Res 24(1):73–90 Leung TCH, Snell RS (2017) Attraction or distraction? Corporate social responsibility in Macao’s gambling industry. J Bus Ethics 145(3):637–658 Noronha C, Leung TCH, Lei O (2015) Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Chinese Railway companies: corporate response after a major train account. Sustainability, Accounting, Management Policy Journal 6(4):446–476

A

8

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

Rawls J (1972) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford The United Nations (2017a) 17 goals to transform our world. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ globalpartnerships/. Accessed 25 Sept 2017 The United Nations (2017b) The sustainable development agenda. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ development-agenda/. Accessed 25 Sept 2017 The United Nations (2017c) The Paris agreement. http:// bigpicture.unfccc.int/#content-the-paris-agreemen. Accessed 14 Oct 2017 The United Nations Global Compact (2014) Guide to corporate sustainability: shaping a sustainable future. Two United Nations Plaza, New York The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2017) Our approach. http://www.wbcsd. org/Overview/Our-approach. Accessed 17 Sept 2017 Unerman J, Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (2007) Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education Mathias Falkenstein Higher Education Management Group, Berlin, Germany School of Management, International Centre for Higher Education Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Accreditation Although accreditations are not the only factor that determines what business schools believe, do, and become, it certainly is an important shaper of the direction in which they find their way forward in the face of the twenty-firstcentury management education imperatives (Harvey 2004; Hedmo et al. 2001; Prøitz et al. 2004; Lindstrom and Word 2007). Because of their relevance and impact in management education, this entry focuses on international business accreditations EQUIS and AACSB.

Introduction The cross-border reputation of higher education institutions is established through a two-stage filtering system, with international accreditations providing access while acting as “certifiers” and international rankings defining the relative competitive position. The interrelations between accreditation and higher education become especially evident in the field of business and management education. A variety of mandatory accreditations (national) as well as voluntary assessment schemes (international) have emerged and challenge business schools while driving substantially their institutional strategies. In order to better illustrate the role of accreditations in the sustainable development in higher education, this entry focuses on the group of business and management schools and their responses to accreditation standards and criteria. Business schools are not much different from other institutions in the higher education industry, and much can be learned from the management education sector and applied in universities (Petriglieri 2015). Although accreditation is not the only factor that determines what business schools believe, do, and become, it is certainly an important shaper of the direction of travel in the face of the twenty-first-century management education imperatives. This has especially become the case since the integration of a strong ethics, responsibility, and sustainability narrative (Maclean et al. 2015) in the prestigious European Quality Improvement System (EFMD) accreditation, as well as for business schools’ eligibility to Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation. Until today, a comprehensive and constructive dialogue in business schools, as well as within the wider community, seems to be missing (Powell et al. 2016). Therefore, the role of accreditations such as EQUIS is of particular importance as they drive business school developments. While EQUIS in the past had focused on internationalization and corporate relations, the accreditation body added a third transversal standard “ethics, responsibility, and sustainability” in 2013 (EFMD 2016).

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

Context The management education sector is perceived as slow adaptors to the responsibility and sustainability agenda. Despite some visible activities, there is evidence that responsible management education remains largely as an “unfulfilled promise” (Cornuel and Hommel 2015). Recent literature and research have been critical about business schools’ integration of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability into their teaching and research activities, and the majority of institutions are continuously challenged by internal resistance and resource constraints (Aspling 2013; Ghoshal 2005; Alvesson 2013; Muff et al. 2013; Cornuel et al. 2015). It is therefore widely argued that business schools continue to deliver a narrow view on responsible management education, while many of their primary stakeholders, such as students, governments, and companies, demand a greater sense of purpose (De Onzono 2011). Within this context, national and international business school accreditations play a dual role in the development of a more responsible and sustainable management education. While accreditation bodies arguably had its share in business schools’ narrow-minded approach to research and education in the past, it also plays an important role by driving processes and acting as a change agent in business schools’ development (Canals 2010).

Transnational Accreditations Business school accreditation has its roots in the United States (Khurana et al. 2005). Since the early twentieth century, accreditation has been the main monitoring regulator of North American business and management schools, with predefined quality standards in various academic areas and being administered by independent, nongovernmental organizations (Locke 1989; Porter and Mckibbin 1988). The most important and oldest American accreditation body is the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which has been accrediting business schools for over 100 years.

9

The rise of accreditations and assessments during the 1980s can be seen as part of a larger societal trend. In a world that is increasingly characterized by variations and differences, accreditations are one way to bridge those differences and facilitate the flow of information (Thomas and Cornuel 2012). Additionally, assessment criteria and audits are considered as a reaction to the evolving risk society (Hood 2004), with its increasing demand for transparency and accountability, which appear in parallel with increasing access to higher education through globalization and mobility (Power 1999). Moreover, the emergence of new regulations has been further analyzed as an aspect of rationalization in higher education that is increasingly challenged by growing competition and deregulation (Moran 2002). Other scholars suggest that the growing importance of accreditations could rather be described as a fashion in the search for additional certifications, standardization, and quality assurance systems, all in order to achieve differentiation in competitive, globalized markets (Meyer 1994; Hood et al. 1999; Engwall and Morgan 2002). However, the pressure in higher education – resulting from internationalization as well as the intensification of transnational competition – led to an “explosion” of regulations that is challenging national accreditation systems (Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson 2006). Picking up on demands for more transparency as well as comparability and market information, accreditations have been developed as a response to market pressure that is coming not only from consumer groups but also from competitive forces in the business school accreditation market (Hedmo et al. 2001; Beehler and Luethge 2013). In this context, New Public Management (NPM) has created the environment and the imperatives for business school accreditation. Management literature and research has widely discussed how accreditation bodies can ensure an impact on business schools’ quality, while balancing their mission between membership interests and the enhancement of (accreditation) standards (Rasche and Gilbert 2015; Starkey and Tiratsoo 2007; Vas and

A

10

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

Lejeune 2004). Understanding how accreditation bodies and schools interrelate and affect each other is key when it comes to explaining how accreditation standards have been developed. The reciprocal relations explain the interwoven processes and expansion of regulations, framed by voluntary agreements between regulators and regulatees (Moran 2002). In this context, it is important to recognize the multilevel governance concept of accreditation organizations, which captures the interrelatedness of regulatory actors and those that are regulated (Majone 2002). Following Bourdieu’s notion of the organizational field, it can be said that there is a common belief in the importance of management education by various actors (Locke 1989; Porter and Mckibbin 1988); however, at the same time, those actors disagree on how to define, assess, and develop the activities (Bourdieu and Nice 1980). It is necessary to point out the complexity of interrelations, political struggles, and collaborations when explaining the correlation between different actors in management education (De Onzono 2011; Majone 2002). The intertwined management education providers, accreditations, and monitoring bodies develop in relation to each other, and, as a result, the entire field has become a “regulatory knot” (Hedmo et al. 2001).

Accreditations and Responsible Management Education Accreditations act as an interface between the higher education sector and industry, companies, and public organizations. From this vantage point, accreditation is required to translate expectations from the public and private sectors into its accreditation standards, which apply to ethics, responsibility, and sustainability (ERS) as much as to all other important aspects of education (Naidoo and Pringle 2014). Having a diverse and large group of international members provides accreditations with a unique position and access to different key players. The organization should link these “partners” in a joint effort to develop and fully integrate ERS in management education. Through strengthened

commitment to ERS, accreditations would identify those institutions that deliver high quality in ERS/RME in different geographic areas, which would signal the importance of these topics within the business school sector and provide immediate benchmarking opportunities. In 2012, following the global economic crisis and the resulting stakeholder pressure (Rasche and Gilbert 2015; Thomas et al. 2014), accreditation bodies such as EQUIS revised their standards and criteria in 2013 and established far-reaching requirements to integrate ethics, responsibility, and sustainability (ERS) transversally into all major areas of business and management education (Thomas et al. 2013) (see Fig. 1). The changes imply that responsible and ethical behavior should be an integral part of a business school’s values as well as strategy and should be reflected in all of its regular activities. The transversal accreditation standards also established definitions for ethics, responsibility, and sustainability applicable for the management education sector. But also AACSB introduced new criteria for responsible management education in their 2013 revised Business School Accreditation Standards (AACSB 2015). By linking responsibility and sustainability to the initial eligibility phase, AACSB expects substantial developments to be in place prior to a school entering the accreditation process. One of the guiding principles is that “The school must encourage and support ethical behavior by students, faculty, and professional staff” (AACSB 2011, 2015). A strong commitment to corporate and social responsibility is demanded, and “The school must demonstrate a commitment to address, engage, and respond to current and emerging corporate social responsibility issues (e.g., diversity, sustainable development, environmental sustainability, globalisation of economic activity across cultures) through its policies, procedures, curricula, research, and/or outreach activities” (AACSB 2015).

Sustainable Development in Management Education Debates around the importance of responsible management education arrived in the epicenter

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

11

A

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education, Fig. 1 EQUIS Criteria Framework (EFMD 2016)

of business schools only following the eruption of the economic crisis in 2007 (Muff et al. 2013; Starkey et al. 2004). Business schools began to understand that continued demand for management education and market growth is not in itself an adequate indicator of the value and success of management education (Thomas et al. 2014). Many different approaches have encouraged reconnecting management education with business and society. Buzzwords such as corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, business ethics, social entrepreneurship, corporate sustainability, and conscious capitalism are widely used and common in the marketing and communication plans of business schools (Holland 2009; Cornuel and Hommel 2015; Gosling 2003; Mintzberg 2004; Naidoo and Pringle 2014). However, besides the many commitments and discussions, Dyllick (2015) argues that most business and management schools continue to teach biased content in business functions, often ignoring the fact that these functions have negative effects on the sustainability performance of companies (Bondy and Starkey 2014). Many management education institutions also dismiss public interest in favor of private interests

(Muff 2013). In this context, the definition and understanding of responsible management education depends largely on cultural background and values. Therefore, it is not surprising that concepts of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability are interpreted differently throughout the management education world (Nohria and Khurana 2010), which created a challenge to accreditations that needed to assess the school’s performance also in this sector. While on one hand accreditations provide guidance and pressure business schools to integrate ERS in their strategies, governance, research, curricula, and extracurricular activities (Rasche and Gilbert 2015), on the other hand, the rising importance of responsible management education and learning (RMLE) has led to intra-institutional tensions as well as created resistance toward the development of a more responsible management education (Cornuel and Hommel 2015). Scholars such as Muff (2013) and Thomas et al. (2013) argue that the strong relationship between regulatory agencies and regulatees may even limit accreditations to be the visionary leader in business schools’ change processes.

12

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

The Way Forward In response to the global economic crisis, European management education received coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures from both internal and external stakeholders, which forced business schools to adapt and implement further elements of responsible management education. Coercive pressure is channelled through national and international accreditations and other certifications and is immediately linked to a school’s reputation and resource dependencies. In particular, public business schools were forced to adapt to external regulations in order to maintain or increase funding (Powell and Dimaggio 2012; Campbell and Pedersen 2001). International business school accreditation agencies are considered as one of the important sources of coercive pressures for responsible management education (Rasche and Gilbert 2015). Although the accreditation standards give room for interpretation, business schools cannot ignore their call for responsible management education (Scharmer 2009), as accreditations act as an important source of legitimacy (McKiernan and Wilson (2014). According to Wilson and McKiernan (2011), one or a combination of coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures has led to some of the current aspiring or accredited schools to address demands for responsible management education by creating only isomorphic changes. Through this, business schools may signal their “belonging to the club of EQUIS-accredited schools” by sharing social values and gaining legitimacy in the eyes of internal and external stakeholders and society at large through isomorphic behavior such as decoupling (Kraatz and Zajac 1996; Campbell and Pedersen 2001). Those schools risk further damage to their reputations and to lose their legitimacy (Powell et al. 2016). There is much to learn from business schools and the recent accreditation developments alike. Future debates on responsible management education will be informed through sights from research, which help the entire higher education sector as well as accreditations to further guide their ERS/RME developments. Forces in favor and against are in

play, and accreditations can in this regard count on strong support from a number of business schools committed to responsible management education (Waddock et al. 2010; Rasche and Gilbert 2015; Forray and Leigh 2012). It is therefore important to keep the quality assurance denoted by accreditation in balance with the invitation for more schools to belong, participate, and create value that aligns with the sustainable development imperatives of our times (Zammuto 2008; Solomon et al. 2017; Beehler and Luethge 2013). But what are the implications for accreditations and the wider business school community? While empirical studies support business schools in their self-assessment and in outlining future strategies related to a more responsible management education, studies also indicate a need for stronger cooperation between business schools that allows benchmarking and jointly developed ERS actions (Rasche et al. 2013; Maclean et al. 2015). However, also the accreditation bodies need to further assist business schools in their RMLE developments. Business school accreditations play an important role as they set the tone, define priorities, and guide changes in management education (Hedmo et al. 2001). With its unique positioning as an international regulatory and member organization, accreditations can directly influence the strategic directions of business schools. With its mandate and role in society, accreditations should foster a sense of global responsibility in business schools and thus contribute substantially to the well-being of societies around the globe (Naidoo et al. 2011). As the EQUIS accreditation standards established strong references to ERS, they also need to provide guidance to business schools in the development of responsible management education. Equally to its focus on high-quality developments in internationalization and corporate connections, EQUIS must give ERS the same degree of importance. Accreditations and business schools should define jointly how to measure quality in ERS and distinguish between schools that “walk their ERS talk” from those that decouple their RME commitment from actions and only engage in isomorphic changes (Bromley and

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

Powell 2012). Consequently, business schools that go through the accreditation process will need to provide clear evidence of their ERS developments. In addition, accreditations would provide support to fill the “know-how gap” by informing schools on how to measure ERS quality and providing benchmarks and better practice models. In cooperation with other organizations and business schools, accreditations should provide learning platforms where institutions can exchange RME experiences and practice. Therefore, accreditations should be more rigorous in the assessment of ERS actions and help schools to shift their attention from “ERS talk” to “ERS action.” If accreditations and business schools do not work together to define quality indicators and monitor ERS performance and impact, the standards will remain subject to individual interpretation. Without this critical step, the process may not lead to the change necessary to respond to modern economic, social, and environmental challenges. In summary, if accreditation organizations do not respond to the criticism from business schools, they also risk being considered as “not walking their own talk” by decoupling accreditation standards from the assessment and regulatory activity (Rasche and Gilbert 2015). With support from EFMD and other important organizations in the field, business schools may advance further toward responsible management education. Business schools can change further and become more ethical, responsible, and sustainable, but in order to do so, business schools together with accreditations, rankings, and other regulating agents need to cooperate to further develop the current RMLE agenda (Starkey and Madan 2001; Skapinker 2011). A stronger sense of accountability will help the responsible management education sector evaluate those activities and measure the real impact and advantage they provide for the society at large (Powell et al. 2016). This will require business schools and accreditations to further reinvent themselves and find a common purpose for their existence, which includes a radical rethinking of management education paradigms (Naidoo et al. 2014). Business schools are at a “tipping point” where they must

13

reconnect with their primary responsibilities by serving the needs of their societies (Thomas et al. 2013; Hommel et al. 2016). In transforming to more responsible management education, the schools will have to approach a number of institutional changes that will eventually lead to more ethical, responsible, and sustainable management education. Therefore, management education will have to embrace disruptive change as opposed to the incremental change we have largely seen in the past. The schools, with support from the accreditations, may review the research practice to improve the relevance and impact of their academic as well as applied research. Equally important, business schools must continue changing their curricula, which will require advanced teaching skills in critical and integrative thinking to help students to become management innovators. By changing their own paradigms, business schools will be able to change toward more responsible management education, and by doing so, they can become the interface between the higher education sector and the society that demands this change.

References AACSB (2011) Globalization of management education: changing international structures, adaptive strategies, and the impact on institutions. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley AACSB (2015) Business Accreditation Standards [Online]. http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/stan dards/2013-business.aspx. Accessed Alvesson M (2013) The triumph of emptiness: consumption, higher education, and work organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford Aspling A (2013) Business, Management Education, and Leadership for the Common Good. In: Shaping the Future of Business Education: Relevance, Rigor, and Life Preparation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p 40 Beehler JM, Luethge DJ (2013) Achieving success through quality: the role of accreditation and continuous improvement in management education. In: Universities in change. Springer, New York Bondy K, Starkey K (2014) The dilemmas of internationalization: corporate social responsibility in the multinational corporation. Br J Manag 25:4–22

A

14

Accreditation Schemes and Sustainable Development in Management Education

Bourdieu P, Nice R (1980) The production of belief: contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media Cult Soc 2:261–293 Bromley P, Powell WW (2012) From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary world. Acad Manag Ann 6:483–530 Campbell JL, Pedersen OK (2001) The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton Canals J (2010) The future of leadership development: corporate needs and the role of business schools. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Cornuel E, Hommel U (2015) Moving beyond the rhetoric of responsible management education. J Manag Dev 34:2–15 Cornuel E, Hommel U, Dyllick T (2015) Responsible management education for a sustainable world: the challenges for business schools. J Manag Dev 34:16–33 De Onzono SI (2011) The learning curve how business schools are re-inventing education. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Djelic M-L, Sahlin-Andersson K (2006) Transnational governance: institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK EFMD (2016) EQUIS Standards and Criteria 2016. European Foundation of Management Education (EFMD) Engwall L, Morgan G (2002) 5 Regulatory regimes. In: Regulation and organisations: international perspectives. Routledge, New York, p 82 Forray JM, Leigh JS (2012) A primer on the principles of responsible management education intellectual roots and waves of change. J Manag Educ 36:295–309 Ghoshal S (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Educ 4:75–91 Gosling D (2003) Philosophical approaches to academic development. In: The scholarship of academic development. The Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham Harvey L (2004) The power of accreditation: views of academics 1. J High Educ Policy Manag 26:207–223 Hedmo T, Sahlin K, Wedlin L (2001) The emergence of a European regulatory field of management education: standardizing through accreditation, ranking and guidelines. SCORE (Stockholms centrum för forskning om offentlig sektor), Stockholm Holland K (2009) Is it time to retrain b-schools. New York Times, 15 Hommel U, Li W, Pastwa AM, Sheard G (2016) The state of risk management in business schools. J Manag Dev 35:606–622 Hood C (2004) The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox? J Public Adm Res Theory 14:267–282 Hood C, James O, Scott C, Jones GW, Travers T (1999) Regulation inside government: waste watchers, quality

police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford University Press, Oxford Khurana R, Nohria N, Penrice D (2005) Is business management a profession. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 21 Kraatz MS, Zajac EJ (1996) Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: the causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 61:812–836 Lindstrom P, Word WR (2007) Accreditation of European management schools: the EQUIS system. Palmetto Review, 10 Locke RR (1989) Management and higher education since 1940: the influence of America and Japan on West Germany, Great Britain, and France. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Maclean T, Litzky BE, Holderness DK Jr (2015) When organizations don’t walk their talk: a cross-level examination of how decoupling formal ethics programs affects organizational members. J Bus Ethics 128: 351–368 Majone G (2002) Regulating Europe. Routledge, London Mckiernan P, Wilson D (2014) Strategic choice. In: The institutional development of business schools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 248 Meyer JW (1994) Rationalized environments. In: Institutional environments and organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 28–54 Mintzberg H (2004) Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of management and management development. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow Moran M (2002) Understanding the regulatory state. Br J Polit Sci 32:391–413 Muff K (2013) Developing globally responsible leaders in business schools: a vision and transformational practice for the journey ahead. J Manag Dev 32:487–507 Muff K, Dyllick T, Drewell M, North J, Shrivastava P, Härtle J (2013) Management education for the world: a vision for business schools serving people and the planet. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Naidoo R, Pringle J (2014) Branding business schools. In: The institutional development of business schools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 176 Naidoo R, King R, Marginson S, Naidoo R (2011) Rethinking development: higher education and the new imperialism. In: Handbook on globalization and higher education. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 40–58 Naidoo R, Gosling J, Bolden R, O’Brien A, Hawkins B (2014) Leadership and branding in business schools: a Bourdieusian analysis. High Educ Res Dev 33: 144–156 Nohria N, Khurana R (2010) Handbook of leadership theory and practice: an HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership. Harvard Business Press, Boston Petriglieri G (2015) Disrupt or be disrupted: a blueprint for change in management education. Acad Manag Learn Educ 14:133–139

Action Research on Sustainable Development Porter LW, Mckibbin LE (1988) Management education and development: drift or thrust into the 21st century? Mcgraw-Hill, Hightstown, New Jersey Powell WW, Dimaggio PJ (2012) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Powell A, Grosvold J, Millington A (2016) Business school legitimacy and the challenge of sustainability: a fuzzy set analysis of institutional decoupling. Acad Manag Learn Educ. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0307 Power M (1999) The audit society: rituals of verification. OUP Catalogue, Oxford Prøitz TS, Stensaker B, Harvey L (2004) Accreditation, standards and diversity: an analysis of EQUIS accreditation reports. Assess Eval High Educ 29:735–750 Rasche A, Gilbert DU (2015) Decoupling responsible management education why business schools may not walk their talk. J Manag Inq 24:239–252 Rasche A, Gilbert DU, Schedel I (2013) Cross-disciplinary ethics education in MBA programs: rhetoric or reality? Acad Manag Learn Educ 12:71–85 Scharmer O (2009) Theory U: learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Store, San Francisco Skapinker M (2011) Why business still ignores business schools. Financial Times, 24 Solomon NA, Scherer RF, Oliveti JJ, Mochel L, Bryant M (2017) The perfect match: factors that characterize the AACSB International initial accreditation host school and mentor relationship. J Educ Bus 92:114–120 Starkey K, Madan P (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. Br J Manag 12:S3–S26 Starkey K, Tiratsoo N (2007) The business school and the bottom line. Cambridge University Press, Leiden Starkey K, Hatchuel A, Tempest S (2004) Rethinking the business School*. J Manag Stud 41:1521–1531 Thomas H, Cornuel E (2012) Business schools in transition? Issues of impact, legitimacy, capabilities and re-invention. J Manag Dev 31:329–335 Thomas H, Hommel U, Muff K, King R, Roos J (2013) Promising direction in management education. J Manag Dev 37:377–385 Thomas H, Lee M, Wilson A, Thomas L (2014) Securing the future of management education: competitive destruction or constructive innovation? Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley Vas A, Lejeune C (2004) Revisiting resistance to change at the university: an interpretative approach. IAG working paper Waddock S, Rasche A, Werhane P, Unruh G (2010) The principles for responsible management education–where do we go from here? In: Fisher D, Swanson D (eds) Assessing business ethics education. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 13–28 Wilson D, Mckiernan P (2011) Global mimicry: putting strategic choice back on the business school agenda. Br J Manag 22:457–469 Zammuto RF (2008) Accreditation and the globalization of business. Acad Manag Learn Educ 7:256–268

15

Action Inquiry ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Action Learning ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Action Research ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Action Research on Sustainable Development Karin Tschiggerl Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria

Definition Action research (AR) can be defined as a systematic type of research enabling “people to find effective solutions to problems they confront in their everyday lives” (Stringer 2013). Based on a reflective process on a cycle of actions, a particular problematic situation can be addressed. The idea behind is that by doing so

A

16

changes occur within the setting, the participants, as well as the researcher (Herr and Anderson 2005).

Introduction Since the rise of the international discussion starting with the publication of the Brundtland report “Our common future” in 1987 (WCED 1987), many approaches and programs have been initiated toward a sustainable development. “Sustainable development is a process with the clear vision to change our societies from unsustainable to sustainable” (Baumgartner 2011). Nonetheless, many sustainability-related problems are still existent or even faced by increasing negative impacts. This leads to the assumption of a lacking awareness, ability, and/or willingness to adopt the necessary change. In this context, Wilber (2000) provides an analysis of factors that limit change: (1) individual subjective factors (values, worldview, etc.), (2) individual objective factors (sociodemographics, knowledge, etc.), (3) collective subjective factors (culture, shared norms, etc.), and (4) collective objective factors (political, economic, technological, etc.). Given the necessity of change by overcoming these barriers, Ballard (2005) identifies three conditions that are required in responding to the challenge of sustainable development: (a) awareness of what happens and what is required; (b) agency, which means responding in a subjective meaningful way; and (c) association or collaboration with others. To implement change it is necessary to work across all of these conditions, whereby this requires the key process of (d) action and reflection. In the light of permanent learning needs for sustainable development, action and reflection processes are seen as central factors. Sustainable development can be seen as a complex, dynamic process of further development and learning toward better solutions for existing challenges, whereby the creation of awareness for sustainability leads over a deep individual and organizational change (Tschiggerl and Fresner 2008). As change concepts can be manifold,

Action Research on Sustainable Development

Egmose (2015) considers sustainable change as equally radical and democratic, which means that unsustainable current ways of living have to be transformed by “democratic experiments” that transcend present realities. Baumgartner and Korhonen (2010) state that there is an urgent need for taking actions for sustainable development. In this context science is required to help society to identify and solve sustainability problems using adequate research approaches. Considering these limitations and aspects to implement actions for sustainable development, this entry presents action research as a viable method toward solving sustainability-related issues. Therefore, it is important to understand the methodological basics of action research (AR), which will be presented and discussed regarding potential difficulties and critics. Especially the AR process will be explained in detail to retrace how change can be achieved. Following, several examples of action research applied to sustainability-related issues will be presented to recognize the usefulness of this type of investigation. The last chapter concludes why action research can help to foster and implement real change toward sustainable development.

Action Research as a Collaborative Approach Towards Sustainable Development As stated by several authors (Ballard 2005; Reason and Bradbury 2006; Park 2006; ZuberSkerrit 2012; Egmose 2015), the action research methodology offers a useful approach for understanding and working with complex socioecological systems to encourage collaborations and participation aiming at intervention, development, and change (Manring 2014). Therefore, traditional research and development strategies have to be supplemented by human initiatives, innovations, and actions resulting from participative and democratic processes that allow new knowledge creation to solve problems (ZuberSkerrit 2012). Zuber-Skerrit et al. (2013) describe the democratic values of collaboration and

Action Research on Sustainable Development

participation as the essential objectives for action research. Therefore they propose a framework of participatory action learning and action research (Fig. 1) to explore possible ways to reach a transformation toward sustainable development. According to the authors, democratic values can lead to wisdom, which can be seen as a social construct of deep understanding of relationships and the ability to identify the most meaningful action to solve problems and challenges. To achieve a reformation and transformation of current (unsustainable) practices, it requires the extension of wisdom to creativity and innovation. This can be generated by transformed – in the sense of aware – individuals or groups participating in action research processes (Zuber-Skerrit et al. 2013). The following chapter describes the methodological aspects of action research and gives an overview of characteristics, the research process, and criteria to assess the quality of AR studies. The Methodology of Action Research Action research is a research approach that aims at the execution of an action and the generation of knowledge and a theory about it while the activity evolutes. The results are as well action and research outcome, whereas the objective of traditional approaches is solely the creation of

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Action research for sustainable development. (Source: Adapted from Zuber-Skerrit et al. 2013)

17

knowledge (Coghlan and Brannick 2014). Action research can be explained as a cyclical process of diagnosis, action planning, action taking, evaluation, and specified learning. The focus is rather on active research than on research about action, where the members of the system being investigated are actively participating in the process (Middel et al. 2005). Greenwood (2007) describes the approach as follows: Action research is neither a method nor a technique; it is an approach to living the world that includes the creation of areas for collaborative learning and the design, enactment and evaluation of liberating actions . . . it combines action and research, reflection and action in an ongoing cycle of cogenerative knowledge.

The origins and the basic idea can be traced back to the psychologist Kurt Lewin. He proposed a participative action research paradigm where the attendees not only generate but also apply knowledge during the research process. Thus, AR can be seen as a democratic process (Skinner 2017). To classify research as action research, the following five elements should be contained (Meyers 2013): 1. Aim and benefit: While scientific investigations aim at the expansion of general knowledge, AR targets the knowledge acquisition and solution of a practical problem. The focus is on transformation and change toward a positive value for the society. 2. Contextual focus: As the action researcher deals with real-life problems, the context has to be broader than in case study research. 3. Data relying on change and construction of knowledge: AR is change oriented; thus, it requires data that detect the consequences of an intended change. Action researchers need therefore continual and systematic collected data, which further require an interpretation to generate knowledge from it. 4. Participative research process: AR demands the active participation of those affected by the real-life problem and who “own” it. As AR is collaborative, the concerned should at least be involved in selecting the problem, identifying solutions, and validating results.

A

18

Action Research on Sustainable Development

5. Knowledge dissemination: AR has to be documented and disseminated according to accepted scientific practices to be considered as research. This means that a research topic has to deal with existing literature to generate general knowledge. This falls to the action researcher.

Independent from the type of AR, three basic topics are handled in every definition and classification: empowerment of participants, adoption of knowledge, and social change (Masters 1995). However, contemporary action research is affected by a great variety (Meyers 2013). The Action Research Process

Types of Action Research

Zuber-Skerrit and Perry (2002) as well as Skinner (2017) distinguish between three types of AR: Type 1 requires an external expert as support due to the complexity of a problem. Type 2 can involve a facilitator, but the focus is on individual power of equal participants. In type 3 the power is completely within the group. Table 1 gives an overview of AR types and their main characteristics. The system boarders between formal (technical) and practical action research are stringent; only emancipatory AR uses all technical and organizational competences. Thus, this type relates most to organizational learning (ZuberSkerrit and Perry 2002). According to Carr and Kemmis (1986), only type 3 can be marked as real AR as it fulfills the minimum requirements: strategic action determines the content; the proceeding includes planning, action, observation, and reflection; all phases of research activities integrate participation and collaboration.

In its simplest form after Lewin (1997 [1946]), the AR process contains a pre-step and three core activities: planning, action, and detection of facts. The objective is defined in the pre-step. Planning includes in general that there is a plan and the decision regarding the first step. Acting means to conduct the first step, and detection of facts deals with the evaluation of what was learnt. This builds the basis for the next step and an ongoing spiral of planning – acting – evaluating. Susman and Evered (1978) describe AR as cyclical process with five steps: diagnosis, action planning, implementing action, evaluation, and definition of learnings (Fig. 2). The infrastructure within a client system, which can be described as the research context, and the action researcher facilitate and regulate some or all phases together. Coghlan and Brannick (2014) propose an AR cycle consisting of a pre-step (context and aim) and four basic steps: design, action planning, action taking, and evaluation. The emphasis is

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Table 1 Action research types and their main characteristics. (Source: Zuber-Skerrit and Perry (2002))

AR type Type 1 “technical” Type 2 “practical”

Type 3 “emancipatory”

Objectives Effectiveness/efficiency of professional practice Professional development As type 1 Practitioner’s understanding Transformation of their consciousness As type 2 Participants’ emancipation from the dictates of tradition, self-deception, coercion Their critique of bureaucratic systematization Transformation of the organization and of its system

Facilitator’s role Outside “expert”

Socratic role, encouraging participation, and selfreflection Process moderator (responsibility shared equally by participants)

Relationship between facilitator and participants Co-option (of practitioners who depend on the facilitator) Cooperation (process consultancy)

Collaboration (symmetrical communication)

Action Research on Sustainable Development

19

A

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Cyclical process of action research. (Source: Susman and Evered 1978)

on the first step regarding the design where stakeholders construct the problem and relevant questions in the form of a dialogue. They have to be articulated carefully as they are as well practical and theoretical foundation for the actions. After planning and taking those actions, the results should be evaluated regarding the following questions: – Was the initial design adequate? – Did the conducted actions correspond to the design? – Were the actions conducted adequately? – What will be implemented within the next cycle of design, planning, and action? In this manner the cycles will be continued and form a spiral, as illustrated in Fig. 3. In every AR project, two cycles are running in parallel. The first cycle stands for the before mentioned, while the second one is a reflection cycle, evaluating the original AR cycle (Coghlan and

Brannick 2014). Zuber-Skerrit and Perry (2002) describe this as the core and the thesis AR cycle. This means that as well the design, planning, implementation, and evaluation regarding the proceeding and learning within the project have to take place. Herewith, the action researcher can evaluate how steps are conducted and, if they are consistent, how the following steps shall be executed. Argyris (2003) argues that the investigation of AR cycles itself is essential for the development of applicable knowledge. It’s the dynamic of recurrent reflection that generates the learning process of the AR cycle. Thus, AR goes beyond trivial problem-solving and enables learning about learning, the so-called meta-learning. Coghlan and Brannick (2014) relate to three kinds of reflection in the AR process: reflection regarding the content, the processes, and the premises. Figure 4 illustrates the connections of reflection types as meta-cycle of core AR. Reflection regarding the content analyzes the framework, the planned and the implemented,

20

Action Research on Sustainable Development

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Spiral of action research cycles. (Source: Coghlan and Brannick 2014)

as well as the evaluated. The design and how it is carried out in planning, implementation, and evaluation are the critical focus of the process reflection. Finally, reflection of premises analyzes unformulated and unconscious assumptions that affect the attitudes and behavior of participants. Hence, this meta-cycle is the continuous monitoring conducted in every cycle, whereby continuous learning will be enabled (Coghlan and Brannick 2014). Quality of Action Research Action research requires its own quality criteria and cannot be assessed according to those of positivist research. According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), high-quality AR includes three relevant elements: a good story, thorough reflection, and the extrapolation of useful knowledge or theory by reflecting the story. Not more than with other research methods, also AR faces a risk regarding validity. To guarantee a valid proceeding, the action researcher has to implement the AR cycles and test own assumptions and inputs from a critical public. Thus, action research has to combine advocacy and investigation; in other words, it has to integrate conclusions, attributions, perceptions, and openness for evaluation and critics. This combination includes deductions from observable data and the creation of deductions that can be evaluated, with the aim to enable learning (Coghlan and Coghlan 2002).

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Meta-cycle of action research. (Source: Coghlan and Brannick 2014)

In the context of sustainable development, Egmose (2015) argues that a methodology focusing on change requires notably a reflection on how to implement change in real life. Thus, the demands regarding reflexivity are particularly high as the challenge of sustainability exceeds perceived boundaries and classifications. This means, the simplifications made to categorize actual situations may hinder a comprehensive assessment of sustainability issues and its impacts.

Action Research on Sustainable Development

Applying Action Research to Sustainability Issues Zuber-Skerrit (2012) puts the aspects relevant to sustainable development down to those that are as well inherent to action research: – Engagement: The problem has to be identified and a need for change has to be observed. – Value-driven agendas and planned interventions: Actions have to be specified and planned. – Need for practical and sustainable change: Actions have to be implemented and reflected regarding their effects and impacts. – Support of organizations and individuals to ensure continuation of the process: The new generated knowledge has to be identified and experienced as a learning outcome that affects future problem-solving capabilities. In that sense, both sustainable development and action research aims at identifying a need for change and to support it with both rigor and relevant research to enable practical solutions (Baumgartner 2011; Zuber-Skerrit 2012). Literature shows a broad range of applications where an action research approach was used to answer various research questions resulting from “real-world” problems in different stakeholder environments. Table 2 gives an overview of selected cases from recent years where action research was chosen as the research method. The review of the selected literature includes the identified “real-world” problem, where a need for change of the current practice was identified. The action level specifies the involved actors, which can be described as the “owners” of the problem. As action research aims at generating a practical solution for a specified group or community and generating new knowledge, also the outcome expanding actual theory will be illustrated. The essence out of these studies can be illustrated by a statement from Bradbury (2001): “Action research can be of significant value in building capacity for, and in the study of, efforts in support of sustainable development. Action researchers can help further the conversations

21

already underway through giving a common language to many of the trans-sectoral initiatives that include people from the cultural and economic realms, and then further telling these stories, be it through publication channels (which require further theoretical reflection) or through convening forums for public conversation.” There are manifold shapes of problems and questions related to sustainable development. Documented approaches on how to develop solutions and implement them, while expanding existing knowledge and theory, can help to improve not only current practices but also transform systems in a wider sense toward sustainable development. Critical Reflection on Action Research for Sustainable Development From an epistemological perspective, a focus on sustainability includes scientists to acknowledge planetary boundaries and orientation toward an uncertain future, which has normative implications and is biased. Thus, researchers from both sustainability science and action research for sustainable development are questioned regarding their scientific objectivity. In this sense, action researchers in the pursuit of sustainability are not neutral analysts, whereby they are required to engage in self-inquiry and reflection (Wittmayer et al. 2013). This refers to the meta-cycle of action research which necessitates the careful reflection of the content, the processes, and the premises within projects (Coghlan and Brannick 2014). One of the critics on AR is the popular belief that this method is nothing else than consulting disguised as research, which faces a serious problem for AR. Gummesson (2000) proposes four ways to distinguish AR from consulting: – Consultants working with AR approaches have to conduct investigations and documentations more thoroughly. – Researchers rely on theoretical consultants on empirical justifications. – Consultants have to work under tense time and budget restrictions. – Consulting is linear – order acceptance, analysis, action/intervention, order completion. In contrast, AR is cyclical – data acquisition,

A

22

Action Research on Sustainable Development

Action Research on Sustainable Development, Table 2 Examples of action research applications to sustainabilityrelated issues Reference sources Anderson (2015)

“Real-world” sustainability issue Improvement of the livelihood and empowerment for initiating problem-solving actions of rural communities

Bolwig et al. (2008)

Integration of poverty, gender, and environmental aspects into value chain analysis

Actors in agro-food value chains in South Africa

Bratt (2011)

Improvement of criteria development processes within eco-labeling and green procurement to make these instruments more supportive of sustainable product and service innovation Development of sustainability leadership in a graduate leadership course

Swedish eco-labeling programs and governmental expert body for green procurement

Burns (2016)

Hallstedt and Isaksson (2017) Hasan et al. (2017)

Richert (2017)

Assessment of the material criticality in the early phases of sustainable product development Identification of the potential of information systems (IS) to impact, support, and transform the planning and execution of climate change adaptation activities Closing the energy efficiency gap in SMEs

Robèrt et al. (2017)

Sustainable transport system development with a focus on electric vehicles

Shapira et al. (2017)

Integration of strategic sustainable development perspectives throughout design thinking processes Closing the energy efficiency gap in energy-intensive industries by the identification of efficiency potential Improvement of the way that waste is valued as a resource based on a system approach

Tschiggerl and Topic (2018) Velenturf and Purnell (2017)

Action level Local community/farmers from two rural municipalities in Guatemala

Students and pedagogues at higher education institutions

Product design team at an aerospace company in Sweden

Climate change working group (CCWG) of the state government of New South Wales, Australia

Management and environmentally aware employees of a car service and retailing company in Germany Diverse stakeholders with various competences from the transport sector in Sweden Experts in the field of design thinking

Management and energy managers from the foundry industry in Austria Diverse stakeholders from academic, industry, and government partners from the resource recovery from waste program in the UK

Theory outcome New knowledge relevant to farming practices and environmental conditions and identification of change agents/ promoters Conceptual framework to integrate the “vertical” and “horizontal” aspects of value chains that affect poverty and sustainability; set of tools for action research in value chains Criteria development prototype widening the scope from currently known product impacts to long-term objectives toward sustainability

Key pedagogical elements to support the development of sustainability leadership in higher education courses Material criticality method to assess criticality from an availability and sustainability perspective Mediating role of IS tools and techniques in climate change adaptation

Six-step energy management framework to implement energy efficiency practices in SMEs Process model for transport planning and electric vehicles; applicable for sustainable community planning in general Sustainable design thinking prototype suggesting a process for integrating sustainability aspects on different levels Transdisciplinary energy management model to identify energy efficiency potential in energy intensive industries Knowledge creation regarding stakeholder engagement for waste and resource management programs

Action Research on Sustainable Development

feedback to involved persons, data analysis, action planning, intervention, and evaluation followed by a next cycle. Despite this differentiation, Velenturf and Purnell (2017) see consulting as one method to achieve commitment and collaboration within participatory approaches. Stakeholders should also be engaged in other levels of participation – from informing to full autonomy – which are appropriate to their influence and interest. Further, they conclude that radical and transformative change, as it is required for the transition from unsustainable to sustainable states (see also Zuber-Skerrit et al. (2013)), demands participative processes. This shows several benefits regarding the quality, legitimacy, and efficiency of interventions: – Improvement of social inclusiveness and empowerment of stakeholders. – Promotion of social learning, whereby the connections between societal segments can be strengthened and adversarial relations can be transformed. – The quality of information and solutions can be improved due to their adaptation to specific contexts. – The acceptance and commitment to solutions can be increased. Despite the positive effects of action research, it is a great challenge to researchers to conduct this kind of research approach in terms of their ability to deal with community spaces and possible power differences, ethical dilemmas, and conflicts (Wittmayer et al. 2013).

23

statements of several authors, evidence the relevance of action research on sustainability-related issues. To lead social systems, which may be located at micro- or macro-levels, toward a sustainable development, coordinated change, cooperation, and collaboration are required from multiple actors across society. The role of academia can be to facilitate such processes through participatory action research in all sustainability-related fields (Velenturf and Purnell 2017). As concluded by Manring (2014), there is a clear need to educate and train students to participate as leaders and partners in sustainability initiatives, among others, by action research and practice. Action research expects us to stop just going through the motions, doing what we’ve always done because we’ve done it, doing it the same way because we’ve always done it that way. Action researchers take a close look at what they are doing and act to make things better that they already are. Taking a closer look is action in and of itself and that research, that knowledge creation – any action taken based on that research – has the potential to transform the work that we do, the working conditions that we sweat under and, most importantly, the people who we are. (Coghlan and Brannick 2014)

Especially in times of upheavals – political, social, economic, and technological – and on the threshold to a fourth industrial era, action research can make great contributions to shape and pursue this change in all its facings for the good of all involved in a sustainable way. The understanding of how this can be realized in the most sustainable way while adopting it in the forms of applied practices is the aim of any action research (Tschiggerl 2017). In the words of Zuber-Skerrit (2012), action research is a solution to and integration for problemsolving and sustainable development in a world of turbulence.

Conclusion and Outlook The aim of action research is to improve practice while contributing to theory. Action research does not distinguish between research and action but is research through action. In contrast to traditional research approaches, action research is thus imprecise, uncertain, and possibly more volatile in its application (Coghlan and Coghlan 2002). A great number of applications from literature, as well as the

Cross-References ▶ Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development ▶ Deep Learning on Sustainable Development ▶ Reflective Actions for Sustainable Development ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development

A

24

References Anderson F (2015) The development of rural sustainability using participatory action research: a case study from Guatemala. J Hum Resour Sustain Stud 3:28–33 Argyris C (2003) Actionable knowledge. In: Tsoukas T, Knudsen C (eds) The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 423–452 Ballard D (2005) Using learning processes to promote change for sustainable development. Action Res 3(2):135–156 Baumgartner RJ (2011) Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice. J Clean Prod 19:783–786 Baumgartner RJ, Korhonen J (2010) Strategic thinking for sustainable development. Sustain Dev 18(2):71–75 Bolwig S, Ponte S, du Toit A, Riisgaard L, Halberg N (2008) Integrating poverty, gender and environmental concerns into value chain analysis: a conceptual framework and lessons for action research. Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen Bradbury H (2001) Learning with the natural step: action research to promote conversations for sustainable development. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, pp 307–313 Bratt C (2011) Assessment of eco-labelling and green procurement from a strategic sustainability perspective. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona Burns H (2016) Learning sustainability leadership: an action research study of a graduate leadership course. Int J Scholarsh Teach Learn 10(2):8 Carr W, Kemmis S (1986) Becoming critical: education, knowledge, and action research. Falmer Press, London Coghlan D, Brannick T (2014) Doing action research in your own organization. Sage, London Coghlan P, Coghlan D (2002) Action research for operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(2):220–240 Egmose J (2015) Action research for sustainability. Ashgate, Farnham Greenwood DJ (2007) Pragmatic action research. Int J Action Res 2(1–2):131–148 Gummesson E (2000) Qualitative methods in management research. Sage, Thousand Oaks Hallstedt SI, Isaksson O (2017) Material criticality assessment in early phases of sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 161:40–52 Hasan H, Smith S, Finnegan P (2017) An activity theoretic analysis of the mediating role of information systems in tackling climate change adaptation. Inf Syst J 27:271–308 Herr K, Anderson GL (2005) The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Sage, Thousand Oaks Lewin K (1997 [1946]) Action research and minority problems. In: Lewin K (ed) Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 34–46 Manring SL (2014) The role of universities in developing interdisciplinary action research collaborations to

Action Research on Sustainable Development understand and manage resilient social-ecological systems. J Clean Prod 64:125–135 Masters J (1995) The history of action research. In: Hughes I (ed) Action research electronic reader. http://www.aral.com.au/arow/rmasters.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2017 Meyers MD (2013) Qualitative research in business & management. Sage, London Middel R, Brennan L, Coghlan D, Coghlan P (2005) The application of action learning and action research in collaborative improvement within the extended manufacturing enterprise. In: Kotzab H, Seuring S, Müller M, Reiner G (eds) Research methodologies in supply chain management. Physika, Heidelberg, pp 365–380 Park P (2006) Knowledge and participatory research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The handbook of action research. Sage, London, pp 83–93 Reason P, Bradbury H (2006) The handbook of action research. Sage, London Richert M (2017) An energy management framework tailor-made for SMEs: case study of a German car company. J Clean Prod 164:221–229 Robèrt K, Borén S, Ny H, Broman G (2017) A strategic approach to sustainable transport system development – part 1: attempting a generic community planning process model. J Clean Prod 140:53–61 Shapira H, Ketchie A, Nehe M (2017) The integration of design thinking and strategic sustainable development. J Clean Prod 140:277–287 Skinner H (2017) Action research. In: Kubacki K, RundleThiele S (eds) Formative research in social marketing. Springer Science + Business Media, Singapore, pp 11–31 Stringer ET (2013) Action research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks Susman GI, Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm Sci Q 23(4):582–603 Tschiggerl K (2017) Aktionsforschung und deren Anwendung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Working paper, Montanuniversitaet Leoben Tschiggerl K, Fresner J (2008) From “doing green” to “doing good”: a consultancy perspective of mainstreaming sustainable development through continuous improvement. Paper presented at the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference CRRC 2008, Queen’s University Management School, Belfast, 7–9 September 2008 Tschiggerl K, Topic M (2018) A systematic approach to adopt sustainability and efficiency practices in energyintensive industries. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of sustainability science and research. Springer, Berlin, pp 523–536 Velenturf APM, Purnell P (2017) Resource recovery from waste: restoring the balance between resource scarcity and waste overload. Sustainability 9(9):1603 Wilber K (2000) Integral psychology. Shambhala, Boston Wittmayer J, Schaepke N, Feiner G, Piotrowski R, van Steenbergen F, Baasch S (2013) Action research for sustainability: reflections on transition management in

Aesthetics and Sustainability practice. http://incontext-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/ InContext-ResearchBrief-Action_research_for_sustain ability.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2017 World Commission on Environment and Development WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Zuber-Skerrit O (2012) Action research for sustainable development in a turbulent world. Emerald, Bingley Zuber-Skerrit O, Perry C (2002) Action research within organisations and university thesis writing. Learn Organ 9(4):171–179 Zuber-Skerrit O, Wood L, Bob D (2013) Action research for sustainable development in a turbulent world: reflections and future perspectives. Action Learn Action Res J 18(2):184–203

Adult Developmental Psychology ▶ How Worldview Development Influences Knowledge and Beliefs About Sustainability

Aesthetic Inquiry ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Aesthetics ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Aesthetics and Sustainability Aaron S. Allen Environment and Sustainability Program, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

Introduction Common current English usage of “aesthetics” usually means “pretty” and almost always relates to visual perception. With this simplistic

25

understanding, the idea of aesthetics is evident in connection with many disciplines. Anthropologists are often called upon to curate museum displays of cultural artifacts, dance and theater rely on visual elements of costume and sets, maps are fundamental in geography, and the study of history may rely on illuminations and handwriting in manuscripts. Even the sciences have a role for aesthetics: the visual representation of molecules helps make sense of the otherwise inaccessibly microscopic world of atoms in chemistry and physics, while biology and natural history have long relied on artistic representations of life forms of all types to explain concepts and disseminate findings. Even in the more abstract worlds of data and statistics, in disciplines such as sociology and mathematics, the elegant, logical, and truthful display of graphic information is crucial. Given this wide array of academic relevance, it should be no surprise that aesthetics has an important role in environmental and sustainability studies and in the context of institutions of higher education. Understanding “aesthetics” in relation to sustainability requires that we consider broader meanings of this keyword. Yet the study of aesthetics is vast: its disciplinary range is wide, so an explicit aesthetics can be traced for a few centuries in the Western context – although the idea more generally is fundamental to most life forms on the planet (not just humans) and thus could be endless in its scope. In the present article, a brief review of the etymology of aesthetics will help to broaden the definition from the simplistic “visual beauty” to a more robust and meaningful term regarding sensory perception. Thereafter, a brief review of aesthetics in a variety of general sustainability contexts will expand the concept beyond the visual and into a multisensorial understanding. Mitchell Thomashow has emphasized the synergy of aesthetics and sustainability for universities and colleges, and his work will serve as a useful case study to deepen the understanding and relevance of aesthetics for sustainability in higher education contexts. Aesthetics is a useful, if unusual, concept for a great variety of advocates, practitioners, and theorists of sustainability.

A

26

Definition and Etymology of Aesthetics Notwithstanding the commonplace usage of aesthetics meaning “visual beauty,” philosophers and critics use the term with varied and more robust meanings. The term aesthetics is derived from the Ancient Greek aἰsytιkóB, relating to sensory perception, and it entered into modern usage in the eighteenth century via the German philosopher A. G. Baumgarten, who defined the term in two ways: the “science of cognition by the senses” and the “criticism of good taste” (OED, s.v. “Aesthetic”). The broader historical meaning of “sensory perception” is helpful to understand applications of aesthetics in sustainability because it does not limit the meaning only to “beauty” or the sense of sight (or to criticism or science). Rather, this meaning of “sensory perception” can also relate to not-beauty, to the personal or social, to all of the senses, and to emotional responses to such perceptions. (Although beyond the scope of this essay, it could also be applied to the sensory perceptions of nonhuman organisms.) Sensory perception and subjective reactions are fundamental to human arts and culture – from the fine and performative arts to food and architectural traditions and from folk and popular to religious and elite cultures. It is also helpful to conceive of aesthetics in both subjective (individual, emotional) and objective (collective, rational) ways, which correspond to Baumgarten’s two uses. Thus, in addition to the more common subjective understandings (as with the expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), and even the less common scientific approaches to perception, aesthetics can also enter the more common sustainability realms of policy and science. For example, oral rhetoric and written language are important for crafting, proposing, and disseminating policy ideas (Romm 2012); and aesthetics play a significant role in the presentation and understanding of quantitative data (Tufte 2001). Aesthetics is widely understood to relate with ethics, which takes it well beyond the mere “pretty” and into the realm of justice and fairness, which are central to sustainability. The aesthetics-ethics connection is perhaps most evident via religion (see below), but American ecologist Aldo Leopold linked aesthetics and ethics in a biological context

Aesthetics and Sustainability

that would come to be known as sustainability. His widely cited concept of the “land ethic” has become a central tenet in environmental philosophy. “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” (Leopold 1989, p. 204). Leopold insists we must “examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (pp. 224–225). In this influential formulation, Leopold expanded ethics from an anthropocentric perspective to a more ecocentric one while also arguing for including aesthetics and ethics in decisions regarding land management (i.e., sustainability). Leopold took up this topic also in his chapter on the “Conservation Aesthetic,” which emphasized perceptions of experiences in nature (e.g., tourism, hunting, farming) and thus furthered the connections between aesthetics, conservation ethics, and ecology. Building similarly on environmental philosophy and ecology, Thomashow (2014) summarized aesthetics as “concerned primarily with the extent to which beauty (or ugliness) is inherent or whether it is in the eye of the beholder, and the moral implications of such distinctions” (p. 205). This moral element is a key feature of education for sustainability, which institutions of higher education effect through both curricular and operational elements on campus. Thomashow’s approach to aesthetics is moral/ethical, particularly related to education for sustainability. Moreover, his conceptions of art and sustainability aesthetics (discussed below) are based primarily, although not exclusively, in visual understanding. Aesthetics in relation to sustainability, however, is a necessarily broader, pan-sensorial, and more interdisciplinary topic.

Aesthetics in General Sustainability Contexts Taking a multisensorial approach related to human arts and culture, aesthetics is evident implicitly and

Aesthetics and Sustainability

explicitly in a wide array of disciplinary pursuits, all of which have relevance to sustainability efforts in the operational and curricular sectors of higher education. Although a comprehensive survey is out of the scope of this entry, a selection of these disciplines includes design, art, literature, music, food, tourism, religion, philosophy, and nature protection. Of these, design and art together with food, tourism, and philosophy stand out as particularly rich fields of inquiry and practice that blend aesthetic and sustainability matters, although nature protection efforts have been synergistic and influential. Design is a key realm for the connections between aesthetics and sustainability. In architecture, industry, planning, and allied fields, sustainability has often been seen as something that is about functionality but not beauty. Consider, for example, energy efficient but clunky cars or drab colored but responsibly sourced and organically produced fabrics. Meanwhile, designers have emphasized beauty at the expense of environmental and social impacts: important architectural monuments end up wasting materials and energy, clothing is stylish but exploitative, or furniture is appealing to look at but not pleasant or safe to make or to use. Contrary to such trends, Lance Hosey (2012) makes the case that sensory appeal is necessary to life and not at all superficial. As sustainability integrates culture and nature, and as aesthetics is fundamental to both, then sustainability must have an aesthetic dimension. Hosey claims that productively joining aesthetics and sustainability “could save the planet” (p. 7). “Reversing the devastation of nature requires reversing the devastation of culture, for the problem of the planet is first and foremost a human problem. We created the crisis, but we can correct it – by appealing to both morality and sensuality, to both sense and spirit, together. Designers can promote sustainability by embracing what they have always cared about most: the basic shape of things” (p. 10). As Tufte (2001) put it succinctly, “Design is choice” (p. 191); as such, in crafting humanly constructed environments that govern so much social interaction and natural resource use, designers choose to include or exclude sustainability considerations. As with design, the arts – drawing, painting, photography, sculpture, and other fields – rely predominantly on visual aesthetics. The twentieth

27

century has seen the rise of the connections between aesthetics and sustainability in the field of eco-art, which, similar to design, is a prominent pathway for exploring such synergies. Linda Weintraub (2012) justifies writing an eco-art textbook to pursue sustainability by elaborating the following linked points: the environmental crisis is humanity’s most important contemporary challenge; eco-artists have excellent communication skills and can advocate reform and preservation; humans draw inspiration from art that can create positive behavioral change; it is necessary to develop creativity that aids problem-solving and that is life-sustaining; and we need art that serves as a cultural conscience (p. xiii). Eco-art is process or mission focused, rather than stylistic or content oriented; further, it is ecocentric rather than anthropocentric. There are four principle ways that art can relate to ecology. First, the topics of eco-art works “are derived from the rigorous methods of ecologists and the subjective considerations of environmentalists” (p. 6). Ecologists’s sources include nonhuman organisms, the nonliving environment, and human actions, all within any temporal or spatial context; environmentalists add intuition, opinion, and interpretation. Second, eco-art makes contextual interconnections, which involve “the inescapable law of links and relationships that govern all materials, all processes, and all events on Earth” (p. 6). Synonyms for such interconnections include symbioses, systems, networks, feedbacks, etc., and new such interconnected disciplines include “[b]ehavioral ecology, urban ecology, social ecology, acoustic ecology, political ecology, industrial ecology, Christian ecology, and media ecology” (p. 7). Third, eco-art involves dynamism, which is the idea “that anything occupying space also transforms through time” (p. 7). Eco-art therefore involves action and change rather than just static objects and ingredients. Finally, ecocentrism guides interpretation and decision-making in eco-art. Ecocentrism is “the principle that humans are not more important than other entities on Earth” (p. 7), and it is opposed to anthropocentrism, which prioritizes humans. Within this eco-art framework of aesthetic work for sustainability, Weintraub provides 47 case studies of

A

28

“twentieth-century eco art pioneers” and “twentyfirst-century eco art explorers” (p. xiv). One of the 13 pioneers is Friedensreich Hundertwasser (Friedrich Stowasser), a designer and architect who railed against rational modernism and promoted the integration of literal and metaphorical natural biological systems into buildings – and thus was “an early practitioner of biomimicry” (p. 85). His Hundertwasser House is a public housing complex in Vienna that has green roofs, compositing toilets, and a living machine to clean water, varied (and user-altered) exterior decorations, stipulations for nonhuman “tree tenants,” and, perhaps most astonishingly, no straight lines or flat planes. Of the 34 explorers, consider just 3 brief examples. Chinese artist Lilly Yeh worked with war-torn Rwandan Tutsis to help heal spirits, communities, and local environments through art and social action projects that included water treatment and sanitation facilities, renewable energy production, cooperative employment, microlending, and agricultural and human health. The projects melded metaphorical aesthetic elements (such as mosaics to represent rebuilding after fragmentation) with a dynamic dialogue between villagers and the artist to achieve practical, sustainable, and beautiful outcomes. As the “Tissue Culture & Art Project,” the Finnish Oron Catts and the British Ionat Zurr established in Western Australia their bio art research laboratory SymbioticA, which now hosts over 70 research residents. The Project involves culturing cells to create “victimless” leather and meat and to address the ethical, social, and environmental problems of consuming and manufacturing products made of animals. Works from the Project have been exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City – and have even been prepared by chefs and consumed! Artist Amy Franceschini and environmental scientist Jonathan Meuser teamed up to develop and display the “DIY Algae/Hydrogen Bioreactor Kit,” which addressed the need for small-scale production of hydrogen for renewable energy. The Kit addressed both the scientific challenge of using algae to efficiently split water into oxygen and hydrogen as well as the psychological challenges (associated with fear of hydrogen bombs) of

Aesthetics and Sustainability

distributed hydrogen storage and use. In addition to an exhibit displaying the backyard-scale and down-home elements of the Kit, the duo made available free plans (in the form of a punk rock zine rather than a technical manual) for citizen artist/scientists to further such renewable energy testing and research. Eco-art certainly involves senses beyond just the visual, such as tactile elements of Hundertwasser’s undulating floors or the taste of Catts and Zurr’s artificial meat. Other disciplines and fields of study are helpful to broaden predominantly visual aesthetics into the emotional, aural, and gustatory. The literary field of ecocriticism has been applied broadly to a great variety of cultural products – from legal texts to films, from advertising to drama, and from poetry to prose. Inspired by movements in sustainability and environmentalism, ecocriticism seeks to understand how we represent human-environment relationships and the emotional responses we have to such representations (Garrard 2004, 2014). Building on ecocriticism, the field of ecomusicology considers music and sound studies in relation to ecology and the environment (Allen and Dawe 2016). These fields along and others such as media studies have broadened to consider the natural resource implications of their subjects, as with the sustainable and unsustainable woods used for musical instruments (Allen 2012), the materials necessary for music recordings (Devine 2015), the production and afterlife of digital technologies (Cubitt 2017), and how the pleasures of food relate to sustainability and literary study (Philippon 2012). Food, in fact, is more than just a basic necessity of human existence: it is also a central element of human aesthetic experience, as the Slow Food Movement has made so prominent (Philippon 2012). Furthermore, food systems are a regular concern for sustainability efforts (e.g., Alkon and Agyeman 2011). As the topic of food so fundamentally synthesizes aesthetics and sustainability, so too does the topic of tourism. The largest industry in the world, tourism, involves the pursuit of a variety of aesthetic experiences, often with significant environmental and social impacts. The sustainable tourism industry has arisen to address this challenge, and international agencies such as the World Tourism Organization of the

Aesthetics and Sustainability

United Nations have aimed to address the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals through responsible tourism (Edgell 2016). Studies of religion and philosophy have also contributed to synthesizing aesthetics and sustainability. As Viladesau (2014) has outlined, the arts function both as theological texts complementing the written word and as communication strategies containing religious messages that connect with ethics. Religious thinkers regularly link aesthetics, religious belief, ethical behaviors, and sustainability efforts. In the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has taken a strong position advocating the place of sustainability efforts in care of both human life and the nonhuman world, and these are intimately related to the practices, traditions, and cultures of Christianity. Such efforts exist in many different religious traditions. As scholars of religion Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim (2007) put it, “though science and policy approaches are clearly necessary, they are not sufficient to do the job of transforming human consciousness and behavior for a sustainable future. Values and ethics, religion and spirituality are important factors in this transformation.” In addition to religious traditions, the connections of aesthetics and ethics relate especially to secular philosophical inquiry. Philosophy is the disciplinary home for the separate fields of aesthetics and of ethics, and as a subfield of the latter environmental ethics is of great importance to sustainability. Ethics and aesthetics are connected by more than just a shared disciplinary home; they come together primarily through the concepts of judgments and values: judgments of beauty or the value of artistic goodness or judgments of duty and the values of how actions can be good. Plato’s concept of kalon synthesized physical beauty and moral goodness in a singular, inseparable concept. In neo-Kantian moral philosophy, one can understand that the arts provide a sort of moral education via the senses. In these ways, aesthetics and ethics are inseparable and help “in thinking about the artful and meaningful construction of a life” (Eldridge 2005, p. 731). In relation to sustainability, such aestheticethical thinking is evident in environmental aesthetics and natural aesthetics (Fisher 2005).

29

Environmental aesthetics considers an environmentalist approach that has been informed by thinkers such as Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, and Leopold, among other people and that can be seen in, e.g., Thomashow’s advocacy for aesthetic sustainability (below). Natural aesthetics considers human emotional and ethical responses to features of natural and built environments; it is less concerned with advocacy for environmental and sustainability purposes, although natural aesthetics responses may certainly lead to such advocacy. These two paths – environmental aesthetics and natural aesthetics – are most evidently related to each other and to sustainability in Allen Carlson and Sheila Lintott’s (2008) anthology Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. The authors in this volume trace the centuries of connections between these concepts and explore particular ramifications in the contemporary world. J. Baird Callicott observed that natural aesthetics influenced environmental aesthetics, especially with regard to American preservation efforts. Such influence is distinct from more utilitarian conservation efforts (i.e., for resource availability) that relied significantly less on aesthetics. In fact, Callicott claims that beauty (in terms of natural aesthetics) has been much more influential than duty (in terms of environmental ethics) (in Carlson and Lintott 2008 and in Callicott 1994). Nature protection efforts (especially preservation, in distinction to more utilitarian conservation) include both aesthetic appeals and instrumental scientific arguments. Perhaps it is more common to see advocates relying on the more objective elements of ecological studies, measurements of pollution, demonstration of harm to humans and other life, and the usefulness of nature to humans (e.g., clean air, clean water, resources for food and shelter, etc.). But such protection advocacy also relies on more subjective claims about aesthetic experiences. For example, the Wilderness Act of 1964 (USA) established human “enjoyment of wilderness” as a foundation for the Act (Section 2a). In defining wilderness, the Act stipulated that such a place “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or

A

30

historical value” (Section 2c, emphasis added). Similarly, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (USA), which has been a model for other nations’ similar efforts, also draws on aesthetic concerns regarding the “enjoyable harmony between man [sic] and his environment” (Preamble, emphasis added). In the international arena of nature protection, the framework for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) incorporated aesthetics with regard to the cultural services of nature. Although the idea of “ecosystem services” predates it, the MA synthesized and made the ecosystem services idea more widespread. Ecosystem services are those “benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Alcamo et al. 2003, p. 3). The MA organized such ecosystem services into provisioning (food and fuel), regulating (climate maintenance and water purification), supporting (soil formation and nutrient cycling), and cultural. The cultural services are those “nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences” (p. 8). By incorporating aesthetics and culture into their framework, the MA makes the case that detrimental changes to ecosystems (i.e., through contamination, depletion, extinction, etc.) result in “negative impacts on cultural life and human experience” (p. 77). Such nature protection efforts rely on objective science, and they make subjective ethical and aesthetic appeals to achieve their ends. Addressing climate change is a twenty-first century approach to nature protection, and Roman Krznaric (2010) offers an argument for aesthetics that links knowledge and action with aesthetics and ethics. Krznaric makes the case that, in order to bridge the gap between knowledge of and action on climate change, we do not need just more or better economic or moral arguments; rather, we need more empathy across space and through time. In short, confronting “climate change requires nothing less than a revolution of the empathetic imagination” (p. 155). Empathy can be understood either as a shared emotional response (affective empathy) or, the idea that is more important for Krznaric, as perspective taking (cognitive empathy). To achieve social equity

Aesthetics and Sustainability

and more just political systems, we need more empathy (as, e.g., happened with the fight against slavery). To generate more empathy for people and places distant to us in time and space, Krznaric proposes an approach to education that relies on aesthetics: novels, stories, films, the arts, etc., as well as conversations and direct experiences with other people, e.g., through tourism and cultural exchange. Thus, aesthetic experiences generate emotions and perspectives to increase empathy, which in turn is channeled to addressing climate change – showing yet another role for aesthetics in sustainability.

Aesthetics and Sustainability in Higher Education Connecting aesthetics and sustainability has been well developed and widespread, although there has been less attention given to the specific relationship of aesthetics and sustainability in the context of institutions of higher education. Mitchell Thomashow, the former president of Unity College, Maine (USA), is one leader who has given significant attention and thought to connecting sustainability and aesthetics in higher education. Thomashow groups the chapters of his Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus (2014) into three categories: infrastructure (energy, food, materials), community (governance, investment, wellness), and learning (curriculum, interpretation, aesthetics). The book hinges on the idea of higher education promoting the sustainability ethos: “a spirit of creative innovation in support of civic responsibility and ecological resilience” (p. 7). The concluding chapter on aesthetics begins with a discussion of the Art of Stewardship Project, and Thomashow relates an anecdote about when Unity College made the campus into a “canvas for art that conveys, expresses, and inspires ideas about sustainability, stewardship, and ecology” (p. 191). In this case, aesthetics is about using the visual arts to engage communities about sustainability and to further educational efforts. Yet Thomashow makes it clear that the synergies of aesthetics and sustainability can be

Aesthetics and Sustainability

much more than straightforward audience engagement for education and outreach. In fact, a sustainability aesthetic supports the sustainability ethos. His argument for a sustainability aesthetic develops out of a series of concatenated points: the arts enhance biospheric perception, imagination is a foundation for creative sustainability, art can transform culture, and both human values and natural principles inform a sustainability aesthetic. Biospheric perception results “in a state of enhanced wonder” (p. 193). Learning about complex planetary processes (e.g., biogeochemical cycling, atmospheric patterns, biodiversity, evolution, natural history, etc.) is a foundational part of biospheric understanding, which supports a sustainability ethos. When learning about the biosphere, the addition of aesthetic elements – lyrical text, visuals, metaphor, soundscapes, dance, etc. – accentuates an individual’s biospheric perception. Building on the subjective foundations of aesthetics, Thomashow writes in the first person to elaborate on the enhanced sensory capacity of his biospheric perception as inspired aesthetically: “I’m more likely to pay attention to phenomena that I typically take for granted. I have a broadened view of ecological space and geological time. I’m further compelled to use my artistic imagination to interpret, express, and communicate these impressions” (p. 193). Because a “basic understanding of biosphere processes is fundamental to well-conceived sustainability initiatives” (p. 194), and because such processes are difficult to grasp, the addition of aesthetics helps both with basic learning and with the higher-order effort of eliciting wonder. Studying the environment (or people, or anything), through art improves and heightens an individual’s capacities and responses. Thus art “can transform everyday observations,” and through arts “the campus cultivates the imagination” (p. 195). Imagination has been significant in science and natural history. Scientists have had new ideas and made discoveries as a result of artistic and literary inspirations. Concomitantly, artists and creative thinkers have fueled their work with the discoveries of science. Such mutually reinforcing exchanges converge to fuel imaginative creation

31

in all realms, and they “provide a conceptual foundation for an aesthetic and educational approach to sustainability” (p. 197). If the aim of sustainability is to “improve the quality of human life,” then we must be able to “project a vision of what is possible” – and that “requires imagination” (p. 197). Imagination fuels creative sustainability, which involves the virtuous integration of human possibility and ecological possibility. Creative sustainability “aspires to apply ecological principles and awareness to human behaviors and decisions, linking the quality of human life to the evolving biosphere” (p. 200). As process, creative sustainability also brings out the “emotional challenge” of pursuing sustainability. Despite, or precisely because of, such personal impacts, creative sustainability “requires community collaboration” and intergenerational processes (p. 201). Thomashow advocates various imaginative forms to manifest such creative sustainability, but he focuses on his own experiences with the Art of Stewardship Project, which used “art as a vehicle for campus transformation” (p. 201). In essence, “Sustainability art has the potential to creatively transform the culture of a campus ... by tangibly illustrating sustainability principles in multiple settings, using a variety of artistic mediums, and engaging all campus constituencies” (p. 201). Rather than keeping artistic practices and displays private (in galleries, studios, residences), they should be interactive, public, and engaged with sustainability topics. A portfolio of potential art projects (pp. 202–205) includes graffiti, recycled sculpture, landscape art, soundscape designs, and installations inspired by the work of the artist Andrew Goldsworthy. The campus canvas “becomes a template for innovation, imagination, and experimentation, conjuring the art of the possible, linking research and learning to campus infrastructure, while encouraging broad participation” (p. 202). Such an approach takes complex ideas understood via biospheric perception and imagination and presents them in an educational context for the ultimate goal of changing culture. A sustainability aesthetic is both a driver for and the result of such an approach. A sustainability

A

32

aesthetic “implies that our conception of what is elegant and beautiful is informed by sustainability principles, which are in turn derived from ecological patterns and processes, and ultimately biospheric processes” (p. 205). Extrinsic and intrinsic influences form an individual’s sustainability aesthetic. Extrinsic factors include values from sustainability practices and behaviors, such as energy use, material composition, location and process of manufacture, durability, etc. They are not direct reflections of beauty but do inform aesthetic preferences – why, for example, a field of solar panels may be more appealing than a coalfired power plant. Intrinsic factors involve “how aesthetic appeal is informed by patterns in nature” (p. 206), explored in such fields as nature photography, landscape painting, sustainable architecture, green design, biomimicry, etc. Developing a sustainability aesthetic involves both cultural perspectives (extrinsic factors) and biospheric perceptions (intrinsic factors). Thomashow is careful to note that not all intrinsic factors of nature are appealing, as with invasive species and catastrophes. Moreover, not all extrinsic factors, such as knowledge of clean power, make wind turbines inherently beautiful. It is difficult to define what is appealing for everyone because each individual has a different set of experiences and backgrounds that influence taste. Even then, scale and place can change an individual’s tastes further (as with the example of a largescale wind farm on a distant hill versus in one’s own backyard). Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize the extent to which our values predispose aesthetics” (p. 207). Thus, a sustainability aesthetic is not a predetermined truth. Rather than seeking some perfect or correct aesthetic position, the “more important issue is how and whether the art of sustainability can change the way we see the world” (p. 208) and hence influence such a sustainability aesthetic. Thomashow believes that, indeed, “art can change the way we see the world because it challenges us to find beauty in unexpected places” (p. 210). The college campus should be a place for art because it supports the educational mission of all disciplines and especially “sustainability initiatives, ecological processes, and biospheric principles” (p. 210).

Aesthetics and Sustainability

According to Thomashow, the “ultimate rationale” for advocating aesthetics and sustainability together is that art “changes the way we see the world, it makes the world more meaningful, it provokes astonishment and delight, it inspires scientific inquiry, and it encourages human flourishing” (p. 210). The practical upshot for institutions of higher education pursuing aesthetic sustainability is that “sustainability art improves the quality of campus life, has the potential to enhance our understanding of the basic principles of sustainability, and facilitates collaboration and community. Ultimately, sustainability art promises a deeper awareness of how we understand our relationship to nature” (p. 209).

Conclusion Aesthetics may seem an unlikely, even impotent, source for the profound changes necessary to move toward sustainability, on campus or anywhere else in the world. But as this entry has shown, there are numerous ways for aesthetics to connect with ethics and, in turn, to impact knowledge, emotion, and action in the face of humanenvironment challenges. Aesthetics and ethics are germane to sustainability efforts on campuses due to higher education institutions’ environmental and social impacts, locally and globally, as well as their educational missions, which result ultimately in cultural changes for sustainability. Explicit integration of aesthetics into sustainability at the institutional level in higher education is an uncommon approach, but the University of North Carolina Greensboro (USA) does so with its official campus definition of sustainability: “the enduring interconnectedness of social equity, the environment, economy, and aesthetics” (n.d.). This definition applies to learning, operations, and service throughout the institution. Implicit evidence of approaches integrating aesthetics can be found throughout the higher education sustainability movement, but more explicit efforts could be brought to bear on creating a culture of sustainability. To paraphrase Thomashow (2014, p. 209), the synthesis of aesthetics and sustainability makes campuses better and more beautiful places,

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

which in turn helps change culture and move toward a better and more beautiful relationship between people and planet.

Cross-References ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability ▶ Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development ▶ Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development

References “Aesthetic” (n.d.) OED online. Oxford University Press Alcamo J, Bennett EM, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program (2003) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC Alkon AH, Agyeman J (2011) Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Allen AS (2012) ‘Fatto Di Fiemme’: Stradivari’s violins and the musical trees of the Paneveggio. In: Auricchio L, Cook EH, Pacini G (eds) Invaluable trees: cultures of nature, 1660–1830. Voltaire Foundation, Oxford, pp 301–315 Allen AS, Dawe K (eds) (2016) Current directions in ecomusicology: music, culture, nature. Routledge, New York Callicott JB (1994) The wilderness idea revisited: a sustainable development alternative. In: Chapple CK (ed) Ecological prospects: scientific, religious, and aesthetic perspectives. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 37–63 Carlson A, Lintott S (2008) Nature, aesthetics, and environmentalism: from beauty to duty. Columbia University Press, New York Cubitt S (2017) Finite media: environmental implications of digital technologies. Duke University Press, Durham Devine K (2015) Decomposed: a political ecology of music. Pop Music 34(3):367–389 Edgell DL Sr (2016) Managing sustainable tourism: a legacy for the future. Routledge, New York Eldridge R (2005) Aesthetics and ethics. In: Levinson J (ed) The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 722–732 Fisher JA (2005) Environmental aesthetics. In: Levinson J (ed) The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford University Press, New York Garrard G (2004) Ecocriticism. Routledge, London Garrard G (ed) (2014) The Oxford handbook of ecocriticism. Oxford University Press, New York Hosey L (2012) The shape of green: aesthetics, ecology, and design. Island Press, Washington, DC

33 Krznaric R (2010) Empathy and climate change: proposal for a revolution of human relationships. In: Skrimshire S (ed) Future ethics: climate change and apocalyptic imagination. Continuum, London, pp 153–172 Leopold A (1989) A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York Philippon DJ (2012) Sustainability and the humanities: an extensive pleasure. Am Lit Hist 24(1):163–179 Romm JJ (2012) Language intelligence: lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga. CreateSpace, North Charleston Thomashow M (2014) The nine elements of a sustainable campus. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Tucker ME, Grim J (2007) Daring to dream: religion and the future of the earth. Reflections. 2007 Tufte ER (2001) The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd edn. Graphics Press, Cheshire University of North Carolina Greensboro (n.d.) UNCG sustainability. Accessed 28 June 2018. https://sustain ability.uncg.edu/ Viladesau R (2014) Aesthetics and religion. In: Brown FB (ed) The Oxford handbook of religion and the arts. Oxford University Press, New York Weintraub L (2012) To life!: eco art in pursuit of a sustainable planet. University of California Press, Berkeley

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development Leonardo Freire de Mello1 and Sara Aparecida de Paula2 1 Centre for Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences, Territorial Planning Department, Federal University of ABC, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Centre for Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences, Master’s Candidate on the Programme of International Political Economy, Federal University of ABC, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition The Anthropocene is the name given to the set of changes and transformations through which the planet Earth has passed during the last century or so and that have reached such a profound magnitude that several scientists and researchers affirm that the planet has entered a new geological era.

A

34

These transformations can be seen and experienced in processes as the fast and vast urbanization process all over the world, growth in social and economic inequality rates like never seen before, wider and deeper overexploitation and scarcity of natural resources (soil erosion, water pollution, use of oil and other fossil fuels as main energy source by an increasing number of people), ecosystems degradation, and a higher incidence of phenomena like hurricanes, storms, droughts, floods, and high risk natural disasters in general, as well as the extinction of animal and vegetal species in unforeseen speed and proportions. Its comprehension is fundamental to discuss and to plan strategies and global action to achieve sustainable development and to assure the survival of our species through the adaptation to new environmental conditions.

Introduction Nowadays, the transformations through which the planet Earth has passed have become increasingly visible, especially its consequences on the environment and on society as a whole. Examples of these transformations can be seen in processes such as: the fast and vast urbanization process all over the world, growth in social and economic inequality rates like never seen before (Buttel et al. 1985; Galtung 1979; Tucker 1982; Ophuls 1977), wider and deeper overexploitation and scarcity of natural resources (soil erosion, water pollution, use of oil and other fossil fuels as main energy source by an increasing number of people), ecosystems degradation, and a higher incidence of phenomena like hurricanes, storms, droughts, floods, and high risk natural disasters in general, as well as the extinction of animal and vegetal species in unforeseen speed and proportions. These changes have reached such a profound magnitude (Osborn 1953), that several scientists and researchers affirm that the planet has entered a new geological era, which is called the Anthropocene. Anthropo is a word of Greek origin which means man or human being while cene, also of Greek origin, means era or new, being mostly

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

common used for geological eras. Thus, in a general sense, anthropocene can be understood as the “Human Being Era,” meaning that humans have developed and reached such a potential to change the environment (both social as natural) that the species became the most important driving force of the planetary transformation processes but has not the full control over them. However, before getting into the main topic of this text, it is important to better understand the previous Era and why it has changed. Scientists called the last 12–10 millenia until now as the Holocene Era, a period of time mainly characterized, in human species’ perspective, by the transition from nomadism, when our ancestors were basically hunters and gatherers wandering around the planet to sedentary and organized societies influenced by the discovery and control of fire, which was essential to heating, cooking, and pottery processes, and tools manufacturing. In general, it already represents a huge transformation of the relationship between humans and nature, as long as humans were able to produce food through agriculture and domesticated animals. It was also a relatively stable period regarding global climate and environment changes, which helped humans to thrive developing both physically and intellectually. There is yet another basic and essential feature that should be perceived and understood besides all the transformations aforementioned. It emerges if one highlights the role of the overuse of fossil fuels and its resulting emission and increased concentration of greenhouse effect gases on Earth’s atmosphere, fact that did not happen in the Holocene at rates as high as the observed during the last 300 years. This aspect is very important to understand the global transition to the Anthropocene and will be better explained ahead.

What is Anthropocene in Theory? Paul J. Crutzen, Dutch chemist and 1995 Nobel-prize winner, suggested in 2002 that mankind and the planet would have entered into a new age, that he called as the Anthropocene.

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

According to him, about approximately 300 years ago, from the Industrial Revolution scenario at the end of the eighteenth century, human action gained geological and morphological transformation potency, confirmed by the increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane concentration, causing the planet to migrate from the Holocene era to the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002, 2006). In addition to the fast industrial advance as one of the main characteristics of this transition, it can also be mentioned aspects as the potential of transformation and access of the human being to nature, in addition that there are also the consequences related to the population increase resulting from the urbanization process and the greater use of energy resources, mainly through the overexploitation of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, which is profoundly related to the higher levels of dioxide and methane concentration in the atmosphere, a keypoint to understand the Anthropocene debate. Crutzen suggests that Planet Earth in the Anthropocene has left its natural geological cycle, mainly, by pervasive human activities. Considering these aspects of the transition from the Holocene to the Anthropocene, it is important to note that the preindustrial period is also marked by transformations in the relationship between society and nature, however, these impacts were transitory and restricted to a more local and reduced geographic scale. As stated by Steffen et al. (2007), preindustrial societies did not have an organizational structure in the economic, social, and technological spheres that allowed a real “domination” of nature and this is the main difference in relation to the dynamics of industrial and post-industrial societies. It is essential to pay attention that, according to the main theorists in this topic, the Anthropocene has three stages: the first one takes place from the Industrial Revolution (between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) until 1945, the second is from 1945 (the end of the World War II) to 1960, and, from 1960 until the present, Earth is going through the third stage. The first phase, which lasted until 1945, is marked by the process of industrialization with the implementation of new techniques and

35

technologies not only in industrial production processes but also in agriculture with the increasing mechanization and use of pesticides and fertilizers, which allowed not only a significant and unprecedented increase in the production of food and other goods but also influenced the modification and degradation of the environment with the emission of noxious gases and deforestation, for example. Since 1945, after World War II, the world is experiencing the so-called Great Acceleration of the Anthropocene. This context is marked, initially, by political and economic actions based on the reconstruction of the countries involved and devastated in the conflict. In this sense, beyond the recovery and modernization of the physical infrastructure, the period is also characterized by the implementation of high investments in key sectors related to social well-being of the population; more than this, it is paramount to highlight the role of policies to encourage mass consumption (and consequently the formation, expansion, reproduction, and consolidation of middle classes in central countries) as predominant and central to economic growth and social development (Keyfitz 1976; Kate 2000). This historical period is also described as the phase of the Great Acceleration for other reasons, such as, the global population practically doubled during this period (this factor, in conjunction with the industrialization of the Global South and reindustrialization of the Global North processes, caused a rural exodus boom as millions of people headed to urban areas all over the world), economic development rates increased with an ample flow of capitals and trade in general (this period was also known as the Golden Age of Capitalism with high growth rates linked to state policies such as the Marshall Plan), the increase of oil and other fossil fuels consumption (for industrial processes and transportation systems, which was accelerated through the incentives given to the automobile industry and the popularization of the use of the car), the acceleration of the urbanization as mentioned and the advent of new technologies as never seen before. After that, it is important to keep in mind that since the 1960s the planet started a transition to the third stage of the Anthropocene, also called

A

36

the “business-as-usual” stage. The main difference from the previous period concerns the role of the state in the economy, that is, until the 1960s, Keynesianism was predominant, especially in developed countries, in the sense that the state had a central role in controlling the economy. After this period, economic crises demonstrated the exhaustion of this model and the rise of a new mind-set based on neoliberalism, in which everything is defined and commanded through the actions and wills of the market, which regulates itself. In this sense, not only economics and politics would be and should be market driven but also the environment and its resources, which came to be treated as unlimited commodities, while the belief, or myth, that technology could solve any problem related to scarcity and environmental degradation spread and consolidated throughout the planet. Sky was literally the limit for Humankind (Schnaiberg and Watts 1980, 1986; McPhee 1989). As discussed and highlighted by Crutzen, it is not possible to place a specific date for the beginning of the Anthropocene. Thus, the author relates the Anthropocene to the Industrial Revolution, because it is at this moment in history that the impacts of human actions on nature and the different societies (such as the smogs in London in the early 1950s and the diverse and growing problems of air, water, and soil pollution in large cities in developed countries, for example). As a direct consequence of this hegemonic mind-set together with burning fossil fuels, the use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture, the intensive livestock breeding and deforestation, greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the atmosphere, altering rainfall patterns, causing increases in temperature and rising sea levels. These are some of the examples used to understand the potential of human activities. Another aspect highlighted about the Anthropocene is that in the previous Era, the Holocene, environment impacts used to happen locally, and in the current Era, it occurs in a Global scale, by this way, gas emissions in some countries may affect the climate patterns in others as well, or the ocean patterns which may increase the incidence of storms and earthquakes, causing

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

structural problems and people displacements, for example. Therefore, the overall consequences are considerably higher than in previous times, thus representing great challenges for the survival of Humankind and that is why understanding the concept is primordial. In an attempt to getting a richer discussion, the concept that started in a chemistry circle is turning or getting space either in the human and social sciences discussions about the world, the sustainability and the future. An example of this kind of approach was made by Amparo Vilches and Daniel Perez, who published in 2008 an article for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) which is associated to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (eight global Goals adopted and assumed in 2000 for the twenty-first century). In this text, the authors point out that it is important not only to pay attention to the consequences and risk situations but also to take it as an opportunity of changing the society mind-set and human being behavior in relation to nature and the environment (Vilches et al. 2008). For understanding this process, it is important to bear in mind that human actions in the Anthropocene contextualization are connected to the economic system and how we explore the natural resources for our daily lives and the products our society consumes. The main problem of this equation is that natural resources such as oil, water, and soil are actually limited and they have been used as unlimited resources. For Vilches and Perez, acting as if Earth is a limitless resource warehouse and waste disposal facility boosts this whole scenario to an emergency situation. If nothing is done, there is a serious risk of another mass extinction on the planet. When studying the Anthropocene and its main characteristics in relation to the impacts caused by the emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is important to point out that these results are deeply felt by society, either by the transformations caused by climatic disasters or the scarcity driven by environmental changes such as pollution and soil erosion, for example. Thus, it is necessary to construct the

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

Anthropocene approach as an interactive system between nature and society (and all its economic, political and cultural dynamics). Bruno Latour (2014) describes that there was a strong tendency to treat science and politics as divergent and strictly separate areas; however, for the author, the answer to the challenges would be deficient and would only loose with this type of relationship. In this way, Latour points out that one of the main challenges for the Anthropocene as a tool of analysis is to treat politics and science as joint areas, relating the factors with the concerns about how to face the problems. From this perspective of integration, Artaxo (2014) reports that, in a general sense, Earth is surpassing the planetary boundaries, which would be the safe operating limits for the survival of humanity. In order to corroborate this idea, the author brings to the discussion the analysis of the “Great Acceleration” charts, where it is clear that the patterns of production and consumption of the current natural resources are determinant for the transformation of the planet and the population. In 2010, Will Steffen published a work, which based the Anthropocene trajectory, according to the aforementioned charts of the “Great Acceleration.” These charts were originally published in 2004 and extended in the year 2010. They were built and synthesized under the project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), which initially comprised the period between 1999 and 2003. Considering the considerations made by Paul Crutzen, the graphs demonstrate the transformations that occurred on the planet, both in biophysical and socioeconomic aspects between 1750 and 2000, especially highlighting the deep acceleration that occurred in the second half of the twentieth century. The large-scale growth of the aforementioned elements can be easily related to socioeconomic trends charts. It can be seen that in the period between 1950 and 2000, the global population has practically doubled (something new in the history of mankind being given such a magnitude in such a short time); however, it is necessary to understand and analyze that most of this growth occurred in countries in the process of

37

development. In this sense, one of the most paradoxical issues in this area is that, despite this growth occurring in developing countries, real GDP growth is much higher in developed countries, thus demonstrating the structural economic and social inequalities between the different groups. In addition, the sector of investments, transport, paper, water, and fertilizer use occurs on a larger-scale also in developed countries; however, the consequences of environmental changes are always more felt in places of greater economic and social vulnerability (Bankoff et al. 2004; Cutter 1996; Cutter and Emrich 2006; Cutter et al. 2003; Cutter et al. 2006; Galtung 1986; Jones 1993; Adger 2000). The aforementioned discrepancies and contradictions are a central part of the analysis to understand the magnitude of the challenges in order to broaden the debate and its search for alternatives of mitigation and resolution of the problems, after all it is perceived that a generalist view that human action transforms the environment is limited as societies are diverse in structures and patterns. Therefore, it is noteworthy that it is substantial for the anthropocene to expand more and more into an integrative and systematic analysis.

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development As discussed before, since 1945 at the end of World War II, industrial production has increased a lot, as well as its local, regional and global impacts. For this reason, since the 1960s, global warming has been at the mainstream world debate about environment, and this is why the concept of Anthropocene is so important nowadays as a way to conceptualize the global environmental changes, as well as their human dimensions. Some researchers are attesting the need to understand the world as a system, in which society and environment are deeply related. It means that human actions and activities certainly may affect environment and their impacts will come in return to society as well. Authors as Crutzen affirm that the actions that characterize the Anthropocene will occur for thousands or millions of years yet.

A

38

This is an unknown situation, still though, this theory brings up to the debate a strategy to understand what is occurring, how to manage with, and, most importantly, how to adapt ourselves and our societies to it (Crenson 1971). Rachel Carson launched her book “Silent Spring” in 1962, questioning whether we should actually use so many chemicals in pest control in agricultural production, and more than that, pointing to the fact that nature is fragile and that its equilibrium can be easily ruptured by human intervention (Ames et al. 1987). A series of researches began to bring attention to the risk that the human species was exposing itself by demanding more of the planet than it was capable of (Giddens 2009; Beck 1992). However, other voices rose to say that whatever was said about the risk of environmental collapse, the technology would be able to solve. The 1970s represented a moment of growing concern for society regarding environmental issues. A series of major environmental disasters and the progressive deterioration of the quality of urban life have made the attention of people in general, the academic community and governments turned to the environmental dimension of development. In 1972, in Stockholm, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment took place. It was the first time that representatives of industrialized and developing countries met to discuss, exclusively and systematically, the issue of the global environment and the development of the planet. This conference has achieved significant results, such as the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the further development of a series of United Nations conferences focused on issues such as food, housing, population, human rights and the living conditions of women, and the promotion of the idea that it was necessary to change the way humans relate to the environment (United Nations Environment Programme 1981a, 1981b, 1986, 1987). A preparatory meeting for this conference that deserves attention, according to Sachs (1993), was what the author defines as “a memorable” Founex Meeting, Switzerland, in 1971.

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

In the same year, MIT published the report “Limits to Growth,” (Meadows et al. 1972) produced by the so-called Club of Rome. The report explicitly pointed out the limits of economic growth because of its dependence on the nonrenewability of most natural resources and proposing – polemically – “no economic growth” or “zero economic growth.” Produced in a period marked by the fashion of using computer models of complex phenomena, the report was severely criticized for a number of reasons. First, its conclusion condemned the Third World (which in 1972 was still a social, economic, and political reality) to eternal poverty. Without growth, there was no possibility of development. Secondly, the report completely ignored the demographic transition, incorporating linear extrapolations of vital rates at the time. The transition already foreseen by demographers (who just could not pinpoint their timing) had already begun, albeit timidly and imperceptibly (Ackerman 1959; Brown and Hutchings 1972; Brown 1981; Brown et al. 1999; Boserup 1965, 1981). However, the advances of demographic science, as early as the early 1970s, did not absolutely authorize this simplification. Third, other simplifications have been incorporated to compensate for the lack of data concerning the parameters of the model, especially regarding natural resources (Malthus 1998). In 1974, in Cocoyoc, Mexico, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which produced a document, the Cocoyoc Declaration, was considered by many authors as fundamental for the construction of a new perception of the relationship between society and nature, incorporating into the discussion the idea that there were environmental and social limits for development that should be respected. Another event was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1982, this time focused on assessing what it had advanced in relation to the discussions in Stockholm. This meeting resulted in the formation of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which, however, was only concretely implemented in 1983. In 1987, this Commission published the “Our Common Future” report – also known as

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

the “Brundtland Report” because the committee chair was then Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland – which a world conference to drive efforts to establish another form of relationship with the environment. For the first time, the concept of “sustainable development” was used which, according to the commission, was defined as “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” However, this concept was not new, especially for the academic community. Since the early 1970s, a number of researchers, including Ignacy Sachs (1970, 1972, 1980, 1981, 1993), have been discussing the need for and urgency of change, particularly in relation to the production and consumption patterns of industrialized countries, in order to find ways of building in practice what some called ecodevelopment. In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, there was perhaps the most famous meeting of world leaders until then, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, Rio Conference, Eco’92 or simply Rio-92. This conference was attended by 178 world leaders and produced a series of documents that synthesized the yearnings and concerns of the peoples of the planet regarding the environmental issue. Among these documents, it is important to highlight Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, the Declaration of Principles on Forests, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The same conference resulted in the creation in 1993 of the United Nations system of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), which aimed to monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. In 1997, Rio+5 or the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was hosted by the SDC in Cairo, Egypt, and its main objective was to review the implementation of the Global Agenda 21 so far. This conference identified a number of gaps related to the difficulties faced in pursuing social equity and reducing poverty on the planet. These difficulties were considered, according to the experts and scholars who attended the meeting, as a direct result of the reduction of international financial aid, the

39

increase in external debts and the failure to improve Agenda 21 measures such as technology transfer, capacity building for participation and development, institutional coordination, and reduction of excessive levels of production and consumption. At this moment, the increasing need for ratification and more efficient implementation of international conventions and agreements relating to the environment and development has been strengthened. In 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+10, took place. The first analyzes, still produced in the heat of the events, indicated that perhaps this was the less effective and more empty of the big global meetings to discuss environment and development. In 2012, Rio+20, also known as UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It is noteworthy that Rio+20 is quite significant because it represents not only the extent of Rio 92 discussions but also a debate center on what has really been effective and what needs to be improved. In this sense, for Sánchez and Croal (2012) it is important to highlight two of the main positive results of the 1992–2012 period: consolidation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) through a legal framework and legislation based on them in most countries, not only in the political-state environment but also in the international arena in organizations and institutions such as the World Bank and OECD and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) with development planning initiatives. Sánchez and Croal point out that Rio+20 for some experts was not as promising as expected due to disagreements over the green economy, for example, which was a central element of the conference, and because it did not give so much emphasis to elements such as EIA and SEA. In spite of these considerations, it is important to note that, as posed by David Evans (2018), the concept of “sustainable consumption” was retaken at Rio+20, which had its first debates in Rio’92, as a means to broaden the discussion about the challenges of impacts on the environment driven by the capitalist economic model. From this perspective, the author emphasizes

A

40

that it is not necessary to change only production and consumption but all the economic, political, cultural, and social processes that permeate this dynamic in search of a sustainable systematization. To increase the importance of the sustainability debate, in the 2000s, within the UN, member states defined eight Millennium Goals as an attempt to discuss, mitigate, and adapt to contemporary challenges. These objectives were mainly based on the attempt to eradicate poverty, improve health conditions, promote equality, and ensure sustainability in relation to the environment. It is noted that the configuration of such objectives function as an integrated system in which each element depends on the other to guarantee its success (United Nations 2015). Already in the year 2015, in a published report, the UN notes that many advances have been made, however, other problems continue or have even been aggravated as the issue of social and economic inequality, and the environmental issues that have become increasingly prominent in recent years. For these reasons, in 2015, the UN launched 17 goals known as “Sustainable Development Goals,” highlighting previously agreed goals and expanding their scope, placing the role of sustainability as central to ensuring change, such as the importance of responsible consumption, as well as food and energy security for social sustainability and ensuring action against global environmental and climate change. It should be stressed that, in this sense, sustainability does not only appear in relation to the environment but also in consideration of economics and policy to allow the promotion of development and growth in a sustainable way. These elements highlight again the relationship between society and nature as the mode of production and development affects the environment and vice versa (Almeida 1972; Bates 1969; Campbell and Wade 1972). Analyzing the centrality of the problem mentioned here is essential for trying to make new strategies for facing it. Thus, the role of sustainability and the quest for sustainable development are very important for the survival of our species through the Anthropocene (Tolba 1982; Giddens 2009), as such measures adopted in the political,

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

social, and productive process as a whole would be essential for promoting the mitigation of problems and, especially, the preparation to adapt to changes already under way and also to those that will still come.

Conclusions The discussion connecting topics such as the Anthropocene and Sustainable Development has brought to light debates as this one are essential to the understanding of issues so present in the everyday life of contemporary societies. This is mainly due to the fact the twenty-first century faces challenges when it comes to maintenance and survival of the planet, as today’s world is presented with threats as severe as climatic disasters and environmental changes, which are, as a whole, indubitable. As put by the authors studied, these transformations have occurred on a large and deep scale in a relatively short period of time, dating back roughly to the period after the Industrial Revolution, that is, just over 150 years. It is noted that the risks have deepened, mainly by the influences of human action on the environment. However, it is important to point out that this influence is part of a very broad process, involving different spheres and areas, that is, the political action linked to the mode of production and consumption as an economic model based on the supposition that the resources would be unlimited; in addition, there is the preconception of social patterns and habits linked to the idea of consumption as happiness and satisfaction. It is in this sense that not only the analysis of what is happening must take place in an integrated way, but also the search for solutions. Given the available information, this article concludes by highlighting the importance of the relationship between the natural sciences and the human and social sciences, so the Anthropocene should not be treated only as a chemical concept on greenhouse gas emissions and their consequences in the global environmental changes but still as a systemic crisis, in which the observation of society as a whole is fundamental to broaden its understanding. This observation can be corroborated with the graphs

Anthropocene and Sustainable Development

on “The Great Acceleration” adapted by Steffen in 2010, relating the social and planetary trends according to the different regions and countries (with their particularities). Another consideration is the construction of the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development. The authors who discuss the Anthropocene make it clear that the fact that the planet is reaching its limits represents a situation so complex that it is no longer possible to reverse the whole problem and therefore the search for alternatives based on adaptation is extremely essential (Janssen and Ostrom 2006; Giddens 2009). And it is in this sense that sustainability is central to determining Humankind’s ability to adapt to changes to survive the Anthropocene. It is noted that the term ascended from the 1970s and went through different phases of discussion, sometimes being expanded and in others “erased” with the idea that technology could solve any planetary limitation. Finally, the subject discussed in this entry is of great relevance for the contemporary debate. Besides, it makes an attempt to link sustainable development to the concept of anthropocene.

Cross-References ▶ Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development ▶ Reflective Actions for Sustainable Development ▶ Strategic Thinking and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Challenges ▶ Sustainability Mindset ▶ Sustainable Development Goals

References Ackerman EA (1959) Population and natural resources. In: Hauser PM, Duncan OD (eds) The study of population. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347. London Almeida MO (1972) Economic development and the preservation of environment. In: Development and environment. Mouton, Paris

41 Ames BN, Magaw R, Gold LS (1987) Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards. Science 236:271. New York Artaxo P (2014) Uma nova era geológica em nosso planeta: o Antropoceno? (103):13–24. Universidade de São Paulo Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas – SIBiUSP. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i103p13-24 Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (2004) (Org) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development & people. Earthscan, Londres Bates M (1969) The human ecosystem. In: National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Resources and Man. Resources and man. Freeman, San Francisco Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Londres Boserup E (1965) The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian change under population pressure. G. Allen and Unwin, London Boserup E (1981) Population and technological change: a study of long-term trends. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Brown LR (1981) Building a sustainable society. W. W. Norton, New York Brown H, Hutchings E (1972) Are our descendants doomed: technological change and population growth. Viking Press, New York Brown L, Gardner G, Halweil B (1999) Beyond Malthus: nineteen dimensions of the population challenge. W. W. Norton, New York Buttel FH, Kenney M, Kloppenburg J Jr (1985) From green revolution to biorevolution: some observations on the changing technological bases of economic transformation in the third world. Econ Dev Cult Chang 34:31. Chicago Campbell RR, Wade JL (1972) Society and environmental: the coming collision. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Miflin, New York Crenson MA (1971) The un-politics of air pollution: a study of non-decisionmaking in the cities. Stanford University Press, Stanford Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415(6867):23 Crutzen PJ (2006) The “Anthropocene”. In: Ehlers E, Krafft T (eds) Earth system science in the Anthropocene. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20:529. London Cutter SL, Emrich CT (2006) Moral Hazard, Social Catastrophe: The Changing Face of Vulnerability along the Hurricane Coasts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604:102–112 Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242. Austin Cutter SL et al (2006) The long road home: race, class, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Environment 48:8. Washington, DC Evans DM (2018) What is consumption, where has it been going, and does it still matter? Sociol Rev 1–19. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0038026118764028

A

42 Galtung J (1979) Development, environment and technology: towards a technology for self-reliance. United Nations, New York Galtung J (1986) The green movement: a socio-historical exploration. Int Sociol 1:75. London Giddens A (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity, Cambridge Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 16:237–239 Jones D (1993) Environmental hazards in the 1990s: problems, paradigms and prospects. Geography 78 (2):161–165 Kate RW (2000) Population and consumption: what we know, what we need to know. Environment 42:10. Washington, DC Keyfitz N (1976) World resources and the world middle class. Sci Am 235:28 Latour B (2014) Telling friends from foes in the time of the Anthropocene. In: Hamilton C, Christophe B, François G (eds) The Anthropocene and the global environment crisis – rethinking modernity in a new epoch. Routledge, London Malthus TR (1998) An essay on the principle of population. Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project, London McPhee J (1989) The control of nature. Farrar, Straus & 825 Giroux, New York Meadows DL et al (1972) The limits to growth. The Club of Rome report. Universe Books, New York Ophuls W (1977) Ecology and the politics of scarcity. Freeman, San Francisco Osborn F (1953) The limits of the earth. Little Brown, Boston Sachs I (1970) Development planning and environment: the case of the countries of the third world. Soc Sci Inf 9:17 Sachs I (1972) Environmental quality management and development planning: some suggestions for action. In: Development and environment, 1972. (Report and working papers of a panel of experts convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Founex, Switzerland) Sachs I (1980) Stratégies de i’ecodéveloppement. Les Èditions Ouvrières, Paris Sachs I (1981) Initiation à L’écodéveloppement. Privat, Toulouse Sachs I (1993) Estratégias de Transição para o Século XXI: desenvolvimento e meio ambiente. Studio Nobel/ Fundação do Desenvolvimento Administrativo, São Paulo Sánchez L, Croal P (2012) Environmental impact assessment, from Rio-92 to Rio+20 and beyond. Ambiente Soc 15:41. São Paulo Schnaiberg A, Watts N (1980) The environment: from surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press, New York Schnaiberg A, Watts N (1986) Distributional conflicts in environmental resources policy. St. Martin’s Press, New York Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the

Applied Theatre great forces of nature? R Swed Acad Sci 36(8): 614–621 Tolba MK (1982) Development without destruction: evolving environmental perceptions. Tycooly International Publishing, Dublin Tucker W (1982) The environmental era. Public Opin 5:41 United Nations Environment Programme (1981a) An environmental bibliography. UNEP, Nairobi United Nations Environment Programme (1981b) In defence of the earth: the basic texts on environment, Founex, Stockholm, Cocoyoc. UNEP, Nairobi United Nations Environment Programme (1986) 1986: The state of the environment (Environment and health). UNEP, Nairobi United Nations Environment Programme (1987) Our common future, Chapter 2: towards sustainable development. United Nations: Oxford University Press Vilches A, Praia J, Gil-Pérez D (2008) O Antropoceno: Entre o risco e a oportunidade. Educação Temas Probl 5:41–66 United Nations (2015) Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed 16 October 2018

Applied Theatre ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Appropriation of Funding for Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Budgeting Education

for

Sustainability

in

Higher

Areas of Sustainability ▶ Sustainability Domains in Higher Education

Art for Well-Being ▶ Art-Based Development

Teaching

on

Sustainable

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

Art Pedagogy for Health ▶ Art-Based Development

Teaching

on

Sustainable

on

Sustainable

43

practices which are deployed intentionally for educational outcomes relevant to sustainability and sustainability development. Such teaching philosophies and practices are typically deployed because of the form of knowledge and knowing they promote, which can be described as experiential, integrative, holistic, complex, anticipatory, and passionate.

Art Pedagogy for Sustainability ▶ Art-Based Development

Introduction Teaching

Art Therapy ▶ Art-Based Development

Teaching

on

Sustainable

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development Tony Wall1,2, Eva Österlind3 and Julia Fries3 1 International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK 2 Centre for Work Related Studies, University of Chester, Chester, UK 3 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Synonyms Art for well-being; Art pedagogy for health; Art pedagogy for sustainability; Art therapy; Artsbased teaching; Environmental aesthetics; Environmental art

Definition Art-based teaching for sustainable development encompass a range of philosophical stances and

The connections between art, art-making, education, and responsibility in relation to the wider natural and social world have been given increasing attention over the last 30 years. For example, there have been a variety of journal special issues dedicated to art, education, and ecology (Krug 1997), social justice and social change (Bolin 1999), community and responsibility (Carpenter 2004), ecology and responsibility (Stout 2007), health and well-being (Haywood-Rolling 2017), and human rights (Kraehe 2017). Such a rise has been linked to trends in the human search for meaning and significance among (and resistance against) globalization, domination of market forces, and an increasingly complex and chaotic environment (Taylor and Ladkin 2009). The connections between art, education, and sustainable development have also been recognized in various UNESCO initiatives such as the Road Map for Arts Education (UNESCO 2006) and The Seoul Agenda: Goals for the Development of Arts Education (UNESCO 2010). The Road Map, for example, asserted the role of arts education in (1) upholding the rights of individuals to participate in education and culture; (2) developing a wide range of capabilities including “creativity and initiative, a fertile imagination, emotional intelligence and a moral “compass,” a capacity for critical reflection, a sense of autonomy, and freedom of thought and action” (UNESCO 2006: 4); (3) enhancing systems of education; and (4) promoting cultural diversity. Similarly, the Seoul Agenda echoed these sentiments but was perhaps more explicitly linked to sustainable development, articulating a commitment to “apply arts education principles and practices to

A

44

contribute to resolving the social and cultural challenges facing today’s world” (UNESCO 2010 p. 8). UNESCO’s International Arts Education Week has since explicitly promoted the connectedness of art, education, and sustainable development through the themes of “Arts for Peace” and “Arts Education for Sustainable Development.” The role of art and artbased teaching methods in sustainable development is therefore increasingly recognized as significant and especially so in the influential spaces of higher education. Within this wider landscape of context, this chapter therefore explores and exemplifies the role of art-based teaching in the context of sustainable development in higher education and maps out some suggested future developments. It does this by articulating the nature of art-based knowledge, knowing and outcomes in the context of higher education, and then exploring the ways in which these aspects manifest and are implemented in higher education practice across the globe.

Art-Based Knowledge, Knowing, and Outcomes Art-based teaching does not draw solely on the epistemology of logic and rationality, the conceptualization of knowledge, and knowing which has dominated many forms of learning, teaching, and research in the twentieth century (Taylor and Ladkin 2009). Instead, art-based teaching draws from an epistemology where knowledge and knowing are derived from the senses or sensual knowing. This is the realm of aesthetics and aesthetic inquiry, a realm of inquiry attuned to the reconciliation of the sensual and rational dimensions of human experience (Schiller 1910) or the integration of thinking, feeling, and doing (Dewey 1934). Within this realm, art “provides a grasp of new affinities and contrasts, cuts across worn categories to yield new organization, new visions of the worlds we live in” (Goodman 1976: p. 5). Or, as Shrivastava et al. (2012, p 28) explain “art yields an opportunity for every individual human being to learn more about their intense emotional life. . . to create a harmonious and balanced life for people”. As such, it is intimately inclusive.

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

Understood in this way, and within the context of higher education, art – as a particular form of knowledge and knowing – is a highly relevant and generative space for complex, higher-order learning often characterizing sustainable development. Indeed, art has been understood as a counterresponse to an overreliance on cognitive understanding, toward a more “holistic, physical and emotional engagement with sustainability issues” (Shrivastava 2010, p 443). As such, art-based teaching can be seen as a pathway to facilitate a reorientation from external spaces to internal spaces of the human mind and emotions (ibid). Specifically, such a reorientation has been described to evoke a more passionate (rather than dispassionate) relationship with nature, thereby framing any sustainable development (or broader) action-taking. In this way, “art offers an antidote to the mental and emotional pollution of commercialism, which eventually lead to the toxification of air, land, water, and the excessive consumption of carbon” (Shrivastava 2012: 32–33). From this perspective, it is argued that art can evoke the “intense emotional and practical experiences” which are at the heart of “passion and emotion (and not cognitive understanding alone) that lies at the core of behavioural changes” (Shrivastava et al. 2012: 27). Drawing from such a perspective, art-based teaching engages a wide range of the factors linked to deeper forms of learning relevant to sustainable development. These include, for example, developing conceptual and metaphoric perspectives, visualizing connections within broader conceptual frameworks, and actively reflecting in contexts of experiential learning (Warburton 2003). Similarly, art and art-making are recognized as having a particularly efficacious role in promoting affective learning outcomes, such as (1) generating personal awareness in relation to sustainable development, (2) promoting sets of values aligned to responsibility and sustainable development, and (3) initiating and mobilizing action in relation to sustainable development (Reid et al. 2006; Shephard 2008; Sauerwein et al. 2017). In this way, approaches to art-based teaching aspire to evoke more holistic and integrated understandings

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

(such as people-planet-prosperity) which lead to action-taking. The next section identifies ways in which such underpinnings manifest in practice.

Art-Making Approaches and Processes Art, outside of the context of sustainable development and higher education, has been integrated into educational settings in a diversity of ways, described by Bresler (1995) as four models: coequal (where art is part of the learning focus, e.g., learning how to draw landscapes as well as learning how to plot maps), subservient (where art is positioned as enabling the learning of other topics, e.g., learning drawing in order to plot maps), affective (where art enables learning and self-efficacy, e.g., learning how to draw to build confidence in learning how to plot maps), and social integration (where art facilitates the cultural celebration of communities, e.g., holding a community event where the community learn how to draw to map out the design of a new play area). There are subtle differences here, but they illustrate the intentions of the art activity. However, such subtleties are also evident in the context of art-based teaching for sustainable development in higher education, and each of these can be found in practice. To help exemplify such practices in higher education, Taylor and Ladkin’s (2009) more contemporary model provides a pragmatic framework to plot the variety of art-based processes which can be adopted in the context of higher education: skills transfer, projective technique, illustration of essence, and making. Each of these is now discussed. Skills Transfer Art-based teaching can facilitate the development of artistic skills which are useful in education for sustainability settings, as the competences developed through art-based teaching reflect futureoriented higher education competencies, including dealing with complexity and ambiguity, systemic thinking, holistic thinking, anticipatory thinking, and for engaging communication and participation (Sandri 2013). Examples of art-based teaching for skills transfer can include (1) the use of art

45

exhibitions coupled with art appreciation to develop the emotional and spiritual skills important for the holistic and interrelated capabilities relevant to sustainable development and (2) the use of art training with medical students to develop their visualization and observational capacities to enhance diagnosis and physical examination processes (Shrivastava 2010). Similarly, van Boeckel (2017) explores “lines on the hand” practices, involving the imaginative task of connecting the wrinkles on one’s hands to personal histories of time, place, and people, to support a greater sense of connectedness, thereby enhancing sense of wellbeing. Such practices have been found to be efficacious in generating new skills, in addition to broader self-awareness and connectedness to land and its coinhabitants. Projective Technique Approaches to art-based teaching which generate artful artefacts encourage and facilitate the accessing and sense-making of inner experience, thoughts, feelings, and actions. Examples of artbased teaching include (1) the use of painting to represent strategic thinking and new concepts in the context of integrated science, technology, and arts programs, (2) the use of painting in order to improve the health and well-being of patients in health and social care settings (Shrivastava et al. 2012), and (3) the use of clay sculptures to explore and represent “little me,” or internal representations of self in relation to wider landscapes, as a platform for insight and possibilities of other expressions (van Boeckel 2017). Although such practices may be familiar in some arts-based pedagogical practices, they are still uncommon across other disciplines and may well be interpreted and unorthodox in some disciplines. The use of photography has also been used in education for sustainable development in higher education, as it offers an alternative way to access thoughts and feelings that might not be accessible through spoken or written word (Scott 2014). Lin and Li (2017), for example, used photography to help higher education students explicate their conceptions of oceanic sustainability. They identified (1) a continued preoccupation with environmental rather than integrated social, economic and

A

46

environmental dimensions, (2) ambiguity around who should take responsibility for life-wide issues, and (3) that pedagogical approaches which integrated arts, science, and community, were linked to “a more balanced, actionmotivated conception of sustainability” (Lin and Li 2017: 554). Such findings also highlighted the role of art-making practices, such as photography, in “revealing” the aspects of thoughts and feelings which are not necessarily socially desirable, such as own understandings about one’s own positioning or personal responsibility in the world. Illustration of Essence Art-based teaching can promote the drilling to the “core” of “a concept, situation, or tacit knowledge in a particular way, revealing depths and connections that more propositional and linear developmental orientations cannot” (Taylor and Ladkin 2009: 56). Examples include (1) the use of “paintings, drawings and metaphors that bring life to [participants’] vision of sustainability” (Ivanaj et al. 2014: 23) in personal and professional lives, and (2) the use of meaningful metaphors and images to capture the essence of new ways of working which promote health and wellness and how to achieve it (Wall et al. 2017). Such processes help develop new frames (Wall 2016a, b) to help clarify the personal and group vision for their sustainability action and facilitate the sharing of the vision with others, to then, in turn, refine and develop action within a wider community (Wall et al. 2017). Similarly, the use of striking imagery, such as the conditions of battery chickens, has been used to intentionally generate affective responses in higher education learning settings (Wall et al. 2018, forthcoming). Disciplinary differences in pedagogical traditions may mean that some of these practices (such as museum visits) are not necessarily adopted widely beyond fields allied to the arts. However, other practices which illustrate an essence of some kind are likely to be much more widely adopted across the fields in higher education practice but may well appear as part of examples, anecdotes, stories, short case studies, dilemmas, or experiments, which are used as pedagogical devices. Such devices embody aesthetic qualities which

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

amplify and highlight certain aspects and dimensions more than others and therefore embody particular perspectives or angles, have boundaries, evoke and provoke affective responses, and are intentionally packaged in ways to make a pedagogical point or series of them. Making The process of creating art and artful artefacts can “foster a deeper experience of personal presence and connection, which can serve as a healing process. . . [for those] who may so often experience their lives as fragmented and disconnected” (Taylor and Ladkin 2009: 66). Indeed, there has been increasing interest in the therapeutic applications of expressive arts (and art therapy in particular) to foster human healing and growth (Shrivastava et al. 2012). These practices can include pedagogic activities, such as “wildpainting” (van Boeckel 2017), located within natural environments coupled with contemplative practices such as meditation to amplify sensory connection beyond the self (Flowers et al. 2014). In articulating how to design such artbased teaching practices, van Boeckel (2017) suggests that the key features of art-based environmental education practices and activities include: • Bring greater awareness to personal observations – so when students engage in artful activity, such as illustrating land, they are able to notice fine details, for example, the specifics of how grass and rock interrelate in nature. • Generate greater sensitivity to live processes happening in nature (e.g., growth and decay) – so when students engage in artful activity, such as illustrating ladybirds on strands of grass, they are able to notice the finer details of how, for example, the ladybird rests, slides down, and inhabits a blade of grass. • Develop alternative ways of viewing the environment – finding new ideas and perspectives from becoming more aware of the minutiae in the environment and the associated patterns of interconnectedness in nature. • Test the scale of the environment and the limits of humans – where one becomes aware of

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

one’s positions in relation to wider environments, such as a mountain or an ocean, and notices the impacts of that on the nuanced details around them, e.g., how the water touches and forcibly moves the sand, soil, and the blade of grass on which a lady bird sits. In order to work toward these features, the structure of art-based teaching practices for sustainable development has been described as a “dramatic” process based around insight, and the integration of that insight, into the pedagogical activity and wider learning program. van Boeckel (2017) describes this process as relating to three main stages: • Before: exposition – this stage is about setting of the scene, the context, and the characters, as understood in the learner’s ordinary world. For example, this might include framing the pedagogical activities in relation to the higher education program on which the students are engaged: in relation to a “business planning” course, a visit to the museum might be explained in terms of building appreciation of historical events and emotion. Then the task might be that students adopt a role of a character in one of the pieces of art which embody a conflict. • During: rising action/climax/falling action – this is the process of new awareness, conflicts, tension, and discomfort, as the learner (and facilitator) travels through the art-making process. In relation to imagining oneself as a character in a painting, the activity might involve appreciating and empathizing with the character in the piece (rising action), and noticing what happens when they become part of a conflict in the piece (climax), followed by a reflective period of noting and making sense of what was noticed (falling action). • After: resolution – this is the final stage where the learner has completed the art-making process and presents (in some way) the outcomes of their art-making, integrating some elements of closure. In the activity above, the final activity might be sharing one’s thoughts as another layer of sensemaking and then consolidating

47

some insights in relation to what one might need to do, which may of course include spending more time in the museum as a source of provocation and insight.

Participative Art-Based Teaching Approaches and Processes Within the context of higher education, art and artmaking processes have been utilized with multistakeholder groupings for the dual political goals of education and change, across a diverse range of sustainable development goals such as promoting health and well-being, gender equality, and environmental impact (Kagan 2011). Such participatory approaches have developed a variety of features and outcomes including (1) prompting and facilitating the exchange of ideas, (2) prompting and facilitating dialogue amongst multiple stakeholders, (3) building awareness and understanding of information and issues, (4) generating dissonance and concern, and (5) building a sense of place (Marks et al. 2016; Rossetti and Wall 2017). Toward these aspirations and outcomes, participatory art-based teaching in higher education often promotes the capture of, and dialogue around, multiple and diverse personal and disciplinary perspectives through visual imagery (Haley et al. 2017). Although there are potentially various ethical issues involved, such as using one (vulnerable) person’s effort for some other (powerful) person’s benefit, there are many practices which can enable positive outcomes for those considered to be vulnerable, or for all involved. For example, in relation to critical photographic practices, a number of approaches have been developed (Purcell 2009) such as: • Photo-elicitation – to capture and then explore particular behaviors in community settings, in relation to identities, ethnicities, or in terms of memory and regaining sense of time and place. For example, the utilization of photographs with older persons or people experiencing dementia, to relocate a more familiar time and place.

A

48

• Photo-novella – to “empower” members of the community to capture their own stories which enables them to explore the meaning and significance of their own stories. For example, enabling a deprived community to capture what it means and feels like to live in a particular place or space. • Photo-voice – where people (who may be considered vulnerable in some way) are given the equipment to record and reflect the day to day experiences, challenges, and tensions to a wider audience. For example, one practice is to give those who are experiencing poverty in some form a camera to capture their experiences from their own lived perspective. This might then be used in a wider setting where community stakeholders such as business owners and government officials respond to what is presented (e.g., The Poverty Commission in Scotland and England). Participatory art-based practices can also be integrated into much larger-scale activities, linked to multiple political outcomes. For example, The Womanifesto Residency Programme in Thailand aimed to connect tradition and natural resources, utilizing art and artists to stimulate dialogue and debate. The program involved a range of art workshops and public art collaborations involving schools, colleges, universities, and a range of communities including farmers and artisans (ASEF 2012). Although the program developed art-making processes, it also tackled gender inequalities by positioning women as creators and collaborators (ibid). Similarly, the “Art Activism”-based initiative in Singapore brings together artists, activists, scholars, and students as a platform for art collaborations at the grassroots level in relation to sustainability. The format included exhibitions, public dialogue, and publications and involved professionals from various sectors including the arts, media, university, social entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and philanthropists (ibid). More recently, art-based practices have also been combined with appreciative inquiry processes which aim to establish and maintain a positive psychological state of participants, to

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

facilitate generative change and transition. Through such processes, diverse groups come together and utilize rich visual metaphor and imagery to (1) appreciate current achievements, (2) envision a sustainable and desirable future state, and (3) agree actions to achieve that future state (Wall et al. 2017). For example, participants use visual metaphors and imagery to explore the following questions: • “Discovery”: When did we work well together? • “Dreaming”: What would be the ideal of us working well together look like? • “Designing”: What do we need to prioritize to make this happen? Wall et al. (2017) found that in exploring these questions, participants envisioned a new organizational culture which prioritized collective wellbeing and connection to nature. This was captured through imagery including smiling faces, plants, clouds, sky, sunshine, trees, wind surfing, fish, ducks, sea life, friends/family/community, and house/home. An example of a participant’s drawing in the “dreaming” stage is depicted in Fig. 1 below. It importantly illustrates the sense of “dreamlike” freedom that such a collaborative task enabled and the embodiment of aesthetic fuzziness, color, and metaphoric meaning-making that is important to the form of aesthetic knowing central to art-based teaching.

Conclusion and Future Directions Though the relationship between art, responsibility, and education has developed over the last 30 years, there are still controversial undertones. For example, there are perspectives which want to keep the inherent value of art as sacred (i.e., art for art’s sake) and do not approve of the “subservient” role of art for other functionalities (e.g., “art for earth’s sake,” Reid et al. 2006; Smilan 2016). Similarly, there are ongoing tensions in educational contexts when art and artefacts are subject to any form of assessment (Haanstra and Schönau 2007). Yet it seems, according to the evidence

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

49

A

Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 An example of participant drawing in the “dreaming” phase. (Source: Wall et al. 2017: 138)

outlined in this chapter, that such controversies are not necessarily stopping the pace at which art-based teaching is being utilizing in the context of sustainable development (Gunn 2016). Future directions of art-based teaching practice and research will continue to emerge which will explicitly combine and integrate embodied understandings of sustainable development, especially in the context of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics higher education (STEM). There has been a move to integrate art into this STEM agenda, and the new acronym has expanded to include the A of Art, to create the STEAM agenda. These emerging trends will continue to amplify and expand the STEAM agenda in higher education and will thereby create new and innovative pedagogical forms with sustainable development, change, and transformation as driving principles (Payton et al. 2017).

Cross-References ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Storytelling for Sustainable Development

References ASEF (2012) Linking the arts to environment and sustainable development. Asia-Europe Foundation, Singapore Bolin PE (1999) Teaching art as if the world mattered. Art Educ 52(4):4–5 Bresler L (1995) The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Educ Policy Rev 96(3):31–37 Carpenter BS (2004) An editorial: community, collaboration, culture. Art Educ 57(5):4–5 Dewey J (1934) Art as experience. Perigee Books, New York Flowers M, Lipsett L, Barrett MJ (2014) Animism, creativity, and a tree: shifting into nature connection through attention to subtle energies and contemplative art practice. Can J Environ Educ 19:111 Goodman N (1976) Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols, Indianapolis, Hackett Pub. Co. Gunn V (2016) Prophetic nomadism: an art school sustainability-oriented educational aim? Int J Art Des Educ 35(3):316–326 Haanstra F, Schönau DW (2007) Evaluation research in visual arts education. Springer, Dordrecht Haley D, Vargas VR, Ferrulli P (2017) Weaving the filigree: paradoxes, opposites and diversity for participatory, emergent arts and design curricula on sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Castro P, Newman J (eds) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Dordrecht Haywood-Rolling J (2017) Art as therapy. Art Educ 70(5):4–5

50 Ivanaj V, Poldner K, Shrivastava P (2014) Hand/heart/ head: aesthetic practice pedagogy for deep sustainability learning. J Corp Citiz 54:23–46 Kagan S (2011) Art and sustainability: connecting patterns for a culture of complexity. Verlag, Bielefeld Kraehe AM (2017) “For all without distinction”: creative activity as a human right. Art Educ 70(4):4–7 Krug DH (1997) Art & Ecology: an editorial. Art Educ 50(6):4–5 Lin C, Li Y (2017) An auto-photographic study of undergraduate students’ conceptions of ocean sustainability. Int J Sust High Educ 18(4):554–575 Marks M, Chandler L, Baldwin C (2016) Environmental art as an innovative medium for environmental education in biosphere reserves. Environ Educ Res 23(9):1307–1321 Payton FC, White A, Mullins T (2017) STEM majors, art thinkers (STEM + arts) – issues of duality, rigor and inclusion. J STEM Educ 18(3):3947 Purcell R (2009) Images for change: community development, community arts and photography. Community Dev J 44(1):111–122 Reid J, Carpenter D, Meehan B (2006) Art for earth’s sake: creative and interdisciplinary collaborations for sustainability in the tertiary sector. In: Filho Leal W, Carpenter D (eds) Sustainability in the Australasian university. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp 81–90 Rossetti L, Wall L (2017) The impact of story: measuring the impact of story for organisational change. J Work Appl Manag 9(2):170–184 Sandri OJ (2013) Exploring the role and value of creativity in education for sustainability. Environ Educ Res 19(6):765–778 Sauerwein M, Karana E, Rognoli V (2017) Revived beauty: research into aesthetic appreciation of materials to valorise materials from waste. Sustainability 9(4):529–549 Schiller F (1910) Literary and philosophical essays: French, German and Italian. Collier, New York Scott R (2014) Education for sustainability through a photography competition. Sustainability 6(2):474–486 Shephard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):87–98 Shrivastava P (2010) Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Acad Manag Learn Edu 9(3):443–455 Shrivastava P (2012) Enterprise sustainability 2.0: aesthetics of sustainability. In: Hoffman A, Bansal T (eds) The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 630–638 Shrivastava P, Ivanaj V, Ivanaj S (2012) Sustainable development and the arts. Int J Technol Manag 60(1/2):23–43 Smilan C (2016) Developing visual creative literacies through integrating art-based inquiry. Clear Hous 89(4–5):167–178 Stout CJ (2007) Eco-responsibility in art education. Stud Art Educ 48(4):331 Taylor S, Ladkin D (2009) Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development. Acad Manag Learn Educ 8(1):55–69

Artful Inquiry UNESCO (2006) Road map for arts education. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2010) Seoul Agenda: goals for the development of arts education. UNESCO Paris van Boeckel J (2017) At the heart of art and earth: an exploration of practices in arts-based environmental education, 3rd edn. Aalto University, Helsinki Wall T (2016a) Author response: provocative education: from the Dalai Lama’s cat ® to dismal land ®. Stud Philos Educ 35(6):649–653 Wall T (2016b) Reviving the Ubuntu spirit in landscapes of practice: evidence from deep within the forest. J Work Appl Manag 8(1):95–98 Wall T, Russell J, Moore N (2017) Positive emotion in workplace impact: the case of a work-based learning project utilising appreciative inquiry. J Work Appl Manag 9(2):129–146 Wall T, Clough D, Österlind E, Hindley A (2018, Forthcoming) Conjuring a spirit for sustainability: a review of the socio-materialist effects of provocative pedagogies. In: Leal Fihlo W (ed) Sustainability in higher education – world sustainability series. Springer, Dordrecht Warburton K (2003) Deep learning and education for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 4(1):44–56

Artful Inquiry ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability Tony Wall1,2, Eva Österlind3 and Julia Fries3 1 International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK 2 Centre for Work Related Studies, University of Chester, Chester, UK 3 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Synonyms Aesthetics; Aesthetic inquiry; Applied theatre; Artful inquiry; Creative writing; Drama; Expressive arts; Performing arts; Storytelling

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Introduction The arts encompass a broad and diverse landscape of interrelated creative practices and professions, including performance arts (including music, dance, drama, and theatre), literary arts (including literature, story, and poetry), and the visual arts (including painting, design, film) (see UNESCO 2006). They have been explicitly linked to sustainable development in higher education at a global level through UNESCO’s Road Map for Arts Education (UNESCO 2006) and The Seoul Agenda: Goals for the Development of Arts Education (UNESCO 2010). Specifically, the arts have been deployed to promoting human rights, enhancing education, promoting cultural diversity, enhancing well-being, and, most broadly, “resolving the social and cultural challenges facing today’s world” (UNESCO 2010: 8). Such recognition highlights the distinctive role of arts-based approaches to promote sustainability and sustainable development, in terms of (1) tapping into “an optimal level of aroused attention,” “somewhere between apathy and wild excitement” (Bruner 1960: 72), and (2) tapping into an ability to “break with what is supposedly fixed and finished... [so] a person may become freed to glimpse what might be” (Greene 1995: 19). Such capabilities highlight the role of imagination to recast and therefore reconfigure and transform the world. Arts-based approaches to sustainability distinctively draw from forms of knowledge and knowing which are derived from the senses or aesthetics and aesthetic inquiry (Taylor and Ladkin 2009). In doing so, some have argued that the arts “offers an antidote to the mental and emotional pollution of commercialism, which eventually lead to the toxification of air, land, water, and the excessive consumption of carbon” (Shrivastava et al. 2012: 32–33, Shrivastava 2012: 635). More specifically in higher education, the arts are recognized as promoting highly relevant and generative spaces for complex, higher-order learning and change work that includes (1) systemic/ holistic thinking, (2) the integration of multiple and different perspectives, and (3) the articulation and development of attitudes and values (Svanström et al. 2008). Similarly, the arts can also be linked

51

to affective learning outcomes which are particularly important in relation to sustainable development work, such as (1) generating personal awareness in relation to sustainable development, (2) promoting sets of values aligned to responsibility and sustainable development, and (3) initiating and mobilizing action in relation to sustainable development (Shephard 2008). This chapter focuses on three significant arts realms which have demonstrated important contributions to different aspects of sustainable development: expressive writing, drama, and applied theatre (also see ▶ “Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development” which covers the visual arts and the ▶ “Storytelling for Sustainable Development” chapter).

Expressive Writing Expressive writing has been utilized in higher education in a number of sustainable development areas including health and well-being, social change, and environmental education. In terms of health and well-being, expressive writing for sustainable development can include reflective writing, creative writing for therapeutic practices, bibliotherapy, poetry therapy, and the medical humanities (Bolton 2011). It can include a wide range of practices including free writing, listing, deep attention description, narrative and stories, image and metaphor, (fictional) dialogue, journaling, diaries, blogging, zine writing, writing/use of fiction, writing/use of poetry, autobiography, potted histories of self, letters to self or others, future states, and writing/use of comics (Ross 2012). Expressive writing practices have, for some time, been linked to a strengthened immune system, various medical markers of health such as blood pressure, reduced indicators of stress, longer-term mood changes, and ability to deal with social and work life (Pennebaker 1997). Likened to other forms of therapy, expressive writing functions in the following ways: 1. Exploration of narratives of experience from different perspectives 2. Reflexive clarification of values, principles, ethics, feelings, and identity

A

52

3. Critical examination of metaphors in daily use 4. Metaphor “games” to express the otherwise inexpressible 5. Imaginative acute observation and description (Bolton and Ihanus 2011: 168) As a way of encouraging deep learning through reflection and experiential learning, expressive writing processes are likely to be personal, where “any issue can be shared relatively fearlessly with a piece of paper. . . [it] can be ripped up, burned, flushed away; creating it will have helped without rereading” (Bolton 2011: 22), but can also be used in group settings to promote dialogue in relation to the processes above. Although referring to the process of poetry therapy, Mazza’s (2017) process model has wider relevance to integrating the use of expressive writing for health and well-being outcomes. Mazza (2017: 17) proposes three key stages: 1. Receptive/prescriptive – this stage introduces and frames writing into the setting. 2. Expressive/creative – this stage utilizes the writing activity/practice. 3. Symbolic/ceremonial – this stage draws on and makes sense of the situation using metaphors, rituals, and narrative. In the context of higher education in health and medical fields, the most common form of creative writing is journaling and reflective writing for experiential professional development, but the creative writing of stories and poems is also used to promote humanistic and empathy learning outcomes alongside clinical and technical training (Cowen et al. 2016). In contrast, poetry and narrative writing may also be used in the context of environmental education, but they are typically (1) more explicitly related to exploring the student’s own relationship to others and the wider, natural world and (2) will oftentimes be located within natural environments as a fundamental part of the exploratory experience (van Boeckel 2013). Similar integrations of poetry can be found in business management fields, where poetry is used as part of wider pedagogic apparatus to reorient education toward holistic, systemic, and responsible

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

learning outcomes (Reason 2007). For example, haiku (a form of poem which embodies a close human-environment connection) has been used to promote and capture wider ecological and environmental learning (Reason 2007: 37–38): A seed grows. Water gives it strength. The Earth moves (Linda Farrow). Water drop on leaf A tear rolls down for times lost And new beginnings (Ruth Townsley). A bramble catches My ungainly fall; Thank you, I say (Ian Nicholson).

Expressive writing is also used in action research pedagogies in higher education to facilitate widerscale change where collaboration, responsibility, and ethics are important. For example, as part of a collaborative change project, the writing of, sharing of, and reflection on stories and metaphors have been employed to explore and mobilize organizational change in higher education with (1) positive psychological states and (2) connectedness and sense of belonging to others and wider natural environments (Rossetti and Wall 2017; Wall et al. 2017). In addition, creative narrative accounts have been used to challenge and disrupt wider narratives about education, learning, and students, for example, (1) using humor and experimental creative writing to reposition “student as customers” as interconnected responsible practitioners (Wall 2016a, b; Wall and Jarvis 2015) and (2) using narrative accounts to challenge how humans relate to animals and other sustainability issues (Wall et al. 2018, forthcoming).

Drama The delineations between drama and applied theatre are not firmly fixed, but an extreme simplification is that (a) drama is based on improvised interaction in a fictional context without given lines or external audience, and (b) applied theatre is usually created and devised by the participants and performed to an audience. In terms of the first of these areas, drama processes have been

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

articulated as an effective way to generate new insight into difficult issues, for example, in relation to holistic thinking, integration of multiple perspectives, and the development of attitudes and values (Österlind 2012; Pässilä et al. 2017). This effectiveness seems to be particularly important given the content of sustainable development can be emotionally (as well as physically) challenging to both teachers and students (Wall et al. 2018, forthcoming). Specifically, drama implicates learning through distinctively embodied and verbal interactions and reflections, where people can experience and feel a variety of different perspectives. Here, people are enabled to explore the perspectives and their respective consequences, tensions, and dilemmas in fictive situations to be dealt with on the spot, at a “real-life pace.” In a sense, drama work provides an authentic but safe space to embody perspectives and explore them (Wall et al. 2018, forthcoming; Österlind 2012). One of the integral processes of drama is roleplay, which is now often used in a wider educational for sustainable development context (Blanchard and Buchs 2015; Chen and Martin 2015). The application of role-play transcends higher education disciplines and includes economics (Alden 1999), business and management (Paschall and Wüstenhagen 2012), geography (Schnurr et al. 2014), engineering (Edvardsson Björnberg et al. 2015), and biology (Oliver 2016). It has therefore gained widespread traction in higher education to work toward sustainability and sustainable development outcomes. Role-play has been found to be comparatively more effective than other learning activities in the context of education for sustainable development (Ballantyne and Packer 2007), across a variety of settings such as a postgraduate program in engineering for sustainable development, where role-play “clearly had the most impact” (Cruickshank and Fenner 2012: 259). More recently, Gordon and Thomas (2016) highlight that although role-play can be resource-intensive, demanding, and timeconsuming, the results are significant and that “the learning sticks” (ibid: 14), that is, the learning itself has a longevity beyond the role-play intervention. Interactive drama is an alternative to role-play and has also been utilized in the context of higher

53

education for sustainable development. It is a process where the characters and storyline are not predetermined but emergent and determined by the participants. Boggs et al. (2007) emphasize that such interactive approaches to drama enable students to be involved in situations that are both engaging and related to the theoretical aspects of their academic work and personal experiences. Such drama approaches are particularly effective in developing connectedness, in terms of others but also to other species and the planet (Wall et al. 2017, 2018, forthcoming), especially because “the cornerstone of theatrical communication is empathy” (Etherton and Prentki 2006: 146). In their research, Davis and Tarrant (2014) used drama techniques to investigate how to foster connections between human and environment and combine science-based, fictional, and experiential components. They found that a combination of experiences in the natural environment (including drama experiences such as meeting characters in nature), and drama work in the classroom, was especially effective. In particular, they found that when the students worked in roles, the learning became personally integrated and deepened. Although some dilemmas continue to persist, Davis and Tarrant argue such an integrated approach to deploying drama techniques in higher education is “scientific and rigorous, and also connected and empathetic” (2014: 194).

Applied Theatre Applied theatre encompasses many forms of theatre with an educational aim to raise awareness and support societal change. Applied theatre is signified by going beyond the norms of classical theatre in terms of audience (reaching out to people where they are), place (outside ordinary theatre venues), and performers (other than just professional actors). The plays are usually created together with, or in dialogue with, particular groups who are the target for the awareness raising or change initiative (Maeve and Pentergast 2014). As applied theatre is an embodied practice, it is an effective way to “examine post-human subjectivity in relation with other beings living

A

54

on the Earth, as well as human-made things and technology” (Aaltonen 2015: 420). In other words, it can help explore situations from many alternative perspectives which go beyond thinking as a human, for human gain, in order to perpetuate human domination over the Earth and its cohabitants (Wall et al. 2018, forthcoming). Applied theatre is used widely to work with sustainability issues such as health (e.g., HIV/AIDS), environment, poverty, corruption, conflict, and violence (Barnes 2014). As applied theatre is often created and delivered closely with communities, it may not be the most common place for it to be located within a higher education setting. However, higher education organizations do (co)facilitate applied theatre activity with local communities in their settings for the purposes of sustainable development. For example, at Tainan University in Taiwan, students work together with community members in applied theatre processes, on local issues related to climate change, globalization, and the transition from an agricultural to industrial and postindustrial society (Wang 2017). Similarly, street theatre has been used in Canada to engage higher education communities in discussions and dialogue about sustainability (Wright et al. 2013). Such creative engagements between and among communities have also been used in a transdisciplinary sustainability education model that integrates science, the arts, and community, where theatre was one of the ways in which higher education students “developed their ability to connect academic domains of knowledge and creatively address sustainability challenges” (Clark and Button 2011: 41). More specifically, Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal 1979) is one of the more commonly used theatre forms under the umbrella of applied theatre, and Forum Theatre, as a specific technique, is used to explore sustainable futures in many settings. Such forms enhance “strong sustainability” (Räthzel and Uzzell 2009) as it deepens selfreflection and self-transformation in the context of the wider power structures of society and thus strengthens abilities to act in society. Forum Theatre and other forms of drama work are also used in nurse education to promote openness, dialogue, and personal reflection and to support students to develop critical thinking (Arveklev et al. 2015).

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Similar processes such as Forum Play are used in the training of teachers, partly to identify and transform oppressive educational practices (Österlind 2011). As these applied theatre practices encourage collaborations to break down divisions and boundaries, they can also work to help integrate disciplinary boundaries within higher education organizations, especially between arts and sciences (Clark and Button 2010). In this way, applied theatre can promote “creative trespassers” (Bedetti 2015: 2) who cross disciplinary boundaries, which means that dramatic play can be one of the few spaces or places where disciplines can meet. In her study of the integration of dramatic arts into a university general education course, Bedetti (2015) found that collaborative playwriting and theatre work could create “a more holistic and integrative approach to higher education” (ibid: 9) and that “deeper learning” could be acquired, where students learned to create, rather than to just hold, information. Similarly, in a collaborative, intercultural project based on Nikolai Gogol’s 1836 play “The Government Inspector,” different groups in various places around the world staged a production to address economic unsustainability and corruption. Higher education organizations collaborated with various organizations with the hope for “trans-structural flows in between organizations” (Eliason Bjurström 2012: 21). It was therefore an approach that mobilized the efforts and energies across the globe toward the common goal of a more sustainable future.

Conclusion and Future Directions The contributions of arts-based approaches for sustainability in higher education emanate from their distinctive ways of knowledge and knowing which, the evidence indicates, demand affective responses leading to multiple transformative effects. The three significant arts-based approaches in this chapter included expressive writing (which, e.g., tapped into therapeutic processes to enhance well-being and health), drama (which, e.g., tapped into the creative possibilities of exploring difficult and complex perspectives of

Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

sustainable development), and applied theatre (which, e.g., tapped into the creative possibilities of collaborative working to break down divisions and barriers relevant to health and well-being). A common theme is that the arts provide an accessible way for people (students, tutors, business people, etc.) to explore the complexities of the multiple facets of sustainable development. Future directions of practice and research will include the more widespread use of arts to (1) disrupt the current power flows in society to enable more sustainable approaches to development, as well as to (2) help foster greater interdisciplinary to tackle such issues. In terms of the first of these, the arts will continue to help problematize and create new ways of making sense of place, space, and connectedness to these, especially under the conditions of digital life. This is likely to involve the generation of new organic metaphors, perhaps derived from the emerging posthuman debate, to help reformulate how we organize, make sense of, and judge communities (including educational ones), sustainable development itself, what it means to be human (or post-human), and the consequences of these (Sauerwein et al. 2017). The second direction will involve the arts combining in new ways (again mediated by digital life) to integrate embodied understandings of sustainable development. In higher education, this is likely to be seen in the context of extending and expanding the STEM agenda (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) toward a STEAM agenda where the unique and distinctive contribution of the arts becomes more prominent (Payton et al. 2017). The extent to which each of these disciplines will become equal is unlikely or at least unknown but will continue to be set against a trend toward employing greater interdisciplinary that is required to tackle the complex issues of sustainable development.

Cross-References ▶ Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Storytelling for Sustainable Development

55

References Aaltonen H (2015) Voice of the forest: post-humanism and applied theatre practice. Res Drama Educ 20(3): 417–421 Alden D (1999) Experience with scripted role play in environmental economics. J Econ Educ 30(2):127–132 Arveklev S, Wigert H, Berg L, Burton B, Lepp M (2015) The use and application of drama in nursing education – an integrative review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today 35:e12–e17 Ballantyne R, Packer J (2007) Introducing a fifth pedagogy: experience-based strategies for facilitating learning in natural environments. Environ Educ Res 15(2): 243–262 Barnes H (ed) (2014) Arts activism, education, and therapies – transforming communities across Africa. Rodopi, Amsterdam Bedetti G (2015) Collaborative college playwriting and performance: a core course “trespassing” onto the dramatic arts. Int J Educ Arts 16(19):1–46 Blanchard O, Buchs A (2015) Clarifying sustainable development concepts through role-play. Simul Gam 46(6):697–712 Boal A (1979) Theatre of the oppressed. Pluto Press, London Boggs JG, Mickel AE, Holtom BC (2007) Experiential learning through interactive drama: an alternative to student role plays. J Manag Educ 31(6):832–858 Bolton G (2011) Write yourself: creative writing and personal development. Jessica Kingsley, London Bolton G, Ihanus J (2011) Conversation about poetry/writing therapy: two European perspectives. J Poet Therapy 24(3):167–186 Bruner JS (1960) The process of education. Harvard University Press, Boston Chen JC, Martin AR (2015) Role-play simulations as a transformative methodology in environmental education. J Transform Educ 13(1):85–102 Clark B, Button C (2011) Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: interface of arts, science, and community (STEM). Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):41–54 Cowen VS, Kaufman D, Schoenherr L (2016) A review of creative and expressive writing as a pedagogical tool in medical education. Med Educ 50(3):311–319 Cruickshank H, Fenner R (2012) Exploring key sustainable development themes through learning activities. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(3):249–262 Davis S, Tarrant M (2014) Environmentalism, stories and science: exploring applied theatre processes for sustainability education. Res Drama Educ 19(2):190–194 Edvardsson Björnberg K, Skogh I-B, Strömberg E (2015) Integrating social sustainability in engineering education at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(5):639–649 Eliason Bjurström Å (2012) Trying to make ‘Reality’ appear different: working with drama in an intercultural ESD setting. Social Altern 31(4):18–23

A

56 Etherton M, Prentki T (2006) Drama for change? Prove it! Impact assessment in applied theatre. Res Drama Educ 11(2):139–155 Gordon S, Thomas I (2016) The learning sticks’: reflections on a case study of role-playing for sustainability. Environ Educ Res 24(2):172–190 Greene M (1995) Releasing the imagination – essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco Maeve C, Pentergast M (2014) Applied theatre – international case studies and challenges for practice. Intellect Books, Bristol Mazza N (2017) Poetry therapy: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Brunner-Routledge, New York Oliver S (2016) Integrating role-play with case study and carbon footprint monitoring: a transformative approach to enhancing learners’ social behavior for a more sustainable environment. Int J Environ Sci Educ 11(6): 1323–1335 Österlind E (2011) Forum play – a Swedish mixture for consciousness and change. In: Schonmann IS (ed) Key concepts in theatre/drama education. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 247–251 Österlind E (2012) Emotions – aesthetics – education. Dilemmas related to students’ commitment in education for sustainable development. J Art Creat Educ 6:32–50 Paschall M, Wüstenhagen R (2012) More than a game: learning about climate change through roleplay. J Manag Educ 36(4):510–543 Pässilä A, Owens A, Kuusipalo-Määttä P, Oikarinen T, Benmergui R (2017) Beyond text: the co-creation of dramatised character and iStory. J Work Appl Manag 9(2):159–169 Payton FC, White A, Mullins T (2017) STEM majors, art thinkers (STEM + arts) – issues of duality, rigor and inclusion. J STEM Educ 18(3):3947 Pennebaker JW (1997) Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychol Sci 8(3): 162–166 Räthzel N, Uzzell D (2009) Transformative environmental education: a collective rehearsal for reality. Environ Educ Res 15(3):263–277 Reason P (2007) Education for ecology: science, aesthetics, spirit and ceremony. Manag Learn 38(1):27–44 Ross C (2012) Words for wellbeing: using creative writing to benefit health and wellbeing. Stramongate Press, Kendal Rossetti L, Wall L (2017) The impact of story: measuring the impact of story for organisational change. J Work Appl Manag 9(2):170–184 Sauerwein M, Karana E, Rognoli V (2017) Revived beauty: research into aesthetic appreciation of materials to valorise materials from waste. Sustainability 9(4):529 Schnurr MA, De Santo EM, Green AD (2014) What do students learn from a role-play simulation of an international negotiation? J Geogr High Educ 38(3): 401–414

Arts-Based Teaching Shephard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):87–98 Shrivastava P (2012) Enterprise Sustainability 2.0: Aesthetics of Sustainability. In The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment Oxford University Press, pp 630–638 Shrivastava P, Ivanaj V, Ivanaj S (2012) Sustainable development and the arts. Int J Technol Manag 60(1/2): 23–43 Svanström M, Lozano-García FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):339–351 Taylor S, Ladkin D (2009) Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development. Acad Manag Learn Educ 8(1):55–69 UNESCO (2006) Road map for arts education. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2010) Seoul Agenda: goals for the development of arts education. UNESCO, Paris van Boeckel J (2013) At the heart of art and earth: an exploration of practices in arts-based environmental education. Aalto University, Helsinki Wall T (2016a) Author response: provocative education: from the Dalai Lama’s Cat ® to Dismal Land®. Stud Philos Educ 35(6):649–653 Wall T (2016b) Reviving the ubuntu spirit in landscapes of practice: evidence from deep within the forest. J Work Appl Manag 8(1):95–98 Wall T, Jarvis M (2015) Business schools as educational provocateurs of productivity via interrelated landscapes of practice. Chartered Association of Business Schools, London Wall T, Russell J, Moore N (2017) Positive emotion in workplace impact: the case of a work-based learning project utilising appreciative inquiry. J Work Appl Manag 9(2):129–146 Wall T, Clough D, Österlind E, Hindley A (2018, forthcoming) Conjuring a Spirit for Sustainability: a review of the socio-materialist effects of provocative pedagogies. In: Leal Fihlo W (ed) Sustainability in higher education – world sustainability series. Springer, Dordrecht Wang W-J (2017) Combating global issues of land reform, urbanisation and climate change with local community theatre devising and praxes in Taiwan. Res Drama Educ 22(4):506–509 Wright T, Markle G, Wuench P (2013) The goggles project: using street theatre to engage university stakeholders in discussions about sustainability. Creat Educ 4(7A2):105–109

Arts-Based Teaching ▶ Art-Based Development

Teaching

on

Sustainable

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development Sharon Bramwell-Lalor The University of the West Indies (Mona), Kingston, Jamaica

Definition In this entry, assessment for learning on sustainable development is defined as a systematic approach (or process) geared toward facilitating learning and providing comprehensive evidence of learners’ knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes related to sustainable development.

Introduction The concept of sustainable development and its underlying principles has been introduced, defined, and actively promoted since 1972. One key aim of sustainable development is securing a better future for present and future generations. Education is seen as the means through which sustainable development can be achieved. If the mandate of achieving a sustainable future is to be fulfilled through education, appropriate teaching, learning, and assessment strategies that are compatible with the goals of sustainable development are needed. In line with this, therefore, is a recent focus on the reorientation of the education system away from assessment practices that mainly target students’ knowledge, to those which also consider skills, values, attitudes, and behaviors. The use of appropriate teaching strategies should be at all levels of the educational system, including higher education. Higher education particularly plays a critical role in achieving sustainability because of its direct link to students who will become leaders in the future. According to UNESCO (2005:4): Traditionally, literacy, numeracy, and disciplinary knowledge are assessed using standardized tests and data are gathered related to enrolment and attendance; however, these do not measure many aspects of quality education. Missing are

57 assessment and evaluation of life skills, perceptions, behaviours, and values, which are part of quality education.

Assessment for learning is being promoted in recent times in higher education (Carless 2015). Assessment for learning is an approach where the purpose of assessment tasks and practices is not just to focus on content knowledge and generating grades but rather on ensuring that relevant and meaningful learning occurs (Fry et al. 2015). This assessment approach can therefore be applied to the wide range of sustainable development knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. In this entry, assessment for learning on sustainable development is defined as a systematic approach (or process) geared towards providing comprehensive evidence of learners’ knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes related to sustainable development. This entry provides a brief overview of assessment for learning and how it relates to conventional approaches to assessment. This overview is followed by a description of the key features of sustainable development and the role of education in its promotion. Examples of how assessment for learning can be applied to sustainable development will then be presented. The entry will end with preliminary suggestions on the way forward with regard to assessment practices in higher education that can promote sustainable development.

Assessment for Learning Assessment for learning creates an environment where assessment is used continuously to support and enhance learning. Klenowski (2009) describes it as a natural part of the everyday practice of teaching and learning by students and their teachers. This purpose of assessment is different from that called “assessment of learning” (Earl 2013) or “summative assessment” which is carried out for grading and reporting on students’ achievement, ranking, certifying, and accountability (Sambell et al. 2013). Assessment for learning on the other hand requires that evidence of learning be provided to teachers and students while learning is occurring rather than at the end

A

58

of the process (Fry et al. 2015). When evidence of learning is provided right away, it can be acted on, and necessary adjustments to the learning process can be made. This can in turn ensure improvement of the outcomes of the learning process. Feedback is very important for providing evidence of learning in the assessment for learning model. Black and Wiliam (1998) reported on a review of a wide range of research on assessment and concluded that assessment that focuses on providing good quality feedback to students does promote learning and improve students’ performance. When the feedback information from an assessment activity is used by teachers and their students to modify teaching and learning, respectively, the purpose of assessment is said to be formative (Ussher and Earl 2010). In addition to good quality feedback from teachers or peers, students can assess themselves and generate feedback. Assessment for learning includes the sharing of learning goals so that required targets are known, the use of student-centered strategies such as open-ended questioning, and the opportunities for learners to monitor, evaluate, and reflect on their performance. Assessment for learning enhances students’ motivation and commitment to learning. This is because they understand exactly what they are expected to learn, or what skills they are to display, and they are given feedback and advice on how to improve their work. One of the main arguments of assessment for learning is that all forms of assessment activities should help students to learn. Because of this view, both formative and summative approaches to assessment can be incorporated in assessment for learning. More importance should however be placed on formative assessment because of its usefulness in allowing students to practice valuable skills before summative assessment is required (Sambell et al. 2013).

Sustainable Development and the Role of Education The concept of sustainable development is rooted in concern about the ability of the environment to provide for the needs of human beings and ensure

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

survival without depleting the natural resources including drinking water, food, energy supply, and clean air. The most commonly quoted definition of sustainable development is that stated in the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report on Environment and Development (“Our Common Future”) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] 1987:43). The Brundtland Report fueled a new global awareness that in order for development to be sustainable all the dimensions or spheres which affect the environment must be incorporated (e.g., economic and social). Further, it is important to acknowledge that the dimensions are interdependent and interconnected and that all should be taken into account in any decision-making process about the environment (Duran et al. 2015). Additionally, it must be noted that addressing environmental concerns and sustainable development needs might be influenced by the cultural context in which they exist and by what is valued in each respective country. Culture is therefore viewed as another important contributor to the success of sustainable development (UNESCO 2012). The focus of the Brundtland Report was maintained and relayed to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED] (“The Earth Summit”) held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. Agreements were made at this conference by over 170 countries to act on a number of proposals to achieve sustainable development by the twenty-first century. “Agenda 21” which came out of the Rio Earth Summit promoted education as being: . . .critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues...It is critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision-making. (UNESCO 1992, Chapter 36: 2)

Education was proposed as a powerful, major, and ideal driver for promoting the principles of sustainable development. The role of education was somewhat cemented when the United Nations

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

declared 2005 to 2014 as the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” with the intended focus on integrating sustainability education into all aspects of learning. The follow-up to the decade is the “Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development” and the adoption of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (United Nations 2015). Related to the 2030 Agenda are 17 Sustainable Development Goals which were developed, each with specific targets to be achieved by 2030. The importance of education to the success of sustainable development was maintained in the 2030 Agenda. Of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 4 has targets that are all education-related. Education is targeted because the framework exists to assist individuals in acquiring, fostering, and demonstrating the specific knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed for making informed decisions and taking appropriate actions about the environment (UNESCO 2014).

Applying Assessment for Learning to Sustainable Development If education is to succeed in promoting sustainability, there must be teachers who can use relevant strategies to assist their students in developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to address sustainability issues. The teaching strategies in turn should be aligned with appropriate assessment strategies that keep educators current with students’ progress in acquiring the associated knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. The summative end-of-course types of assessment such as multiple choice tests which are traditionally used in higher education do not provide opportunities for learners to demonstrate sufficient understanding of complex issues such as those related to sustainability. Summative assessments tend to focus mainly on content knowledge and generating grades and should not be used alone as they would not yield sufficient evidence of learning. Rather than assessing a learner’s ability to write about sustainable development, it is more effective to measure the extent to which the student can put into practice and

59

demonstrate what he or she has learned. Assessment for learning is aptly suited for this purpose because it is more holistic in nature and promotes lifelong learning (Sambell et al. 2013). The issues related to sustainability are multidimensional and complex. It follows that teaching, learning, and assessment approaches related to sustainable development within education institutions must also be multidimensional, inter- and transdisciplinary, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainable development. In order to evaluate knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes associated with sustainable development, UNESCO (2017) suggests that learners should be assessed with performance-based methods. In other words, it requires asking students to demonstrate sustainable development skills that are transferable to their future lives by performing tasks or by creating something. Another major desired outcome of sustainable development is taking action. If students are to build their confidence to take actions to alleviate present and future negative environmental effects, then assessment related to sustainable development must be carried out in authentic contexts inside and outside the classroom. This approach will give students opportunities to implement their classroom learning in real-life situations. Interactive assessments carried out in authentic contexts are well suited to sustainable development, as they will foster and nurture students’ twenty-first-century skills and competencies such as collaboration, communication, and creativity (Scott 2015). Assessment modes that expose students to complex problems will also allow them to develop respect and tolerance of other students’ differing values and perspectives of the problem. Further, higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills are exercised in authentic situations as students make their own inferences about the issues. Peer and self-assessment which are also emphasized in assessment for learning also provide opportunities to capture insights gained and to allow for reflection on these. There are a number of ways in which students can be assessed for achievement of sustainable development outcomes. Consideration should be given to the relevant learning outcomes when

A

60

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

devising all assessment tasks (UNESCO 2017). Teachers should ask questions such as “What specific knowledge and skills are students expected to demonstrate in this specific context?” and “What assessment types are best for capturing students’ skills and competencies which are considered vital for sustainable development?” There are some key components of assessment that should be considered if it is to be used to facilitate the development of knowledge, skills, and competencies related to sustainable development. These include: • Using tasks that enable the development of communication, critical thinking, and problemsolving skills through collaboration • Providing opportunities to apply these skills to real-world problems • Integrating activities that allow students to connect learning about sustainable development across various subject areas • Students participating in activities that encourage adoption of values, attitudes, and behaviors relevant to sustainable development • Providing tasks that allow students to engage the perspectives of a wide variety of persons including stakeholders external to the institution • Opportunities for peer evaluation • Reflecting on experiences and personal development (The Higher Education Academy 2014; UNESCO 2017) Assessment for learning utilizes a wide range of tools and strategies which can ensure the achievement of these components. Some of these strategies called performance-based assessment, authentic assessment, or alternative assessment require that students construct an answer, produce a product, or perform an activity linked to realworld situations as opposed to just recognizing and selecting predetermined options (Frey and Schmitt 2007; Darling-Hammond and Adamson 2010). Darling-Hammond and Adamson explain: Because they allow students to construct or perform an original response rather than just recognizing a potentially right answer out of a list provided, performance assessments can measure students’

cognitive thinking and reasoning skills and their ability to apply knowledge to solve realistic, meaningful problems. (2010:7)

These kinds of tasks which are ideal for assessing sustainable development knowledge and skills include portfolios, reflective journals, debates, speeches, role-play/drama, case studies, making of models, presentations, project-based learning, problem-based learning, and work or industrybased learning. These assessments are usually used along with a rubric (Brookhart and Chen 2015) which is designed to clearly describe the specific knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes desired along with how to grade them. The rubrics also provide feedback for the students thus promoting their learning. Essays, checklists, rating scales, questionnaires, and interviews are useful tools for assessing skills, values, attitudes, and behaviors (Herman et al. 1992) related to sustainable development. Higher education institutions play a major role in the achievement of sustainable development goals because of their collective intellectual capacity and academic freedom to “develop new ideas, to comment on society and its challenges, and to engage in bold experimentation in sustainable living” (Cortese 2003). Higher education systems are well versed in conventional teaching and assessment methods that provide a measure of how much content knowledge was successfully transmitted (Nicolaides 2012). Nicolaides suggests that this is mainly because of large class sizes as well as students themselves preferring the more conventional methods. Educators in higher education institutions need to practice the use of strategies that will allow for assessing sustainable development knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. Of all the required components, the observation and rating of values, attitudes, and behaviors are likely the most difficult aspects to be assessed. The following are some examples of alternative assessment strategies and how they can be used. Case Studies Assessment using case studies are highly relevant for sustainable development. The content in a case is in the format of a narrative accompanied by

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

questions and activities (Bonney 2015). Case study narratives allow for the use of a wide range of authentic experiences to promote concrete application of knowledge to real-world situations. Case study investigations allow for collaborative discussions on authentic issues that provide opportunities for students to articulate and clarify the principles and values on which environmental decisions are made and to propose strategic actions for addressing the issues. The authentic nature or cases can be enhanced by utilizing data from peer-reviewed papers, professional reports, news articles, and videos that closely match the concepts and issues that need to be identified and discussed. For example, cases could deal with transportation challenges and pollution in urban areas, excessive hunting of wild animals, and mining and housing developments and their impact on the environment. The cases should be accompanied by carefully constructed instructions to clearly guide students’ thinking and expressions. Dramatic Activities Dramatic activities involve role-play and simulation of real-world situations and experiences some of which may be familiar to students. The aim of role-play and simulation activities is for participants to re-create events and activities, which may involve taking on the role of someone else by imitating their character and behavior. Dramatic activities naturally involve students working alone, in pairs, or in groups. Dramatic presentations ideally facilitate and enhance creative, communicating, questioning, and problemsolving skills. As students work on situations, they practice taking positions, establishing empathy, and understanding others’ feelings, ideas, and behaviors (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] 2018). Because the situations used are authentic, as students act and express themselves, knowledge, skills, values, and behaviors can be observed and assessed to determine changes. Dengler (2008) cites an example of using a “mock climate change negotiation exercise” in order to expose higher education students to the complexities of negotiating an “international treaty.” In another example, Blanchard and

61

Buchs (2010) created a simulation game as an assessment activity to address sustainable development. The game was created to foster students’ knowledge and awareness, to develop interaction and decision-making skills, and to become responsible citizens. Dramatic activities also allow students to link with their communities by performing plays for schools or other community events to raise awareness on environmental issues. Portfolios A portfolio is a collection of documents and other forms of evidence representing students’ work and progress (Popham 2014) through the learning process. Portfolios are fairly easy to use as they require no technical inputs. The nature of the portfolio and what should be included are decided by the learning objectives. It can also be tailored to match individual students’ specific factors and therefore represents his or her uniqueness. In using portfolios to assess students’ progress in sustainable development, they could gather, for example, documents and photographs from newspapers and magazines or from students’ own surroundings. The items in the portfolio would be useful in indicating students’ values and interests. In addition, students can also be asked to write reflective pieces on the items they have selected for their portfolio including the reason(s) for their inclusion (Nicolaides 2012). This would promote self-assessment practices which are a feature of assessment for learning. Portfolios can be evaluated by either considering the ongoing compilation process as well as the final product. In addition, evaluation of the individual items in the portfolio or the entire collection of items can be considered. Projects Projects are ideal for the collection of physical evidence related to an assignment to demonstrate learning (Carless 2009) on specific tasks. Tasks can be built around authentic situations requiring solutions related to students’ context. Students identify a problem, propose solutions, investigate, implement solutions, collect, and analyze data. Projects facilitate collaboration with peers and

A

62

other stakeholders in the community in which the institution exists. Students can also work individually on projects. Students may also develop a research project and propose implementation strategies and expected outcomes without having to carry it out. Similarly to portfolios, both the process and product can be assessed in projects (Butler and McMunn 2011). Reflective Journals Journals provide an opportunity for students to record and reflect on their learning experiences and how they have developed over a period of time (Butler and McMunn 2011). They can also be used to write projections about how current learning will influence future actions. Reflective journals represent a synthesis of learning as they can gauge the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values achieved by students. Journals encourage deep reflection on issues and provide teachers with evidence of students’ understanding, changed beliefs, emotions, and attitudes and can be used in tandem with other assessment forms such as project-based learning. Journals have no specific format or requirements for what students should write. For example, teachers can provide questions as prompts, or students can be asked to reflect on their learning experiences. Teachers can also determine the frequency with which students will add content to their journals. Work- or Industry-Based Learning In this assessment approach, students are sponsored by companies and organizations external to the institution, and they spend some of their time at these sponsoring companies. Work placements give them opportunities to gain practical skills (Coll et al. 2003) and to have a broad understanding of the social and cultural context in which they will work so that in the future they will “make a difference.” Coll et al. (2003) propose three models linking sustainability to workplace experiences. One of the three suggests exposing students to relevant knowledge and values in the classroom which they then take into the workplace. The students can then be observed and assessed for their demonstration of transfer of learning.

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

In order to promote sustainable development, students could be placed in organizations such as nongovernmental organizations where they can directly interact with issues that relate to sustainable development to gain experience as they apply the relevant skills to addressing them.

Assessing Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors Values, attitudes, and behaviors are affective or dispositional learning outcomes and have to be assessed as part of the indicators of accomplishment of sustainable development goals. These outcomes are difficult to measure; however, instruments (e.g., Likert types) have been developed and commonly used for this purpose. In addition, interviews can be used to determine values and attitudes if questions are posed in a way to obtain honest answers. Journal entries, drawings, and other artistic products also provide a means of assessing affective outcomes (Suskie 2009). In order to assess behaviors, they have to be observed. Criteria are selected on which students’ behavior is judged. Teachers will note whether the behavior is displayed or not, or they could determine the frequency with which the behavior is displayed. Observation of behaviors can be applied to any of the performance assessment strategies.

Scoring The kinds of scores obtained from assessment tasks used in performance-based assessment for learning can run into the danger of being subjective. This is so because students create their own responses, and there may be no “right” or “wrong” answers. For example, if students are asked to give their opinions on matters related to the environment, these opinions would vary and would not necessarily be “correct” or “incorrect.” Instead, the quality of the response should be the focus. Subjectivity can, however, be reduced with the use of rubrics. Rubrics contain the criteria which

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development

are the factors used to determine the quality of the students’ responses and behaviors. Rubrics also have qualitative descriptions for each criterion that ensure distinctions in the students’ responses and behaviors (Butler and McMunn 2011). These ensure that everyone who is using the rubric understands what is expected. Rubrics assist teachers to be accurate and fair if they apply it consistently and in an unbiased manner. Scoring can be carried out analytically (awarding scores to each criterion) or holistically (awarding a score based on all the criteria collectively) (Butler and McMunn 2011).

Conclusion and Future Directions It is of paramount importance that the present and future generations fulfil the mandate of sustainable development. Higher education institutions are well-placed to play a critical role in this effort. This means that teaching, learning, and assessment strategies in these institutions should be reviewed to ensure they are aligned with all the learning objectives as well as the dimensions related to sustainable development. This would require huge efforts of the leadership within these institutions. Assessment for learning is an approach to assessment that focuses on using assessment as a learning tool. Faculty and students within universities and colleges are generally familiar with traditional forms of assessment that focus on acquisition of knowledge and may be enjoying success in its use. In the context of achieving sustainable development goals, greater efforts are needed to understand and apply more alternative forms of assessment that serve as opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning. This is because sustainable development objectives are a mixture of cognitive and affective skills requiring students to collaborate on authentic tasks. Lack of understanding of sustainable development as well as assessment for learning approaches could lead to resistance against implementation for both faculty and students. Unsuccessful implementation could lead to false impressions

63

that the strategies do not work. This has implications for teacher professional development efforts and may require ongoing training and participation in learning communities for faculty (Vlachou 2015) and awareness of the range of strategies available for gathering evidence of students’ learning (Heritage 2007). Harrison and Wass (2016) pointed out that faculty members often contribute to undermining the intentions of assessment for learning, with Vlachou (2015) suggesting that this may be due to lack of understanding of its principles. In addition to understanding the principles of assessment for learning, faculty would need to strive to achieve an ideal balance between the use of the traditional forms and alternative forms of assessment. Conducting assessment in authentic situations requires partnerships with a wider array of stakeholders including organizations such as workplaces, businesses, and industries. The benefits of such partnerships would be numerous and reciprocal. Students can gain specific knowledge and experiences from their interactions in the workplaces, while the employees can feel they are contributing to secure more sustainable futures. Overall a change in the organizational culture of higher institutions might be required from a focus on assessment that is individualistic and competitive to one that requires cooperation and collaboration. A shift from the dominant use of traditional, paper-based assessment tasks to more student-centered practical experiences would also be needed. Furthermore, focus should be given to the affective skills which are largely disregarded in favor of content knowledge. In this entry, the assessment for learning approach was described and applied to the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes related to sustainable development. This approach to assessment is lagging particularly in higher education institutions, and much work remains to be done on its understanding and implementation. Higher education institutions are well-placed to be at the forefront of demonstrating how this can be successfully done in the context of achieving sustainable development goals.

A

64

References Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 92(1):81–90 Blanchard O, Buchs A (2010) Exploring the concept of sustainable development through a simulation game. Cahier de recherche LEPII n 35. p. 22 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00498817/ document. Accessed 28 Jan 2018 Bonney KM (2015) Case study teaching method improves student performance and perceptions of learning gains. J Microbiol Biol Educ 16(1):21–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846 Brookhart SM, Chen F (2015) The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educ Rev 67(3):343–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.929565 Butler SM, McMunn ND (2011) A teacher’s guide to classroom assessment: understanding and using assessment to improve student learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Carless D (2009) Learning-oriented assessment: principles, practice and a project. In: Meyer LH, Davidson S, Anderson H, Fletcher R, Johnston PM, Rees M (eds) Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: policy, practice & research. Ako Aotearoa, Wellington, pp 79–90 Carless D (2015) Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. High Educ 69(6):963–976 Coll RK, Taylor N, Nathan S (2003) Work or industrybased learning to develop education for sustainability: a proposal. J Vocat Educ Train 55(2):169–182 Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(3):15–22 Darling-Hammond L, Adamson F (2010) Beyond basic skills: the role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, Stanford Dengler M (2008) Classroom active learning complemented by an online discussion forum to teach sustainability. J Geog High Educ 32(3):481–494 Duran DC, Gogan LM, Artene A et al (2015) The objectives of sustainable development – ways to achieve welfare. Procedia Econ Finance 26:806–811 Earl L (2013) Assessment as learning: using classroom assessment to maximise student learning. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks Frey BB, Schmitt VL (2007) Coming to terms with classroom assessment. J Adv Acad 18(3):402–423 Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshall S (2015) A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: enhancing academic practice. Routledge, New York Harrison C, Wass V (2016) The challenge of changing to an assessment for learning culture. Med Educ 50:702–708 Heritage M (2007) Formative assessment: what do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan 89(2):140–145 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708 900210. Accessed 29 Mar 2018

Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development Herman JL, Aschbacher PR, Winters L (1992) A practical guide to alternative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Virginia Klenowski V (2009) Assessment for learning revisited: an Asia Pacific perspective. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 16(3):263–268 Nicolaides A (2012) Innovative teaching and learning methodologies for higher education institutions. Educ Res 3(8):620–626 https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/ab78/635a24c69b4f55b96237a77ccc837154df30. pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2018 Popham JW (2014) Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. Pearson, Boston Sambell K, McDowell L, Montgomery C (2013) Assessment for learning in higher education. Routledge, London Scott CL (2015) The futures of learning 3: what kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2018 Suskie L (2009) Assessing student learning: a common sense guide. Jossey Bass, San Francisco The Higher Education Academy (2014) Education for sustainable development: guidance for UK higher education providers. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publica tions/Documents/Education-sustainable-developmentGuidance-June-14.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017 UN (2015) General Assembly – transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20 Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2017 UNESCO (1992) United nations conference on environment and development: agenda 21. https://sustainable development.un.org/content/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21 _36.shtml. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 UNESCO (2005) Contributing to a more sustainable future, quality education, life skills and ESD. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001410/141019e.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 UNESCO (2012) Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development. UN system task team on the post-2015 development agenda, The United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/ MULTIMEDIA/HQ/post2015/pdf/Think_Piece_Culture. pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2018 UNESCO (2014) Sustainable development begins with education: how education can contribute to the proposed post-2015 goals. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0023/002305/230508e.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2018 UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (2018) Role play. http://web.unep.org/geo/resources/ ieacp/iea-general/resources/more-developing-anddelivering-training/role-play. Accessed 29 Mar 2018

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies Ussher B, Earl K (2010) ‘Summative’ and ‘Formative’: confused by the assessment terms? NZ J Teach Work 7(1):53–63 Vlachou MA (2015) Does assessment for learning work to promote student learning? The England paradigm. Clearing House J Educ Strat Issues Ideas 88:101–107 World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] (1987) Our common future. http://www.undocuments.net/ocf-02.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2018

Assessment of Sustainability Capabilities ▶ Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies Qudsia Kalsoom School of Education, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore, Pakistan

65

of sustainability competencies, developing assessment tools, gathering data, analyzing data, and making judgements to inform decisions. Like any other assessment, assessment of sustainability competencies is a process not an event. The purpose of the process is to constantly learn about the level of students’ competencies to make further decisions at classroom level, university level, or national level. Assessment helps the educators to revisit their pedagogies if some students are not developing desired competencies. Assessment of sustainability competencies is useful for the overall university too. It provides a complete picture of students’ level of sustainability competencies. This is important in revising curricula, course contents, programs, university policies, etc. Key concepts associated with assessment of sustainability competencies are sustainability competencies, assessment, types of assessment, tools of assessment, and tools for assessing sustainability competencies. The following sections explain these associated concepts. Moreover, research on assessing sustainability competencies has also been described briefly.

Synonyms Assessment of sustainability capabilities; Evaluation of sustainability competencies; Measurement of sustainability competencies

Definition Assessment of sustainability competencies may be defined as a process of drawing inferences about people’s sustainability competencies on the basis of evidence gathered by using reliable and valid assessment tools. The process of assessment of sustainability competencies starts with decisions regarding what to assess (knowledge, skills and attitudes with respect to real-world sustainability problems); and how to assess (assessment strategy; tools for assessment; strategy to interpret data).

Introduction Assessment of sustainability competencies is a complex, cyclical process of planning assessment

Sustainability Competencies The concept of sustainability competencies has received attention in the past two decades as an attempt to provide an outcome framework for education for sustainable development (ESD). The need for sustainability competencies arose from the criticism of ESD as a vague, non-outcome- based construct (Mochizuki and Fadeeva 2010). Some researchers found ESD goals as a set of ideals and lofty aims devoid of any context and focus (Stevenson 2007). Vagueness of ESD goals leads the scholars to identify outcomes of ESD. Scholars have conceptualized ESD outcomes differently like sustainability competencies (de Haan 2006; Jensen and Schnack 1997; Wiek et al. 2011), sustainability literacy (Stibbe and Luna 2009), sustainability consciousness (Berglund et al. 2014), and sustainability capabilities (Thomas and Day 2014). It is also important to note that different conceptualizations of ESD outcomes contain similar elements or

A

66

overlaps. The difference lies in conceptualization of the term. For example, Thomas and Day (2014) have used the concept of “sustainability capabilities.” They argue that capability is more neutral than competence. Moreover, competence is associated with behaviors regarding completion of specific and detailed tasks. Behavioristic orientation makes ESD outcome mechanical. Similarly, proponents of sustainability literacy find the term literacy broader than competence. To them competencies are part of overall sustainability literacy (Stibbe and Luna 2009). On the other hand, advocates of the term sustainability competencies find it more meaningful as it is much focused as compared to other terms. Sustainability competencies may be defined as a set of “knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable successful task performance and problem solving with respect to real-world sustainability problems, challenges and opportunities” (Wiek et al. 2011, p. 204). Real-world problems are complex and transdisciplinary. They are also recognized as “wicked problems” (Brundiers et al. 2010). To deal with the real-world problems, people need to be aware of the complexity of the problem. They should have knowledge of the connections between economy, environment, and society. Moreover, they need to have cognitive and motor skills and pro-sustainability attitudes to address the real problems effectively. Sustainability competencies is an umbrella term used to represent knowledge regarding economy, society, environment, and their inter-connectedness; cognitive abilities to critically analyze and solve problems; and pro-sustainability attitudes. Wiek et al. (2011), in their meta-analysis of sustainability competencies, categorized the key sustainability competencies in five groups. Each competency is a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Five categories are systems thinking, normative competence, strategic competence, anticipatory competence, and interpersonal competence. Systems thinking refers to the ability to look at things as a whole. It requires analysis of the systems across three domains of sustainability, i.e., society, environment, and economy as well as across different scales, i.e., local to global.

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

Systems thinking allows to consider inertia, cascading effects, feedback loops, and other systemic features related to sustainability issues and sustainability (Wiek et al. 2011). Systems thinking needs systemic knowledge which includes concepts such as structure, function, and cause-effect relations. It also requires perceptions, motives, decisions, and regulations (Wiek et al. 2011). The category of systems thinking covers two sub-competencies identified by de Haan’s (2006). They are competence in interdisciplinary work and competence in cosmopolitan perception. Systems thinking is important to understand the “wholeness” and enact accordingly. As real-world problems are not compartmentalized in different subjects or disciplines, therefore, their solutions require systems thinking. Systemic thinking, interconnected thinking, and holistic thinking are the terms used interchangeably with systems thinking (Wiek et al. 2011). Normative competence is “the ability to collectively map, specify, apply, reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets. . .This capacity is based on acquired normative knowledge including concepts of justice, equity, social-ecological integrity, and ethics” (Wiek et al. 2011, p. 209). Anticipatory competence refers to “the ability to collectively analyze, evaluate, and craft rich ‘pictures’ of the future” (Wiek et al. 2011, p. 207) regarding the issues of sustainability. Anticipatory competence resonates with de Haan’s (2006) “foresighted thinking.” Future problems are unseen. However, it is expected that people should be competent enough to foresee the future problems. This anticipatory competence will allow them to plan for the future. Strategic competence is the ability to “collectively design and implement interventions, transitions, and transformative governance strategies toward sustainability” (Wiek et al. 2011, p. 210). Strategic competence is about decision making. Sustainability problems are complex and multidimensional. Strategic competence involves cognitive skills of analysis, evaluation, and planning. Knowledge of sustainability issues is a basic element of the competence.

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

Interpersonal competence is “the ability to motivate, enable, and facilitate collaborative and participatory sustainability research and problem solving” (Wiek et al. 2011, p. 211). Sustainable development is a collective ideal. It requires collective work. Interpersonal competence is a key competence regarding collaborative work. Interpersonal competence comprises of advanced skills in communicating, deliberating and negotiating, collaborating, leadership, pluralistic and transcultural thinking, and empathy (Wiek et al. 2011).

67

aims to represent individual achievement regarding taught content or skills over a certain period of time. The focus is on achievement (Black et al. 2011). Summative assessment is important as it may improve motivation and can help student, teachers, and parents to compare performance of different students. Summative assessment provides an opportunity to the districts, states, or provinces to compare performance of different schools by comparing average scores of students in a particular grade level. Both types of assessment are needed for learning. Both formative and summative assessments can serve the purpose of diagnostic assessment.

Assessment Assessment is usually described as a process of gathering and interpreting information to make judgments about students’ learning and achievement to guide future decision. The future decision could be about how to address students’ weaknesses in the next class or it could be about prompting students in the next grade or placing students in a professional program. Assessment is a key link between learning outcomes, content, and pedagogy (Black et al. 2011). Assessment, evaluations, and measurement are technically different terms. However, they have been used interchangeably by some scholars. There are three common categories of assessment on the basis of purpose of assessment. They are diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment. Diagnostic assessment aims at identifying students’ academic strengths or weaknesses and then identifying an appropriate strategy to address students’ weaknesses. Formative assessment is also known as “assessment for learning.” “It is used to provide feedback to pupils and teachers to promote further learning and to allow genuine dialogue between pupils and teachers about progress so that pupils’ learning is promoted and teachers’ planning is effective” (Atjonen 2014). The purpose of formative assessment is to improve students’ learning. Summative assessment is done at the end of instruction periods. Duration of these instruction periods may vary from a month to a year. This kind of assessment is also known as “assessment of learning.” Summative assessment

Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment The terms “self-assessment” and “peer assessment” are commonly used in assessment discourse. They refer to the method of assessment. Reports written by students regarding their own learning are called self-assessment. Conversely, peer assessment refers to assessment conducted by peers. Both self-assessment and peer assessment processes are important in validating teacher-generated assessment reports. Moreover, they develop students’ evaluation skills. Key Questions in Assessment Good assessment starts with planning of assessment. It requires answering the following questions: • • • • • •

Who to assess? Why to assess? What to assess? When to assess? Where to assess? How to assess?

Who to assess refers to the audience of assessment. Age group, gender, and study programs are important considerations while planning for assessment. Why to assess refers to the purpose of assessment. The assessor should clarify if they are going to “assess for learning” or “assess learning.” What to assess is another important consideration at the planning stage. It involves identification

A

68

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

of criteria against which the assessment is to be made. Assessors need to be clear if they are going to judge cognitive learning, psychomotor learning, or affective learning. Moreover, they need to further delineate the construct to be measured. When to assess is about the timing of assessment. Timing of assessment is decided on the basis of the purpose of assessment. If the assessment is formative, then assessment will be done during routine classroom time. If the assessment is summative, then assessor decides appropriate time after finishing certain content. Where to assess is another important question in assessment. Assessment criteria determine assessment location. If assessor wants to assess a young doctor’s surgery skills, then surgery room will be the appropriate location. On the other hand, if the assessor wants to assess young doctor’s knowledge of surgery, then it can be assessed in examination hall. How to assess refers to the methods and tools required to gather data. TenBrink (1999) identified four methods or strategies of assessment. They are: • • • •

Testing Analysis Observation Inquiry

Testing is used to assess cognitive learning. There could be formal or informal testing. Informal testing involves questioning during classroom. It could take any form, oral, or written (paper pencil test). Summative assessment involves formal testing. Students are informed about the date, place, and time of examination. They are also communicated with the content they would be assessed on. Testing is used to assess students’ factual knowledge, comprehension, application skills, analytical, synthesis, and evaluation skills (Bloom 1956). To assess students’ higher-order thinking skills, assessor develops rubric or criteria. Rubrics help in fair and reliable assessment. Paper pencil tests are the common tools employed during testing. Analysis is used to assess cognitive and psychomotor skills. An artist’s painting skills or an author’s writing skills could only be assessed by

analyzing their work products. Analysis is done by using a rubric or criteria for reliable, unbiased assessment. Observation is an assessment strategy used to assess feelings and psychomotor skills. If an assessor wants to know the equipment handling skills of undergraduate science program, then they would employ observation strategy. Equipment handling cannot be assessed through paper pencil test. Observation could employ observational checklists as tools or there can be unstructured assessment. Inquiry is an assessment strategy used to know about people’s opinions, perceptions, or feelings. Inquiry is the least reliable method to assess cognitive skills of the students. Inquiry may be done by using tools of questionnaire or interview.

Assessment of Sustainability Competencies Sustainability competencies have three components: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. These three components belong to three domains of learning. Knowledge of sustainability and intellectual skills (recalling, comprehending, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating) come under the category of cognitive learning, whereas the ability to do something physically or motor skills come under psychomotor domain. Attitudes belong to the affective domain of learning. Assessment of the sustainability competencies would involve assessment of knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward sustainable development. Moreover, the assessment needs to measure all sustainability competencies, i.e., systems thinking, normative competence, and anticipatory, strategic, and interpersonal competence. Scholars have tried to develop tools to measure knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustainability (Biasutti and Frate 2017; Michalos et al. 2012). However, there is relatively less literature reporting tools to assess sustainability competencies. Rodríguez-Aboytes and NietoCaraveo (2018) developed an assessment framework to investigate the level of sustainability competencies of the secondary school students

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

in Mexico. Their instrument consisted of a performance task and questionnaire to measure knowledge and attitudes of the students. Assessment of sustainability competencies needs to be done by using testing, observational, and inquiry methods. Reliable assessment of knowledge of sustainability issues can be done through testing, whereas cognitive and psychomotor skills need to be analyzed by using rubrics. Attitudes may be assessed through observation or inquiry method. Inquiry method of assessment cannot produce reliable results regarding knowledge domain. A valid and reliable assessment of sustainability competencies would consider basic questions of assessment which are related to the purpose, audience, criteria, location, and timing.

References Atjonen P (2014) Teachers’ views of their assessment practice. Curric J 25(2):238–259 Berglund T, Gericke N, Chang Rundgren SN (2014) The implementation of education for sustainable development in Sweden: investigating the sustainability consciousness among upper secondary students. Res Sci Technol Educ 32(3):318–339 Biasutti M, Frate S (2017) A validity and reliability study of the attitudes toward sustainable development scale. Environ Educ Res 23(2):214–230 Black P, Wilson M, Yao S (2011) Road maps for learning: a guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Meas: Interdisc Res Perspect 9(2–3):71–103 Bloom BS (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: cognitive domain. Longman, New York Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Edu 11(4): 308–324 de Haan G (2006) The BLK ‘21’programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development. Environ Educ Res 12:19–32 Jensen B, Schnack K (1997) The action competence approach in environmental education. Environ Educ Res 3:163–178 Michalos AC, Creech H, Swayze N, Kahlke PM, Buckler C, Rempel K (2012) Measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Soc Indic Res 106(2):213–238 Mochizuki Y, Fadeeva Z (2010) Competences for sustainable development and sustainability: significance and challenges for ESD. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):391–403

69 Rodríguez-Aboytes JG, Nieto-Caraveo LM (2018) Assessment of competencies for sustainability in secondary education in Mexico. In: Leal FW, Noyola-Cherpitel R, Medellín-Milán P, Ruiz VV (eds) Sustainable development research and practice in Mexico and selected Latin American countries. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham Stevenson RB (2007) Schooling and environmental/sustainability education: from discourses of policy and practice to discourses of professional learning. Environ Educ Res 13(2):265–285 Stibbe A, Luna H (2009) Introduction. In: Stibbe A (ed) The handbook of sustainability literacy: skills for a changing world. Green Books, Devon, pp 9–16 TenBrink T (1999) Assessment. In: Cooper J (ed) Classroom teaching skills. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston/New York Thomas I, Day T (2014) Sustainability capabilities, graduate capabilities, and Australian universities. Int J Sustain High Edu 15(2):208–227 Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman C (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development Qudsia Kalsoom School of Education, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore, Pakistan

Synonyms Attitudinal transformation to sustainable development; Attitudinal change to sustainability; Attitudinal change to environment, society, and economy

Definition Attitude change towards sustainable development (SD) may be defined as a change in one’s feelings towards the issues related to environment, society, or economy. It is about developing a concern and feeling for the planet earth and life on it (humans and other living creatures). In other words, a change in attitude towards SD refers to feeling bad for

A

70

environmental destruction, climate change, oppression, and socioeconomic injustice. It also involves a strong feeling of undertaking pro-sustainability actions at individual or collective levels.

Introduction Attitudes towards sustainable development (SD) may be described as enduring feelings towards the issues related to environment, society, or economy. SD or sustainability refers to two ideals, i.e., sustaining and developing. Nature (earth, biodiversity, ecosystems), life support (environment, resources), and community (culture, groups, places) have to be sustained while people and economy need to be developed (Leiserowitz et al. 2006) through education, fair governance, equitable and equal opportunities, and fair economic policies at global and national levels. Both targets of SD, i.e., sustaining and developing, require change in people’s values, attitudes, and behaviors. Sustainability is a value like freedom or democracy. Like other values, sustainability is an abstract ideal which is expressed through attitudes in the form of positive or negative feelings. Attitude to sustainable development reflects the extent to which people value sustainability, i.e., environment, economy, and society. Attitude change towards SD may be described as developing a concern and feeling responsible for three elements of sustainability. Attitude change to SD is important because of two major reasons: (1) it can positively influence people’s behavior towards economy, society, and environment; (2) it can change people’s relationship with the world around. Though attitudinal change is pivotal in transition towards SD, it is difficult to achieve because of the complexity of the construct of “attitude.” Before discussing attitude change to sustainable development, it is important to understand the concept of “attitude,” how is attitude developed, and the relationship between attitude and behavior. Attitude and Attitude Development Attitude is a psychological construct and has been defined differently by different theorists. Tabacbnick

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

and Zeichner (1984) perceive attitudes as opinions with dispositions to act. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) view attitude as a psychological tendency to favor or disfavor something. It is also considered as a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, issue, or object (Petty and Cacioppo 1981). An attitude object is something that is evaluated along a dimension of favorability. Attitude objects can be abstract (feminism) or concrete (a vehicle). It is also important to note that attitudes differ in valence and strength. Valence means categories of feelings like positive, neutral, and negative, while strength means “intensity of feelings.” We may have positive attitude for the idea of sustainability; however, the intensity of the attitude could be different. Attitudes are closely linked to values and beliefs. In fact, beliefs, attitudes, and values collectively constitute individuals’ belief system. Beliefs are mental constructions (cognitive frames) taken as true, while attitudes are more about feelings. However, when different clusters of beliefs are organized around a person, object, or situation and predisposed to action, this holistic organization becomes an attitude (Pajares 1992). In this sense, attitudes are informed by one’s set of beliefs. As beliefs are cognitive constructions, therefore it can be assumed that attitudes also have cognitive character along with affective dimension. Like beliefs, values are closely related to attitudes. Often, attitudes derive from and reflect abstract values (Leiserowitz et al. 2006). Attitudes are not directly observable. They may be inferred from what people say, intend, or do. However, the scope of a measured or inferred attitude from the behavior is broader than the measure of a behavior. For example, the attitude inferred from the behavior of “using public transport” may be “environmental care.” The inferred attitude is much broader than the observed behavior. Although the link between attitudes and behaviors is not always clear (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002), behaviors are frequently used as a measure to determine people’s attitude. The other ways of measuring attitudes are selfreported questionnaires. People develop their attitudes towards something (object, person, or issue) as a result of their

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

prior experiences. For example, if a person experiences that women are generally more helpful at workplace, then they may have positive attitude towards a stranger female. Similarly, people who experienced poverty may feel bad about the phenomenon, while others might have a neutral attitude towards poverty. It is also generally assumed that knowledge or information about something shapes one’s attitude. However, studies from environmental psychology have shown no or weaker relationship between knowledge and attitude towards environment (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). People might have knowledge about the impact of pollution on human health and biodiversity, but they might not feel bad about people’s choices which cause pollution. Social psychology suggests that people transform their attitudes under different influences. Kelman (1958) in his classic study on the processes of attitudinal change mentions that compliance, identification, and internalization lead to attitudinal change. Attitudinal or behavioral change resulting from compliance means a person might accept social influence with a hope to achieve a favorable reaction from another person or group. Attitudinal change occurring through compliance is not rooted in one’s values. People might change their attitude and behavior to establish or maintain satisfying, self-defining relationship to another person or group. This attitudinal change is also not rooted in one’s values. Unlike compliance and identification, attitudinal change occurring through internalization is fully in-line with one’s values. Attitudinal change occurring as a result of internalization is intrinsically rewarding. Relationship between Attitude and Behavior Studies from the field of environmental psychology show that people who have positive environmental attitude are more likely to engage in lowcost pro-environmental behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). A recent study of environmental behavior in cross-national perspective has shown that level of development of a country determines the relationship between attitudes and behavior towards environment. The study found a correlation between environmental behavior and attitude

71

of the people who belonged to more developed countries (Pisano and Lubell 2017). Milfont and Sibley (2012) found that attitudes of openness and agreeableness were strongly associated to environmental engagement at personal level and at nation level. It has also been found that positive attitudes do not always translate into behavior. For example, people with positive attitude towards environment might choose to use water carefully. However, they may not limit their air travel. Similarly, people who are concerned about gender equality may arrange same education and health facilities for their children (girls and boys). However, they may choose not to work under the leadership of a woman.

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development There is a consensus in literature that SD cannot happen without a change in people’s and nation’s attitudes towards sustainability. Attitudes are predictors of people’s behaviors and their relationship with the world around. Before discussing the expected change in attitudes towards sustainability, the need of attitudinal change and existing attitudes towards sustainability have been discussed in the next sections. Need for Attitudinal Change to SD Sustainability issues like climate change, depletion of natural resources, gender inequality, widening the gap between rich and poor nations, war, and discrimination cannot be addressed by informing people about the costs of economic development or telling them about the need of environmental protection, equality, justice, and peace. These issues require a complete shift in thinking and feelings towards the mentioned issues. Moreover, attitudinal change is a prerequisite for large-scale initiatives towards sustainability. Attitudes determine one’s relationship with other people and the Nature. People with positive feelings/attitude towards equality (attitude object) would appreciate the ideas and actions based on equity to help achieve equality

A

72

in the society. This attitude indicates a relationship with and concern for the fellow beings. On the other hand, people having negative feelings towards “equality” would resist all those ideas and initiatives which are rooted in equity. People with neutral feeling would remain indifferent. This attitude indicates no concern for the fellow beings. It is expected that people who have positive attitude towards SD will be more receptive to sustainability initiatives. Global Attitudes Towards SD There is scarcity of literature reporting attitudes of general public as well as of university students towards sustainability. The most studied dimension of sustainability in terms of attitudes is environment. Global survey of environmental attitudes indicates that people from the advanced economies like the USA, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and Germany have least pro-environmental attitudes, whereas the people from developing economies are more concerned about climate change. They also feel responsible for overall environmental issues and look committed to change their lifestyles (National Geographic 2014). “Green at Fifteen,” the study of OECD-PISA (2009), indicated that across OECD countries, a substantial proportion of students report a very high sense of personal and social responsibility towards environmental issues. However, most of them were not optimistic about the improvements of environmental situation. It is also important to note that students from many high-income countries like Australia, Sweden, and Norway had lower sense of responsibility towards environment when compared with average. A study of Pakistani university students’ attitudes towards sustainability indicated a need for transforming students’ attitudes towards sustainability (Kalsoom et al. 2017). Scales Measuring Attitudes Towards Sustainable Development There is scarcity of scales measuring attitudes towards sustainable development. Michalos et al. (2012, 2015) developed a scale to measure 10th grade students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors towards sustainable development. Kalsoom

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

et al. (2017) modified and used the scale of Michalos et al. (2012) to measure attitudes of preservice teachers’ and other university students towards sustainability. Biasutti and Frate (2017) developed and validated a quantitative 20-item scale that measures Italian university students’ attitudes towards sustainable development. Torbjörnsson et al. (2011) developed a scale to measure upper secondary students’ attitudes towards three values of sustainability: respect for nature, solidarity, and equality. Although researchers have developed and used different scales to measure attitudes towards SD, there is no agreed scale which has been used in crossnational, large-scale surveys to measure attitudes towards SD. Expected Attitude Change to Sustainable Development SD does not have an agreed definition so do attitudes for SD. However, researchers have built attitude measuring scales on the basis of sub-themes of SD identified by UNESCO. According to this, attitude change to sustainable development refers to change towards all aspects of sustainability. UNESCO (2006) has identified different sub-themes under three dimensions of sustainability: Sub-themes under the environmental dimension. Natural resources (water, energy, agriculture, and biodiversity), (2) rural development, (3) disaster prevention and mitigation, (4) sustainable urbanization, and (5) climate change. Sub-themes under the economic dimension. Corporate responsibility and accountability, (2) poverty reduction, and (3) market economy. Sub-themes of the social dimension. Human rights, (2) health, (3) gender equality, (4) peace and human security, (5) cultural diversity and intercultural understanding, (6) HIV/AIDS, and (7) governance. Attitudes related to the abovementioned subthemes may be labelled as attitudes towards sustainable development, whereas attitude change refers to developing positive feelings

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

for socioeconomic and environmental justice and negative feelings for all kinds of injustice. Some examples related to expected attitude change for SD are as follows: • Believing unequal opportunities for females and males to education and employment. • Discouraging discrimination on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, color, gender, etc. • Valuing sustainable lifestyles. • Being concerned for the future generations. • Appreciating legislative initiatives regarding fuel efficiency. • Agreeing with the practice of equal sharing of household tasks among household members regardless of gender. • Valuing democratic processes and practices. • Disliking the use of disposables. • Valuing water conservation. • Believing that individual actions have a role in climate change. • Feeling concerned about extravagant use of resources. • Feeling concerned about the exploitation of the poorer by the wealthier. • Disliking unequal distribution of wealth among people and nations. • Believing that the people who pollute our land, air, or water should pay for the damage done to communities and the environment. • Feeling bad about war and killings. • Being concerned about unequal access to health facilities. • Believing that environmental protection and people’s quality of life are directly linked. • Agreeing that government economic policies should increase sustainable production. • Appreciating the need of sacrifices by the wealthier to reduce economic differences between populations. • Believing in social responsibility in poverty reduction. • Believing in fair trade. • Being concerned about governance structure which deprives the poor. • Feeling concerned about the people with serious health problems. • Appreciating rural development programs.

73

• Believing that disasters can be reduced by protecting the environment. • Being concerned about the human activities which are harming the environment.

Role of Education in Attitude Change to SD Current education (school education and higher education) is not helping the students to develop prosustainability attitudes. In fact, the problems of unsustainability are the result of education (Orr 1994). With the increasing volume of education, pollution has increased. Similarly, more education is leading to more exhaustion of resources and the dangers of ecological catastrophe (Schumacher 1997). Similarly, more education is causing economic disparities all over the world. To address the problems of sustainability, a “different kind of education” (Schumacher 1997) is needed. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) seems to be in line with Schumacher’s concept of different kinds of education. The focus of ESD is on transforming students’ thinking, attitudes, and practices towards economy, society, and the environment. The underlying assumption of ESD is that mere knowledge of SD is not enough to bring SD. It requires a deeper change, a change in thinking, attitudes, and behaviors. Strategies to Attitude Change Attitude change is more than cognitive learning. Awareness of an issue does not necessarily develop a feeling towards the issue. Attitude has cognitive and affective dimensions. Change in attitude towards SD is influenced by different factors like knowledge of sustainability issues, implications of unsustainability, people’s training, and the context (Leal Filho 2010). Literature shows that real-world pedagogies like problem-based learning, project-based learning, undergraduate research, service learning, internships, and action research can be useful in transforming university students’ attitudes towards SD (Adomßent et al. 2014; Brundiers et al. 2010; Kalsoom and Khanam 2017; Lasen et al. 2015; Pretorius et al. 2016; Wiek et al. 2014). Problems

A

74

of sustainability are real-world problems. The aforementioned pedagogies allow the participants to work in real situations and engage with sustainability problems. Actual engagement with the sustainability problems helps the participants understand the problems and develop a feeling. A person who has never interacted with people living in poverty would not be able to develop a feeling of empathy towards them. Similarly, people who have not experienced forced displacement or migration can neither understand the issue of forced displacement nor feel the misery of the victims. They can feel for the victims if they interact with them and provide some kind of services. Real-world pedagogies provide opportunities to the people to understand the real-world issues and develop an attitude to address them at individual or collective levels. Critical dialogues on the future consequences of unsustainable development and injustice can also make people more concerned about the problems of sustainability. Similarly, media can educate people about the need of sustainable development with a possibility to change their attitudes too.

Barriers to Attitudinal Change Regarding SD Attitudinal change towards SD is different from attitudinal change towards people or concrete objects like consumer brands. Sustainable development is an abstract entity. One cannot change attitude towards SD without fully internalizing the concept of SD. The idea of sustainable development is structured around justice and equality. Therefore, attitude change to SD means changing one’s mind-set in favor of justice and equality. However, this kind of change is extremely difficult because dominant groups want to maintain their privileged positions in their societies. They can even take extreme steps like violence to maintain their power. Similarly, more powerful nations also establish inequitable economic and trade policies to keep large share of global wealth. There are two problems associated with the powerful groups: first, they act as predators and take huge share of economy; second, they act as role models for the disadvantaged groups. First step in attitudinal change of

Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

the powerful groups towards SD is a realization that their privileged social position is not because of their fate or their ancestors’ hard work rather because of unequal access to economic and natural resources. Similarly, attitudinal change of disadvantaged groups towards SD involves an awareness of the societal oppression and that powerful group is not a role model.

Conclusion Attitudinal change towards sustainability is pivotal to promote pro-sustainability actions at individual and collective levels. The world has agreed on sustainable development goals. These goals are the outcome of a positive attitude towards sustainable development. Their enactment also requires positive attitude of the implementers and the public. Though transformation in attitudes is difficult, it can be achieved through sustainability education. Universities are the key sites for sustainability education. They need to provide opportunities to the students to engage in tasks which can lead a transformation in their attitudes and behaviors. Universities should try to address psychological barriers involved in transformation of attitudes. Similarly, schools should also take a proactive role in helping students’ learn prosustainability attitudes.

Cross References ▶ Behavior Change for Sustainable Development ▶ Deep Learning on Sustainable Development ▶ Norms and Values for Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Learning for Sustainability

References Adomßent M, Barth M, Fischer D, Richter S, Rieckmann M (2014) Learning tochange universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promotingsustainable consumption in higher education. J Clean Prod 62:72–81 Biasutti M, Frate S (2017) A validity and reliability study of the attitudes toward sustainable development scale. Environ Educ Res 23(2):214–230

Attitudinal Transformation to Sustainable Development

75

Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324 Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando Kalsoom Q, Khanam A (2017) Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: a pedagogy to enhance sustainability consciousness. J Clean Prod 164:1301–1311 Kalsoom Q, Khanam A, Quraishi U (2017) Sustainability consciousness of pre-service teachers in Pakistan. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(7):1090–1107 Kelman HC (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. J Confl Resolut 2(1):51–60 Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260 Lasen M, Tomas L, Hill A (2015) Potential of servicelearning to promote sustainability competencies in pre-service teachers: a case study. Teach Educ 26(4): 341–365 Leal Filho W (2010) Teaching sustainable development at university level: current trends and future needs. J Balt Sci Educ 9(4):273–284 Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM (2006) Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review Environment Resources 31:413–444 Milfont TL, Sibley CG (2012) The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: associations a the individual and societal level. J Environ Psychol 32:187–195 Michalos AC, Creech H, Swayze N, Kahlke PM, Buckler C, Rempel K (2012) Measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Soc Indic Res 106(2):213–238 Michalos AC, Kahlke PM, Rempel K, Lounatvuori A, MacDiarmid A, Creech H, Buckler C (2015) Progress in measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Soc Indic Res 123(2):303–336 National Geographic (2014) Accessed from https:// news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140926greendex-national-geographic-survey-environmentalattitudes/. 30 Apr 2018 Orr DW (1994) Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington, DC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Green at fifteen: how 15-yearolds perform in environmental science and geoscience in PISA 2006. OECD, Paris Pajares MF (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Rev Educ Res 62(3):307–332 Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1981) Attitudes and persuasion, vol 250. William C. Brown, Dubuque, pp 81–92 Pisano I, Lubell M (2017) Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environ and Behav 49(1):31–58

Pretorius R, Lombard A, Khotoo A (2016) Adding value to education for sustainability in Africa with inquirybased approaches in open and distance learning. Int J Sustain High Educ 17(2):167–187 Schumacher, E.F. (1997) ‘This I believe’ and other essays. Green Books,.Dartington (essay first published in 1974) Tabacbnick BR, Zeichner KM (1984) The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. J Teach Educ 35(6):28–36 Torbjörnsson T, Molin L, Karlberg M (2011) Measuring attitudes towards three values that underlie sustainable development. Utbildning & Demokrati 20(1) 97–121. Accessed from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Tomas_Torbjoernsson/publication/280113843_Measur ing_attitudes_towards_three_values_that_underlie_sus tainable_development/links/55aa970c08ae481aa7fbc 634.pdf. 23 May 2018 UNESCO (2006) United nations decade of education for sustainable Development2005–2014, UNESCO: international implementation scheme. UNESCO, Paris Wiek A, Xiong A, Brundiers K, van der Leeuw S (2014) Integrating problem-and project-based learning into sustainability programs: a case study on the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(4):431–449

Attitudes ▶ Students’ Perspectives on Sustainability

Attitudinal Change to Environment, Society, and Economy ▶ Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

Attitudinal Change to Sustainability ▶ Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

Attitudinal Transformation to Sustainable Development ▶ Attitude Change to Sustainable Development

A

76

Augmented Reality ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Awareness of Sustainability Issues Holistic Housing Sustainable Thinking Marcos Guilherme Raymundo, Carla Matheus and João Luiz de Moraes Hoefel Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition: Awareness of Sustainability Issues Awareness of Sustainability Issues is to understand the fragility of the environment and the importance of its protection, thinking in terms of an ecological consciousness. It is related with the growth and development of awareness, understanding and consciousness toward the biophysical environment and its problems, including human interactions and effects.

Introduction This work aims to analyze the theme sustainability awareness and what must be done so that such a consciousness is incorporated as a fundamental factor to the human species survival and life on the planet. In this way we intend to make an analysis of the application of this theme and also holistic practice, in sustainable housing projects. In order to do so, it is necessary to reflect on how these concepts have been applied in such projects, since it is important to understand that business initiatives, especially those that generate great impacts by extracting resources for their economic activities, both to the environment and society, which is the case of the civil construction

Augmented Reality

industry, should be fully aware of the consequences of their activities and minimize such effects (Bassetto 2010). To Abidin (2010) the factors that will stimulate the incorporation of sustainable actions and movements are awareness and knowledge. The author highlights that with these factors incorporated come interest and demand and follow with implementation. He also agrees with views that emphasize that behavioral changes will only occur through personal commitments. Gonçalves-Dias and Teodósio (2012) point out that changes in production patterns and consumption imply an increase in the level of information of the population, awareness of people, elimination of waste, development of technologies, shared responsibilities, and recycling, but above all changing from a behavioral pattern of the current society toward a sustainability awareness. Roos and Becker (2012) stress that a sustainable system will only bepossible through the intellectual evolution of human beings, in addition to establishing environmental education processes in each society and promoting awareness of what sustainability really is. According to Gadotti (2005), it should be noted that we live in a scenario where globalization implies a search for permanent technological development. Such development and the resource needs that they demand, according to the author, create a moment in which the idea of sustainability, although desired, undergoes great friction and tension. How can we promote full development and a real sustainable situation? According to the author, such concept is only a label for some while for others a logical absurdity since sustainability and development seem many times incompatible. For Gadotti (2005, p.2), the term sustainability refers to much more than the preservation of natural resources as “it implies the balance of human beings with themself and with the planet, even more, with the universe.” The author suggests a sustainability that is directly related to what the human being is and understands where he comes from and where he goes, a broader aspect before the vision of a being that gives meaning to everything that surrounds him.

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

Gadotti (2005) mentions that this subject will provide ample debate in educational media in the years to come. Education and openness to this broader perception of reality is undoubtedly the biggest challenge for the sustainability issue to be incorporated. It should be noted that both the word sustainability and holism have been used very often and very comprehensively. Therefore, it’s necessary to revisit the emergence of such concepts for only then to observe how they are applied, or should be, in a practical way and what are their possible uses in housing projects. It also seeks to observe the influence that the housing projects receive from a strong consumer market, caused by a globalized world, where there is the stimulus to the constant creation of new products, most often not sustainable, and that takes the quest for social status through exclusivism. Some data on the difficult times in which the current society and the planet are in will be presented, as well as aspects and techniques on sustainability regarding the construction sector. Thus, it created a research path that can be structured as follows: first, the development of a study on the concept of sustainability and holism; second, what are the challenges presented in the current times for their effective application in sustainable housing projects; third, analyzing the characteristics of sustainable housing; and, finally, the attempt to understand if sustainability and holism have been incorporated in current building processes.

Sustainability, Holism, and Construction Practices To deepen this issue is important to understand the concept of sustainability. Humanity in its process of evolution and social organization has created major changes in the environment. These changes allowed a life undeniably more comfortable and stable than previous generations. However, a generalized notion of development related to a naturally progressive and positive process to human societies has been questioned (Almeida 1999).

77

According to Almeida (1999) economic, environmental, and social crises have undermined the idea that progress as occurred in developed countries should be copied in full and that it would generate the same results obtained in developing countries. The author states that the humanistic character assigned to the development term has made the expression to be assimilated with a positive connotation of a favorable prejudgment, acknowledged as a good in itself. Development generates industrial production techniques on a large scale in order to create products aimed at mass consumption, which, stimulated by economic theories, support the generated consumer society. According to Gadotti (2005), production unbalances lead to a situation where life on the planet can be greatly affected and even destroyed, without the use of atomic weapons. This can occur by environmental degradation and the misuse of all kinds of resources. Today it is clear that the natural resources for the maintenance of society are finite and need to be used judiciously. Various experiments and human activities have made clear that inefficiency and carelessness in their productive activities create situations of immense risk, high impact either local or global. According to Langer (2017, p. 5): On one hand, capitalism has an enormous capacity to create wealth and goods, in addition to mobilizing, for this purpose, powerful technical, intellectual, material and financial. On the other, it presents an enormous capacity to ignore poverty and misery and transform landscapes, societies, norms and values.

Ribeiro (2002) states that one must consider that globalization, which took place from the 1980s, sought to create a homogenization of world culture. Clearly, this homogenization occurs based on consumer culture. It should be considered that consumption is at the same time, according to MacCracken (2015), the process by which the creation of goods and services necessary for the maintenance and construction of the world and society may be sustained. But it is also a cultural phenomenon that involves desire, lifestyle, and demonstration of social status.

A

78

Understanding this search for social status promoted by consumption is extremely important when observed the way in which construction methods are applied. This is evident when it’s considered that the “goods that are so often identified as an unfortunate and destructive concern of a materialistic society, are in fact one of the main instruments of its survival” (MacCracken 2015, p. 4). Thus, it can be concluded that the practices and patterns of consumption and, consequently, the applied technological methods are the support base of a lifestyle and a society already established. The changes needed to promote sustainable methods involve often immense efforts to demonstrate the mistake of these established social and cultural patterns. The author MacCracken (2015) demonstrates that the consumption of a product, including housing, shoot a very broad process which generates activities and resource exploitation that goes far beyond what can be observed as a final product, and it involves changes of deep cultural patterns. MacCracken (2015) shows how consumption is associated with the desire and often good portion of the population that aims to consume objects that are beyond their reach and that these desires promote the assumption that, through them, you can get new happiness, although such consumption is unsustainable, both regarding the economic aspect of the consumer and, more broadly, to the survival of the planet. In the face of such placements, a question should be asked: what is sustainability? According to Ferraz (2008), the concept of sustainability, the way it is understood today, emerged in the 1970s, from the Club of Rome, with its proposal for zero growth, with the claim that it is impossible to sustain a continued economic growth. Later, there is a good definition of the concept with the publication of the Brundtland Report, prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), which defines: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

Sustainability is therefore bound to the idea of continuity. For this, we need to create a harmony between economic and environmental issues, a balanced marriage between these two factors (Ferraz 2008). For Baudrillard (2016) unbridled consumption, which creates an imbalance between the economic and environmental aspects, gives up the worship and admiration for the new. This admiration in turn makes new products; new appeals to the consumer arise constantly; it creates then a vicious circle of desire-consumptionproduction. This cycle generates waste, which, in turn, causes severe pollution and exploitation of natural resources. And the idea of holism? The term holism has its origins in the eighteenth century presented by naturalist Gilbert White (Tristão 2004), based on the Greek cosmic vision, in which the word Holos means any or all and Oikos means home. In this concept, nature has a soul and a female intelligence. There is a unity between nature and humanity in a cosmic order (Naess et al. 1981). The holism in part presents a reductionism, according to Tristão (2004), for the parts are understood as parts of a whole, but the complexity within this unit is not properly represented. For Tristão it must include “all as more or less than the sum of its parts (p. 106).” According to the author, the tensions and conflicts of contemporary society and its complexity hamper the understanding of holism as an entire aspiration paradigm. Tristão (2004) adds that holism, although will produce a major attraction and enchantment and is widely used in environmental education teaching, represses the heterogeneous, the sense of difference and cultural diversity that feed and stimulate the relationship between life and knowledge. According to Sato and Carvalho (2008), the adoption of an anthropocentric view of the world proposes to control natural phenomena so that the earth is mastered and used in order to meet the needs and desires of human beings and their Cartesian thought. It is a vision that completely unbalances the holistic relationship between human beings and the environment in which they live. Thus, it is urgent to understand the immense challenges that determine the application of such

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

concepts in the lives of individuals. Clearly it presents itself with all the points raised so far, a huge dilemma: how to keep moving forward as a society and, at the same time, to preserve natural resources to allow future generations and biodiversity to be sustained? To try to answer that question, it is essential to understand that society is facing a challenge of managing key resources to the survival of life. Matias (2014) presents the current situation of the contemporary global society, as a tragedy of public welfare. The author mentions that public welfares are freely available for all to use in any way deemed suitable. However, it should be noted that, in a practical way, what is available to all is not administered or cared by anyone. And, at first, each one does whatever they want. Even though Matias (2014) mentions, theoretically, that public welfare is a market error related to property rights, therefore, to be collectively owned, they become, strictly speaking, owned by anyone, hence the lack of incentives for their protection. Its preservation is at the mercy of institutional and social rules often uncertain. The solutions that have been observed are the privatization and nationalization of these resources to ensure that they are managed and preserved. However, both solutions have their problems. Therefore, they are not exactly solutions, but elements that integrate this complex and controversial issue. According to Matias (2014), in 2009 scientists that were studying anthropogenic pressures – induced by human being – on the global environment, stipulated nine planetary “limits” or “boundaries” which, if exceeded, would cause disasters that would put humanity at risk. These “limits” are: 1st – Ocean acidification, which absorbs a quarter of human emissions of CO2; the presence of this gas in water increases its acidity, damaging marine biodiversity. 2nd – Ozone depletion, which, in turn, is responsible for filtering the sun’s ultraviolet radiation stemming from the sun. The international community has dealt this problem with efficiency. 3rd – Chemical pollution, including radioactive compounds, heavy metals, and a wide variety of organic compounds of human origin. This

79

pollution that was once considered localized and regional today shows itself as a global problem. 4th – Atmospheric aerosols that are organic and inorganic particles suspended in air as dust and soot from diesel engines, for example. These elements can either generate the atmosphere cooling by reflecting sunlight, or increase the heat, as soot generated by the combustion of biomass. In addition, such soot produces diseases such as asthma and bronchitis. 5th – Biogeochemical, human interference in the global cycling of phosphorus and nitrogen generated from food demand and hence fertilizers. Excess of nitrogen fertilizers is dumped into waterways causing expansion in the emergence of algae that affects the lives in rivers and lakes and causes abrupt changes in these ecosystems. This creates true dead zones in coastal regions. 6th – Freshwater, the global use of freshwater and pollution of this resource (one common good par excellence), which is used far beyond acceptable levels, especially in agriculture. This causes, among other problems, the reduction of soil and air moisture, generating droughts and hence the degradation of these soils. This problem already makes the situation critical for 40% of the world population suffering from water stress. 7th – Land use and the devastation of forests (agricultural expansion and livestock). The devastation of forests is a serious problem not only because of the wood being used as important raw materials but also because they preserve watersheds, protect the soil from erosion, and are essential as part of the water cycle, besides being habitats that provide biodiversity. 8th – Biodiversity loss and the extinction of several species associated with human actions. This is happening a thousand times faster than would be natural. 9th – Climate change generated by the greenhouse effect, which, in turn, is due to the presence of certain gases, released into the atmosphere, that do not allow part of the solar radiation that generates heat which would normally be reflected the space to be eliminated. This phenomenon leads to the rise in global temperature. The CO2 produced by burning, by industry, by using fossil fuels, and by breathing and methane (CH4) generated by

A

80

landfills, the cattle, and the mangroves, for example, are the two gases that have greater participation in greenhouse effect causes. To what extent housing construction methods exceed the abovementioned limits and how to make them to be truly sustainable? What does underlie a sustainable housing? According to John et al. (2001), the construction industry is the sector of the economy that consumes more materials worldwide including, among others, steel, cement, lime, sand, wood, water, and energy. All of it generates huge demand, degradation, and pollution in places where such resources are extracted and even where the works happen. The authors have signed yet that 50% of raw materials in Japan are consumed by construction and in the USA this natural resource consumption rises to the order of 75%. To further illustrate the “weight” of civil construction, the authors’ state that 3% of the CO2 generated globally derives only from the decomposition of lime to produce Portland clinker cement. Half of all annual energy consumed in the USA, according to the Energy Information Administration System of the USA, refers to the construction industry (Ching and Shapiro 2017). According to John et al. (2001), beyond the construction, we must also rely on demolition, which generates a huge amount of waste with high impact on the environment. The authors suggest the untying of development to the environmental burden that it promotes. This means that there is a need to optimize the use of resources, with reduced generation of waste to a minimum which should be recyclable. This new paradigm is called closed-loop or cyclical production model. Regarding the idea of sustainability in civil construction, it is important to consider durability that is directly related to the useful life of the components used. For the durability of materials, it is necessary to analyze the climatic conditions where the components will be used, considering factors such as the incidence of solar radiation, temperature, salinity, pollutants content in the air, and humidity, among others. In September of 2015, leaders of all United Nations state member (ONU 2015) formally adopted an action plan for the eradication of

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

poverty, protection of the planet, and achievement of prosperity and peace. This plan, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, has 17 goals, and the number of Goal 11.1 refers to “making cities and human settlements inclusive, secure, resilient and sustainable (ONU 2015).” This agenda is undoubtedly very ambitious considering the challenges ahead and the period in which it should be implemented. It consists of plans “integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, the social and the environmental” (ONU 2015). According to Ching and Shapiro (2017), the Architecture 2030 group, created in 2002 by architect Edward Mazria, launched the challenge in 2030 that requires all buildings and major renovations consume less than half the amount of energy they consume normally. The Architecture 2030 endorses the reduction in fossil fuel consumption rate by 70% until 2015, 80% until 2020, and 90% until 2025 and ultimately to become carbon neutral in 2030. Sustainable architecture, according to Ching and Shapiro (2017), should seek not to fall into the trap of new products that promise to be environmentally friendly and sustainable, which are often expensive and inefficient. It is necessary to use common sense to avoid falling into fads, but at the same time, remain open, with a critical eye, always looking to learn new techniques. What to expect, at last, from a sustainable architecture? According to Ching and Shapiro (2017), the most recognized goals are those wishing to avoid environmental degradation. For that, we need to consider the items shown in Table 1. Sustainable architecture also stands out health of residents, so it included the improvement of housing conditions through the following objectives presented in Table 2. Ching and Shapiro (2017) show that the constructions are increasingly evaluated for its environmental efficiency. According to the authors, “the weight of history assessments has begun to fall on the buildings that waste energy. Especially those who claim to be environmentally friendly and sustainable” (p. 11). The authors define sustainable building as one that causes significantly

Awareness of Sustainability Issues Awareness of Sustainability Table 1 Sustainable architecture and its goals

81 Issues,

Reduction of global warming, with the reduction of greenhouse effect gases and carbon sequestration processes performed on biological processes. Whereas such biological processes are given by reforestation and recovery of water sources Minimize the environmental impact by reducing the use of oil and coal and avoiding hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of the natural gas Reduce the pollution of air, water, and soil Protect drinking water sources Reduce light pollution that can harm nocturnal ecosystems Protect natural habitats and biodiversity, with special attention to endangered species Avoid unnecessary and irreversible use of agricultural land for use for nonagricultural purposes Protect topsoil and prevent flooding Reduce the use of landfills Reduce the risks generated by nuclear contamination Source: The authors based on Ching and Shapiro (2017) Awareness of Sustainability Issues, Table 2 Sustainable architecture, health, and awareness Improve air quality within the construction environment Improve the quality of water in buildings Improve thermal comfort Reduce noise pollution Improve the mood of the people who inhabit it Reduce energy consumption Source: The authors based on Ching and Shapiro (2017)

reduced impact on the environment and at the same time provides beneficial environments for health. It should be established for this, a holistic planning, which is to say that the housing project must understand the building and its surroundings and, once observed the surrounding components, plan from the outside in. The authors also present the operational processes of a building as important elements to be taken into consideration regarding sustainable construction. These operational aspects deal with factors such as heating, cooling, and lighting of buildings, for example. Therefore, when designing a building, both the materials used and a projection of the proper use and maintenance of such equipment should be

thoroughly studied and sized to have the best result in sustainable terms. The climatic changes that are taking place on the planet have already become evident, and they should also be considered in the development of housing projects, both in relation to risks that they can provide to the building and the opportunities in the use of new more efficient and safe technologies. According to Ching and Shapiro (2017, p. 5), “the field of sustainable architecture is young and offers endless possibilities. There are abundant new opportunities to design and build improving energy efficiency and resources.” For the success of a sustainable project, it is important to know and apply established norms to ensure quality standards in buildings. The certification Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an example of certification related to sustainable architecture standards. In addition, there is also the Passivhaus, which is a standard that is intended to maximize energy performance of projects and reduce their carbon footprint; the BREEAM considered the oldest seal of certification of sustainable buildings, created in England in 1992; and PROCEL EDIFICA, the Brazilian certification system focused on environmentally responsive buildings and other certifications with similar purposes. Another important aspect of sustainable construction is the protection of sensitive sites that are represented by arable land, forest parks, areas where floods occur, habitats of endangered species, coastlines, forests with native forests, wetlands and mangroves, and protected areas and water sources. It is also important to consider the waste generated by construction, transportation of materials, due to the emission of pollutants and energy consumption. In addition, according to Ching and Shapiro (2017), sustainable construction must consider the proper management of rainwater, so that it does not aggravate the risk of flooding, does not lead to pollutants, and avoids soil erosion. The rainwater must have a runoff, which permits filtering, and groundwater supply without being affected by these contaminants. Sustainable construction should, therefore, assess the environmental conditions within the

A

82

environment where they are located, the proper application of natural resources used, and the technologies applied, contemplating the sustainability of both the building as the environment. It should also consider the interaction of the project with all the surroundings and of that with the wellbeing of the residents, which ensures the application of the holistic concept. So that the awareness of sustainability is widely incorporated into the project and, at the same time, assimilated throughout the production chain.

Final Considerations From the development of this work, it can be concluded that to consider sustainable housing, it involves understanding that the health of people is directly related to the health of the environment in which they are in. Human beings have to choose the path they want to go from here on. It is necessary to become aware that the current situation is going to be made by permanent choices to be taken as a living species, once there is an interdependence of human life with all that surrounds it. Such choices must come as answers to the challenges posed by the present moment that the planet lives. They should be fruit of the human capacity to incorporate actions that promote real results in terms of sustainability. Therefore, the lack of care for the environment, the irresponsible production of goods, and the reckless consumption of them generate, in fact, irreversible harm to the human species itself. There are, today, available tools and technologies that enable households to be much more efficient with respect to energy consumption, as well as in issues related to the use of natural resources used in construction. There are also studies that demonstrate the feasibility of recycling and reduce the use of such natural resources to a minimum. One can understand the construction of sustainable housing as both an enormous challenge as well as an advanced opportunity in human experience in large cities and in other environments where individuals are settled.

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

Sustainability refers to the idea of continuity regarding the life of human beings on earth, but also considers the care of other life forms. This relationship with the preservation of life and the quality of that experience should always be a starting point to consider in construction projects. The care with the quality of life of residents involves the concept of holism, the part of the link with the whole, and must be fully observed, since the health of the environment is directly linked to the health of people living in the buildings. Another aspect of holism in construction is on the choice of technical improvements and the use of materials that result in a considerable difference in the building as a whole. It is, therefore, necessary an effort from everyone (public authorities, architects, engineers, contractors, industry, commerce, civil society in general) so that there is a change of consciousness and that this change decreases the impacts caused by the construction sector in the entire planet. Such a change occurs, of course, from education and dissemination of knowledge able to change the culture of waste so deeply rooted in the most used construction methods.

Cross-References ▶ Behavior Change for Sustainable Development ▶ Climate Change and Sustainable Development ▶ Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Energy Management Tools for Sustainability ▶ Engineering Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Labeling and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Living Guide and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Revolution and Sustainable Development ▶ Importance of Sustainability Indicators ▶ Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development ▶ Overall Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development

Awareness of Sustainability Issues

▶ Renewable Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Responsibility and Sustainability ▶ Strategic Thinking and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Barriers ▶ Sustainable Urban Transformation ▶ Technological Innovation for Sustainability

References Abidin NZ (2010) Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat Int 34:421–426 Almeida J (1999) A problemática do desenvolvimento sustentável. Redes 1(2):10–17 Bassetto LI (2010) A incorporação da responsabilidade social e sustentabilidade: um estudo baseado no relatório de gestão 2005 da companhia paranaense de energia – COPEL. Gestão Produção 17(3):639–651 Baudrillard J (2016) The consumer society: myths and structures. Sage, London Ching F, Shapiro I (2017) Edificações Sustentáveis Ilustradas. Bookman, Porto Alegre Ferraz S (2008) Introdução ao Conceito de Sustentabilidade: Aplicabilidade e Limites. Unibrasil, Curitiba Gadotti M (2005) Pedagogia da Terra e Cultura de Sustentabilidade. Revista Lusófona de Educação 6:15–29 http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id= 34900602. Accessed 15 Jan 2017 Gonçalves-Dias SFL, Teodósio ASS (2012) Controvérsias em torno do consumo e da sustentabilidade: uma

83 análise exploratória da literatura. AOS – Amazônia Organizações e Sustentabilidade 1(2):61–77 John V, Sato N, Agopyan V, Sjöström C 2001 Durabilidade e Sustentabilidade: Desafios para a Construção Civil Brasileira. In: 2nd workshop sobre durabilidade das construções, ITA Antac, São José dos Campos, 10–12 July Langer A (2017) Dossiê: Racionalidade econômica, trabalho e ecologia em André Gorz. Caderno CRH 30(81):479–496 MacCracken G (2015) Cultura e Consumo. Novas abordagens ao Caráter Simbólico dos Bens e da Atividades de Consumo. Mauad, Rio de Janeiro Matias E (2014) A Humanidade Contra as Cordas: A Luta da Sociedade Global Pela Sustentabilidade. Paz e Terra, São Paulo Naess A, Dolci D, Iniziatíve CS (1981) Holism and ecology. United Nations University, Tokyo Organização das Nações Unidas-ONU (2015) Transformando Nosso Mundo: A Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. https://nacoesunidas. org/pos2015/agenda2030. Accessed 05 Jan 2018 Ribeiro W (2002) Globalização e Geografia em Milton Santos. Scripta Nova 6(124):9–10 Roos A, Becker ELS (2012) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade. Revista Eletrônica em Gestão, Educação e Tecnologia Ambiental 5(5):857–866 Sato M, Carvalho I (2008) Educação Ambiental: Pesquisa e desafios. Artmed, Porto Alegre Tristão M (2004) A Educação Ambiental na Formação dos Professores: Redes de Saberes. Annablume, São Paulo World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, London

A

B

Barriers: Obstacle ▶ Sustainability Barriers

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development Kathleen Klaniecki1, Katharina Wuropulos2 and Caroline Persson Hager3 1 Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany 2 Faculty of Social Sciences, Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany 3 Oslo, Norway

Definition Human impact on the planet is intensifying due to rapid globalization, economic and population growth, and changing lifestyles. In addition to technical and regulatory solutions, sustainable development must include a transformation of human consumption behaviors.

Introduction Human effects on the environment are so significant that some scholars propose we have entered a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene,

where humans are now the dominant driver of earth system processes at a planetary scale (Steffen et al. 2011). Climate change, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and ocean acidification are undoubtedly caused and accelerated by unsustainable human activity. While humans throughout history have modified the natural environment to meet their needs, human impact on the planet is now exponentially greater due to rapid globalization, economic and population growth, and changing lifestyles (IPCC 2014). Current demands on Earth’s resources far outpace what the planet can produce, absorb, and neutralize, leading to widespread environmental depletion and degradation (UNDP 2012). An increased awareness of the scale and scope of human impact on the planet has led to international efforts to curb environmental degradation and promote sustainable development. Policies and regulations, technical solutions, international agreements, economic tools, and informational tools have been applied to facilitate transitions towards sustainability. While regulatory and technical solutions have been beneficial in addressing significant cases of environmental pollution (e.g., regulations on CFC emissions and DDT pesticides), widespread environmental destruction continues due to unsustainable and intensifying human consumption behavior (Steg and Vlek 2009). Given the magnitude of today’s environmental challenges, sustainable development must include human dimensions of change, specifically

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

86

behavior change for sustainable development. Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, there has been increased focus on the role of individual consumption patterns and production systems for sustainability. Achieving the sustainable development goals requires a critical understanding of “how people make decisions and act on them, how they think about, influence, and relate to one another, and how they develop beliefs and attitudes” (UNDP 2016, pp. 1–2). Behavioral science theories and behavior change tools inform the creation of behavior change interventions for sustainable development. Such interventions are “coordinated sets of activities designed to change specified behavior patterns” (Michie et al. 2011, p. 1) and can focus on increasing, decreasing, or maintaining behaviors, as well as enhancing or improving behaviors (Morra Imas and Rist 2009). This article addresses three main elements of behavior change for sustainable development: theories and models of human behavior and behavior change, behavior change intervention tools and methodologies, and selected examples of successfully implemented behavior change interventions. The article ends with a brief discussion of critiques of the behavior change approach and conclusions.

Understanding the Need for Sustainability The impact of individual consumption behaviors can be traced to increasing demands for natural products and services such as food, water, timber, minerals, and fuel. The intensity of resource use and environmental degradation is responsible for fundamentally and irreversibly changing the planet. Household consumption contributes to more than 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions and between 50% and 80% of total land, material, and water use (Ivanova et al. 2016). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that one-third (~1.5 billion tonnes) of all food produced for human consumption in the world is wasted (FAO 2013). Moreover, water demand will surpass supply by 40%

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development

within 15 years as populations and demands on resources increase (UNEP 2017). Curbing unsustainable behavior can reduce the acceleration of environmental degradation and contribute to sustainable development. For instance, the adoption of sustainable energy behaviors has the potential to reduce US household direct emissions by 20% (Dietz et al. 2009) and transitions towards environmentally sustainable diets could reduce food-related GHG emissions by 29–70% (Springmann et al. 2016). An understanding of the impact of human activity on the planet gave way to programs designed to shift human impact through behavior change. Many of these programs relied on theories of human behavior and behavior change to inform the structure and aim of the program and to effectively target behaviors.

Theoretical Approaches to Behavior Change This section gives an overview of theories and models on behavior and behavior change relating to pro-environmental behavior. The first group of theories explains behavior as a result of individual motivational factors, the second group includes contextual factors to explain behavior, and the third group explains permanent behavior change. Behavior Theories and Models Focusing on Motivational Factors The roots of many human behavior modelling approaches lie within economic theory and the assumption that human decisions are a result of a rational consideration of available alternatives to increase benefits and reduce costs (e.g. Consumer Preference Theory). Behavioral economists, such as Simon (1982) and Tversky and Kahneman (1992), have shown that behavior is not necessarily rational, by revealing how mental heuristics and cognitive biases often make choices predictably irrational (e.g., Prospect Theory and Bounded Rationality Theory). Specific concepts, such as information, values, beliefs, attitudes, norms, and agency, have played an important role in social-psychological behavior

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development

theory. The concepts of attitudes, social norms, and agency informed Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1991), which is the most used theoretical framework in environmental behavior research (Klöckner 2015). TPB explains behaviors mainly as a result of individual intentions. Behavior intentions are formed by a rational choice weighing of the three factors: attitudes toward the behavior, perceptions of social norms, and perceptions of behavioral control. Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (1977) includes habits as an additional variable to explain why behaviors do not always align with behavioral intentions. The concepts of social comparison, norms, and identity form the basis of theories such as Schwartz’s Norm Activation Theory (NAM) (1977). NAM explains positive social behavior through personal norms, which are rooted in the feeling of a moral obligation to help. Such norms are activated by awareness of consequences of performing or withstanding a particular behavior and the perceived responsibility of the behavior and its consequences. Value Belief Norm Theory (VBN) by Stern is an extension of NAM and also explains behavior as determined by a moral obligation to act, but includes the individual’s degree of ecological worldview as a contributing factor (2000). Noteworthy is also the decision-making context of Goal-framing Theory (Elliott and Fryer 2008), which states that an individual will have several different, hierarchically ordered goals at the same time and their behaviors can be understood as result of trying to achieve their most prioritized goal at that point in time. Cialdini et al.’s Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (1990) looks at how social norms, i.e., descriptive and injunctive norms, influence behavior. The norms ability to affect behavior depends on their salience in the consciousness of the individual at the time of the behavior. Behavior Theories and Models Focusing on Contextual Factors Contextual factors are important in explaining pro-environmental behavior, but these variables are often overlooked (Klöckner 2015) and are not as extensively examined for their effect on

87

behavior as individual motivational factors (Steg and Vlek 2009). One theory that includes contextual variables as an explanation of behavior is Vlek et al.’s Needs Opportunities Abilities Model (2000). It portrays consumer behavior as influenced by societal factors and vice versa. The Comprehensive Action Determination Model of ecological behavior (Klöckner and Blöbaum 2010) combines TPB and NAM, including the concepts of context and habits for better predictability of pro-environmental behavior. Similarly, Kollmuss and Agyeman’s Model of Pro-Environmental Behavior (2002) takes a holistic approach and includes both internal and external factors to explain proenvironmental behaviors. Theories and Models Focusing on Behavior Change In addition to understanding behavior, scholars have also developed theories and models to understand changes in behavior. Lewin’s Change Theory (1951) was created around habits defined as resistance to change, in relation to behavior in groups. More permanent individual change and new habits will primarily occur if the whole social field adjusts. Lewin’s Change Theory conceptualizes change as a process, instead of an event. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change (or Stages of Change Model) sees behavior change as a process of six different stages of change that an individual must go through for lasting behavior change (Prochaska and Velicer 1997). Bamberg adds that people can proceed from one stage to the next based on varied intentions and suggests different variables that contribute to forming the intention of each respective stage (2013). The abovementioned theories each seek to explain behavior change at the individual level. To contribute to sustainable development, there is, however, a need for behavior changes to happen across large populations. In order to achieve this, Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Model (2003) integrates the impact of social networks and interactions within the networks to develop more effective behavior change programs.

B

88

Planning Successful Behavior Change Programs Behavior change theory provides important insight into the accumulated knowledge of human behavior and behavior change. This section describes recommended steps in planning effective and efficient behavior change programs and presents some of the most effective intervention tools. In general, behavior change programs should: (1) identify and analyze suitable behaviors for change, (2) choose and implement suitable intervention tools, and (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the program (McKenzie-Mohr 2011; Steg and Vlek 2009). Identify and Analyse Suitable Behaviors Identifying suitable behaviors and target groups is crucial to maximize a behavior change program’s impact. The most suitable behaviors to target are those with (1) a large environmental impact, (2) that are performed by many, and (3) where people are willing to change (McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz 2014). Environmental impact assessments such as life-cycle assessment and inputoutput analyses can be used to identify and prioritize behaviors based on environmental impact. Behavior plasticity – the proportion of people who could be convinced to adopt a given behavior – can be used to rank and prioritize target behaviors (Dietz et al. 2009). Target group segmentation can be useful to identify populations most receptive to change or groups that require different types of interventions (Klöckner 2015). Additionally, measuring baseline levels of selected behaviors – i.e., current penetration rates – can aid in further identifying which population to target (Steg and Vlek 2009). Behavior Change Tools There is a wide range of behavior change tools used to foster behavioral changes (see Table 1). Tools are segmented into antecedent tools – those changing factors that precede a behavior – and consequence tools – those changing the consequences of a behavior (Lehman and Geller 2004). An additional distinction is made between informational and structural intervention tools:

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development Behavior Change for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Intervention tools and empirical applications Intervention tool Informational Prompts Commitment Goal setting Social model Feedback Structural Change in physical, technical or organizational systems Legislation Price mechanisms Nudges Default settings Simplification and framing of information Changes in physical environment Eliciting social norms

Case example Recycling (Austin et al. 1993) Transportation habits (Matthies et al. 2006) Energy savings (Becker 1978) Energy conservation (Nolan et al. 2008) Energy conservation (Abrahamse et al. 2007) Cycling rates (Pucher and Buehler 2008) Plastic bags (Ritch et al. 2009) Public transport (Fujii and Kitamura 2003) Green electricity (Pichert and Katsikopoulos 2008) Food choice (Wansink et al. 2012) Food waste (Kallbekken and Sælen 2013) Hotel towel use (Goldstein et al. 2008)

the prior seeks to change perceptions, motivations, knowledge, and norms, while the latter changes the circumstances under which behavioral choices are made (Steg and Vlek 2009). Nudges, which can be both informational and structural, are aspects of the choice architecture that “alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 6). Informational Intervention Tools

One of the most common informational tools is providing information or education. These tools may lead to changes in attitudes and motivation; however, merely providing information does not often result in behavior change (Steg and Vlek 2009). Informational interventions tailored and

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development

framed to the needs, worldviews, and perceived barriers of the targeted population are more effective (Abrahamse et al. 2007; Nisbet 2009). Balancing the need for urgent action with emotions such as optimism and hope can also increase the effectiveness of information (Moser 2007). Providing information as a prompt is also used to induce behavioral change. Prompts – informational cues that draw attention to a desirable behavior – are most effective when the targeted behavior is easy to perform and when the prompt is in close proximity to where the behavior is performed (see Lehman and Geller 2004, for a review). Another informational tool is the use of descriptive norms. Descriptive norms provide information on how most people in a situation behave and inform individuals of the most effective or appropriate behavior (Cialdini 2003). Social role models, individuals demonstrating or communicating how a particular behavior should be performed, can be used similarly (Lehman and Geller 2004). The use of norms is most effective when social proof – the number of other people performing the desired behavior – is high or the number of people behaving in an undesirable way is low (Cialdini 2003). Goal setting, commitment, and feedback are also informational intervention tools. Goal setting is a tool where individuals set goals for future behavior and is most effective when used in combination with commitments and feedback (McCalley and Midden 2002). Asking individuals to commit to performing certain behaviors has also been shown to be an effective intervention tool (Lehman and Geller 2004). Public and written commitments are more effective than personal and oral commitments (Bell et al. 2001). Feedback, information on the effects of a behavior provided after the behavior is performed, has also shown positive results, especially in regard to energy savings (e.g., Van Houwelingen and Van Raaij 1989). Feedback is most effective when individually tailored and given frequently (Abrahamse et al. 2007). Structural Intervention Tools

Structural tools change the costs, benefits, and availability of different behaviors by modifying physical, technical, and organizational systems, legislation, and price mechanisms (Steg and

89

Vlek 2009). These tools impact perceptions of control (Klöckner and Blöbaum 2010) and may play a role in changing attitudes and motivation. Structural tools are most effective with behaviors that are costly and difficult to perform (Steg and Vlek 2009) and when dealing with habits (Verplanken and Wood 2006). Structural tools often use reinforcements such as rewards or punishment to promote behavioral change (Lehman and Geller 2004). However, reinforcements can reduce intrinsic motivation related to the behavior and have negative consequences for the long-term effects of an intervention (see McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz 2014, for review). Interventions rewarding proenvironmental behavior are generally more effective than those punishing environmentally harmful behavior (Geller 2002). Nudges

A nudge can be both an informational and a structural intervention, but it does not include economic incentives or the banning of behavior. Four of the most common and effective nudging tools are (1) deliberate use of default settings, (2) considerate simplification and framing of information, (3) changes in physical environment, and (4) eliciting of social norms (Lehner et al. 2015). Evaluating Behavior Change Programs The effectiveness and efficiency of behavior change interventions is measured using the following indicators: changes in behavioral determinants, changes in behavior and associated environmental impact, and the resource use of the program (McKenzie-Mohr 2011; Steg and Vlek 2009). A key for successful behavior change programs is finding the right tools for the targeted behavior and population. When there are both motivational and contextual barriers to behavioral adoption, combining several intervention tools may result in the most impact (Klöckner 2015). New technological tools such as persuasive technology also hold promise, as they combine informational and structural tools and tailor interventions to specific target groups (Steg et al. 2012). Smartphones apps and games, for instance,

B

90

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development

can reach large numbers of individuals and potentially increase the effects of behavior change interventions (Klöckner 2015).

Successful Behavior Change Interventions Government agencies, businesses, universities, and intergovernmental organizations have used behavioral science theories and methodology to design effective behavior change policy and programs. Until recently, most behavior change interventions were applied in developed counties with high per-capita consumption rates. More recently, interventions have been applied in developing country contexts to increase effectiveness of sustainable development projects (World Bank 2015). Interventions have targeted a range of behaviors, including water and energy consumption, green purchases, waste generation, and transportation (Table 2). In the next section we discuss how and where behavior change interventions have been applied and highlight examples of successful interventions.

Interventions in Governments and Municipalities Governments, municipalities, and public organizations are increasingly incorporating behavioral science into policy making and regulations (OECD 2017). The government of the United Kingdom has an institution dedicated to the application of behavioral sciences and similar initiatives exist in Denmark, Australia, the United States, Singapore, and Canada (UNEP 2017). In California, the US Environmental Protection Agency used behavior change tools (including norms and addressing barriers) to reduce health effects associated with the consumption of a contaminated fish species (McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz 2014). In Toronto, Canada, a multiagency partnership launched anti-idling programs that employed personal contact, prompts, and commitments to reduce emissions associated with vehicle engine idling. These strategies reduced idling by 32% and the length of idling by 73% (McKenzie-Mohr et al. 2012). In the USA, over 6.2 million households have received the “Opower report” that uses personalized feedback, social comparisons, and energy

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development, Table 2 Examples of successful behaviour change interventions Country Costa Rica

Denmark Norway, Switzerland, Denmark Kenya India Japan United States South Africa Denmark

Behaviours targeted Household water consumption Mobile phone purchases Smart Grid technology uptake Water purification Daily commuting Sustainable transportation Recycling Office energy efficiency Vegetable purchases

OECD (2017), UNEP (2017)

Intervention tools used Goal-setting; prompts; social norms Nudging Default settings

Results 3.7–5.6% reduction in monthly water consumption

20% point increase in mobile phone repair; 7x increase in purchase of second-hand mobile phone 2.5x more likely to accept Smart Grid installation in the opt-out condition

Nudges

Uptake rates rose from 10% to 60%

Incentives

13% point increase in commuters traveling before peak times 7.5% reduction in car use; 68.6% increase in public transportation use 25.4–40% increase in paper recycling

Feedback; goalsetting Commitment; feedback Prompts; competition Nudges

13.5% reduction in energy use 61.3% increase in sales of pre-cut vegetables

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development

conservation information to reduce residential energy use (Allcott and Rogers 2012). Interventions at Higher Education Institutions Higher education institutions play a crucial role in fostering sustainable development and have implemented behavior change interventions (Filho 2011). Higher education institutions implement behavior change interventions through resource use competitions and campus-based sustainability programs. Nationwide competitions, such as RecycleMania, and university-organized energy and water conservation challenges, target resource consumption by employing public commitments, prompts, and social norms to promote sustainable behaviors. These types of competitions have seen reductions of 28% of electricity use and 36% of water consumption (Petersen et al. 2015). Interventions at Businesses and Organizations As companies and organizations increasingly prioritize corporate social responsibility and organizational sustainability, there has been an increase in efforts to engage employees and customers in behavior change programs (see Young et al. 2015, for a review). Organizations use behavior change strategies to address issues related to material use and disposal, commuting to work, and water and energy use. Energy conservation behaviors in the workplace have been targeted through online feedback and controls (Yun et al. 2017), gamification (Gandhi and Brager 2016), and goal setting and information (Mulville et al. 2017). Businesses have also applied behavior change tools to encourage resource conservation among customers and guests. Norm-based reuse messages in hotel bathrooms, for instance, led to a 25–40% increase in towel reuse by hotel guests (e.g., Goldstein et al. 2008). Interventions at Intergovernmental Organizations Behavior change theories and approaches have also been employed by intergovernmental organizations. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2017), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

91

(OECD 2017), the World Health Organization (Jenkins 2003), and the World Bank (World Bank 2015) have reports on the use and application of behavioral insights for sustainable development. The United Nations engages several Behavioral Science Advisors and launched the UN Behavioural Initiative (UNBI) to integrate behavioral science into UN programming and operations (UNDP 2016). UNBI has applied behavioral science in China to increase e-waste recycling (norms and commitments were used) and in Bangladesh to increase use of public bus transportation during peak commuting hours (using electronic prompts) (UNDP 2016).

Critiques of Behavior Change for Sustainable Development While behavioral science can successfully inform interventions for sustainable development, there can be unintended consequences on behaviors outside the scope of the intervention. Negative spillover effects occur when interventions have counterproductive effects or when the adoption of one pro-environmental behavior is associated with a reduction in a different pro-environmental behavior – for example, when the purchase of a fuel-efficient vehicle results in more overall driving (Klöckner et al. 2013). The ethicality of some interventions has also been debated. Nudges receive criticism for lacking transparency, as nudges seek to influence thinking and choice making without awareness of the individual (Lehner et al. 2015). This tool is viewed as more ethical when individual choice is not restricted and when individuals are able to identify when and how nudges are applied. Additionally, some scholars deem the individual behavior change approach too simplistic to solve complex environmental problems at the scale required. Scholars have questioned whether individual behavior change can effectively tackle problems like climate change or whether these problems require more systemic and structural transformations of society (Csutora 2012). Others argue that voluntary behavior change is too gentle and does little to change the status quo of

B

92

unsustainable consumerism (De Young 2014). Nevertheless, many point out that small behavior changes accumulate, create demand for systemic change, and can lead to bottom-up momentum for sustainable development (Stoknes 2015).

Conclusions Solving today’s environmental problems will require large-scale shifts in human behavior. McMenzie-Mohr and Schultz state that “behaviour change is central to the quest for a sustainable future” (2014, p. 35). Behavioral theories and models focused on motivational and contextual factors provide structure to the field of behavior change for sustainable development by providing explanations and rationale for how people make decisions and act on them. These theories inform experiments on pro-environmental behavior change and the development of informational and structural tools that foster the adoption of sustainable behaviors. Behavior change programs that reference behavioral theory, carefully research selected behaviors, and utilize a range of tools to target barriers and benefits will be most successful for fostering behavioral change for sustainable development.

Cross-References ▶ Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

References Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2007) The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energyrelated behaviours, and behavioral antecedents. J Environ Psychol 27(4):265–276. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002 Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Allcott H, Rogers T (2012) The short-run and longrun effects of behavioral interventions: experiment

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development evidence from energy conservation. Am Econ Rev 104:3003–3037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104. 10.3003 Austin J, Hatfield DB, Grindle AC, Bailey JS (1993) Increasing recycling in office environments: the effects of specific, informative cues. J Appl Behav Anal 26(2):247–253. https://doi.org/10.1901/ jaba.1993.26-247 Bamberg S (2013) Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: a stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. J Environ Psychol 34:151–159 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.002 Becker LJ (1978) Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: a field study of residential energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 63(4):428–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.428 Bell PA, Greene TC, Fisher JD, Baum A (2001) Environmental psychology, 5th edn. Harcourt College Publishers, New York, pp 1–654 Cialdini RB (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12(4):105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01242 Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015 Csutora M (2012) One more awareness gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. J Consum Policy 35:145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603012-9187-8 De Young R (2014) Some behavioral aspects of energy descent: how a biophysical psychology might help people transition through the lean times ahead. Front Psychol 5:1255. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.01255 Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:18452–18456. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0908738106 Elliott AJ, Fryer JW (2008) The goal construct in psychology. In: Shah JY, Gardner WL (eds) Handbook of motivation science. Guilford Press, New York, pp 235–250 FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint: impacts on natural resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Filho WL (2011) About the role of universities and their contribution to sustainable development. High Educ Policy 24:427–438. https://doi.org/10.10 57/hep.2011.16 Fujii S, Kitamura R (2003) What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Transportation 30(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1021234607980 Gandhi P, Brager GS (2016) Commercial office plug load energy consumption trends and the role of occupant behavior. Energ Buildings 125:1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.057

Behavior Change for Sustainable Development Geller ES (2002) The challenge of increasing pro environmental behaviour. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 525–540 Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35:472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910 IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva Ivanova D, Stadler K, Steen-Olsen K, Wood R, Vita G, Tukker A, Hertwich EG (2016) Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J Ind Ecol 20:526–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371 Jenkins CD (2003) Building better health: a handbook of behavioral change. PAHO, Washington, DC Kallbekken S, Sælen H (2013) Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Econ Lett 119(3):325–327. https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.econlet.2013.03.019 Klöckner CA (2015) The psychology of proenvironmental communication: beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, London Klöckner CA, Blöbaum A (2010) A comprehensive action determination model: toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J Environ Psychol 30(4):574–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.001 Klöckner CA, Nayum A, Mehmetoglu M (2013) Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use. Transp Res D 21:32–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.007 Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 135046 20220145401 Lehman PK, Geller ES (2004) Behavior analysis and environmental protection: accomplishments and potential for more. Behav Soc Issues 13(1):13–32. https:// doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i1.33 Lehner M, Mont O, Heiskanen E (2015) Nudging – A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour? J Clean Prod 134:166–177. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086 Lewin K (1951) Field theory of social science: selected theoretical papers. Harper & Row, New York Matthies E, Klöckner CA, Preißner CL (2006) Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective? Appl Psychol 55(1):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1464-0597.2006.00237.x McCalley LT, Midden JH (2002) Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: the roles of goal-setting and social orientation. J Econ Psychol

93 23(5):589–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870 (02)00119-8 McKenzie-Mohr D (2011) Fostering sustainable behaviour: an introduction to community-based social marketing, 3rd edn. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island McKenzie-Mohr D, Schultz PW (2014) Choosing effective behavior change tools. Soc Mark Q 20:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500413519257 McKenzie-Mohr D, Lee NR, Schultz PW, Kotler P (2012) Social marketing to protect the environment: what works. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 Morra Imas LG, Rist RC (2009) The road to results: designing and conducting effective development evaluations. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC Moser SC (2007) More bad news: the risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In: Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511535871.006 Mulville M, Jones K, Huebner G, Powell-Greig J (2017) Energy-saving occupant behaviours in offices: change strategies. Build Res Inf 45:861–874. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09613218.2016.1212299 Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51(2):12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51. 2.12-23 Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 34(7):913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208 316691 OECD (2017) Behavioral insights and public policy: lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing, Paris Petersen JE, Frantz CM, Shammin MR, Yanisch TM, Tincknell E, Myers N (2015) Electricity and water conservation on college and university campuses in response to national competitions among dormitories: quantifying relationships between behavior, conservation strategies and psychological metrics. PLoS One 10:1–41. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0144070 Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 28(1):63–73. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004 Prochaska JO, Velicer WF (1997) The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 12(1):38–48 Pucher J, Buehler R (2008) Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.

B

94

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development

Transp Rev 28(4):495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01441640701806612 Ritch E, Brennan C, MacLeod C (2009) Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer behaviour for sustainable development. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):168–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00749.x Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 10C. Academic, New York, pp 221–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60358-5 Simon HA (1982) Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge Springmann M, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, Scarborough P (2016) Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.10 73/pnas.1523119113 Steffen W, Persson Å, Deutsch L, Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Richardson K, Crumley C, Crutzen P, Folke C, Gordon L, Molina M, Ramanathan V, Rockström J, Scheffer M, Schellnhuber HJ, Svedin U (2011) The anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 40:739–761. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Steg L, van den Berg AE, de Groot JIM (2012) Environmental psychology: an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Stoknes PE (2015) What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: toward a new psychology of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books, New York Triandis HC (1977) Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., Monterey Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00122574 UNDP (2012) Global environment outlook: environment for the future we want (GEO-5). United Nations Development Programme, Nairobi UNDP (2016) Behavioural insights at the United Nations: achieving agenda 2030. United Nations Development Programme, New York UNEP (2017) Consuming differently, consuming sustainably: behavioural insights for policymaking. United Nations Development Program, Nairobi

Van Houwelingen JH, Van Raaij WF (1989) The effect of goal-setting and daily electronic feedback on in-home energy use. J Consum Res 16(1):98–105. https://doi. org/10.1086/209197 Verplanken B, Wood W (2006) Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J Public Policy Mark 25(1):90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.90 Vlek C (2000) Essential psychology for environmental policy making. Int J Psychol 35(2):153–167. https:// doi.org/10.1080/002075900399457 Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR, Klingerd MZ (2012) Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. Prev Med 55(4):330–332. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.012 World Bank (2015) World development report 2015: mind, society, and behavior. World Bank Group, Washington, DC Young W, Davis M, McNeill IM, Malhotra B, Russell S, Unsworth K, Clegg CW (2015) Changing behaviour: successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Bus Strateg Environ 24:689–703. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.1836 Yun R, Aziz A, Lasternas B, Loftness V, Scupelli P, Zhang C (2017) The persistent effectiveness of online feedback and controls for sustainability in the workplace. Energ Effic 10:1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12053-017-9509-4

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development Gabriela L. Schmitz Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação em Ciências: Química da Vida e Saúde, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil

Introduction Since the definition of sustainable development by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987 as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43), the international community is working to develop ways to promote sustainable patterns of behaviors to reach sustainability. Different authors use some established theories with which they can explain and predict

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development

individuals’ behaviors in relation to an object, information, or subject. In the case of sustainable development, the objective is to promote behaviors in citizens that could lead to sustainability. The so-called sustainable behaviours are not only related to the environmental sphere of sustainable development. Once sustainable development has three spheres, namely: environmental, social and economic (Fig. 1), sustainable behaviors must be developed accordingly. In psychology, the study area of human behaviour, they were developed some theories aiming to explain behaviours. The main theories created to explain behavioral changes in the individuals involve roles to norms, values, and attitudes. Suggestions of these theories are that changes in the individuals’ attitudes and values and the establishment of norms related to sustainable development could lead to sustainable behaviors (Schmitz 2019). Some studies using these theories focus on proenvironmental behaviors (for example, Lalot et al. (2017), McGrath (2018), and Wong et al. (2018)). However, it is necessary to consider

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 The three spheres of sustainable development: environmental, economic and social

95

the three spheres of the sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental). It is based in this understanding that some authors (for example, Ballantyne and Packer (2005, 2011), Sahin and Erkal (2010), and Iveroth and Bengtsson (2014)) tend to investigate the sustainable behaviors as a whole. In this chapter, we will discuss the theory of planned behavior and some practices that were reported as collaborating to more sustainable behaviors.

The Sustainable Behaviors With the establishment of the sustainable development of new patterns of behaviors, the so-called sustainable development (UNESCOUNEP 1991) started to be aimed and developed. Considering the three spheres of the sustainable development: economic (economic decisions considering present and future needs), environmental (stimulate users to adopt more environmentally sustainable patterns of use), and social (enable users to adopt a healthier lifestyle), this new pattern of behavior is called sustainable behavior. The sustainable behaviors are those generally defined as the set of behaviors that encompasses peoples’ values, norms, beliefs, and senses of responsibility in deliberate actions focused to providing well-being of all living beings, including present and future generations. Sustainable behavior is considered relatively complex because it is a shared responsibility of individual citizens, communities, local authorities, government, and industry, not only to develop but also to promote and maintain the sustainable behaviors and practices. In the psychological literature, authors are describing examples of sustainable behaviors that should be promoted via different ways (school practices and projects, work environment practices, and others). For example, it could be cited the set of sustainable behaviors that was composed by bicycling, replacing the car use, low water usage, garbage segregation to reuse and recycling, low energy consumption, reduction of the meat consumption, and others.

B

96

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development

However, it is difficult and complex to promote and maintain in the individuals the sustainable behaviors. So, considering it, psychologists developed theories to help to explain the human behavioral change. An important theory was proposed by Ajzen and Fishein (1980) and was called theory of reasoned action. Over the years, some gaps appear, and to respond to them, Ajzen proposed the theory of planned behavior in 1991, that is an improvement and a complement of the first one and is described above.

Behavioral Change: The Theory of Planned Behavior It is well known that to explain the human behavior is difficult. Various theoretical frameworks have been proposed to deal with the psychological processes involved in the development of behavior. However, the majority of the studies concerned about human behavioral change are being developed founded on the theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior, proposed by Ajzen (1991), performs the task of explaining human behavioral change. This theory is an extension of the previous theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The theory of planned behavior was proposed aiming to predict and explain human behaviors in specific contexts, for example, the sustainable behavior. In accordance with this theory, attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control are the predictors of the behavior. In the theory of planned behavior, the central factor is the individuals’ intention to perform a specific behavior. The intentions are assumed to group the motivational factors that could influence the behavior. In this way, the intentions are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior. Therefore, in general, we say that the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely should be its performance. The behavioral intention is predicted by three factors: the individuals’ attitudes toward the behavior, the perceived behavioral control, and the subjective norm. Attitudes are evaluations

that an individual do in relation to an object, that is the behavior in question. The individual’s attitude refers to the intern evaluation if a specific behavior is good or bad, positive or negative, favorable, or otherwise. The attitude must be specific since this specificity will allow the prediction of the specific behavior. The second factor is the subjective norm, which is a social factor and refers to the social pressure to perform or not to perform a specific behavior. In terms of sustainable behavior, the norms that should guide individuals’ actions are the 17 objectives of the sustainable development, described in the Agenda 2030, proposed in September 2015 (for more information, please check Schmitz 2019). Another factor that will predict the behavior is the individuals’ actual control over the behavior when it is under the individuals’ control; it means if the person can decide at will to perform or not to perform a specific behavior. This factor is called perceived behavioral control and it is the major factor that differentiates the theory of planned behavior from the theory of reasoned action. The perceived behavioral control generally varies across situations. In the context of the theory of planned behavior, the performance of a behavior is a function of both intentions and perceived behavioral control. Therefore, as a general rule, how more favorable is the individual’s attitude and subjective norm with respect to the sustainable behavior, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger should be the individual’s intention to perform a sustainable behavior, that in turns leads to the sustainable behavior itself. The Figure 2 summarize the Theory of Planed Behavior.

Development of Sustainable Behaviors In order to achieve sustainable development, some studies are being performed in different countries by several authors in the last years. The majority of those studies are concerned to promote sustainable behaviors using the assumptions of the theory of planned behavior, in several spheres of society, for example, schools and firms.

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development

97

An example of studies performed to promote sustainability is the study performed by us in the last year. In this study, we found an increase in the scores that represent the student’s sustainable behavioral intentions and attitudes and also the student’s environmental knowledge after participating in an environmental education program during the school year of 2017 (for more information, see Schmitz and Rocha 2018). Other authors are concerned about the economic sphere of sustainable development. For example, the report by Medeiros et al. (2018) that designs for sustainable behaviors plays an important role in promoting sustainable behaviors. The design for sustainable behaviors aims to identify the motivations and the way users assimilate or not consumption habits aligned with sustainability. Another example of study involving sustainable behaviors is reported by Kim in 2015. In her work, she found positive relations between corporate environmentalism and innovative activities in a firm. This is an example of work that demonstrates the sustainable behaviors in the economic sphere of the sustainable development, and its applicability in the business world. However, it is important to consider all spheres of the sustainable development. An example is the study performed by Iveroth and Bengtsson (2014) considering sustainability as a whole. In this study, the authors showed how the change toward sustainable practices is an entanglement

of social and technical-structural elements. In the process of behavioral change, structures such as information technology are the enablers, and the actors and their social activities are the tippingpoint factors that ultimately determine the success of changing individuals’ behavior toward a more sustainable direction. Although, education is being considered an important tool to promote sustainable behaviors, once children could lead to this kind of behavior to its adult lives. In accordance with McKeown and Nolet in 2013, education process is an important factor to change behaviors and develop sustainable behaviors. It suggests that to promote sustainable behaviors, we should address our efforts in basic education, changing children’s behaviors in a more sustainable way. Finally, in the study reported by Lilley in 2009, it is presented three strategies to induce sustainable behavior and behavioral change. The strategies are: (1) eco-feedback and providing tangible information as reminders to people about resource exploitation; (2) behavior steering and encouraging people to behave as planned, through benefits and constraints; and (3) persuasive technology and applying persuasive methods to change what people think or do. In accordance with Lilley (2009), strategy one directs to the change, strategy two works in maintaining it, and strategy three guarantees the behavioral change, while all intervention levels can influence people’s behavior.

Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Relationship between attitudes, norms and perceived behavioral control

with behaviors, in accordance to the theory of planned behavior proposed by Ajzen (1991)

B

98

Final Considerations The importance of sustainable behaviors and its development seems to be of concern to several he change of behaviors is the effective way to promote sustainable behaviors in grown-ups, while in children they can be developed during the scholar time. It is well known that shape childrens’ behaviors is a easier that those of adults, because they are adjusting their behavors and attitudes in accordance to those of groups. In this way, the development of educational policies to promote the education to sustainable development since the first years of socialization in an environment with well established rules, the school.

References Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211 Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall Ballantyne R, Packer J (2005) Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: what is the state of the game? Environ Educ Res 11(3):21–35 Ballantyne R, Packer J (2011) Using tourism free-choice learning experiences to promote environmentally sustainable behaviour: the role of post-visit ‘action resources’. Environ Educ Res 17(2):201–215 Iveroth E, Bengtsson F (2014) Changing behavior towards sustainable practices using Information Technology. J Environ Manag 139:59–68 Kim Y (2015) Environmental, sustainable behaviors and innovation of firms during the financial crisis. Bus Strateg Environ 24:58–72 Lalot F, Falomir-Pichastor JM, Quiamzade A (2017) Compensation on consistency effects in proenvironmental behavior: the moderating role of majority and minority support for pro-environmental values. Group Process Intergroup Relat. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1368430217733117 Lilley D (2009) Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Des Stud 30:704–720 Mcgrath AL (2018) Encouragin ecological behavioral through induced hypocrisy and inconsistency: a comment. J Environ Psychol 56:1–2 Mckeown R, Nolet V (2013) Education for sustainable development in Canada and the United States. In: Schooling for sustainable development in Canada and the United States, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–23

Benefit Medeiros FJ, Gravina C, Duarte RJL (2018) Design for sustainable behavior (DfSB): analysis of existing frameworks of behavior change strategies, experts’ assessment and proposal for a decision support diagram. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.03.272 Sahin H, Erkal S (2010) The attitudes of middle school teachers toward the environment. Soc Behav Personal 38(8):1061–1071 Schmitz GL (2019) Norms and Values for Sustainable Development. In: Leal Filho W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education. Springer, Cham Schmitz GL, Rocha JBT (2018) Environmental education as a tool to improve children’s environmental attitudes and knowledge. Education (Rosemead) 15(2):15–20 UNESCO–UNEP (1991) Changing minds earthwise. Connect 23:1–69 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York Wong CA, Afandi SHM, Ramachandran S, Kunasekaran P, Chan JKL (2018) Conceptualizing environmental literacy and factors affecting pro-environmental behavior. Int J Bus Soc 19:128–139

Benefit ▶ Social Welfare and Sustainability

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil Caio Cesar Makalski Carvalho, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Bio-construction seeks to build based on solutions with greater integration with the environment and with minimal environmental impact.

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

This process prioritizes the use of natural and local materials, uniting ecology, architecture and urbanism (Amaro 2017). Thus, this proposal can meet principles of sustainability not only during the construction period, but also postconstruction, seeking to bring about social, economic and environmental benefits.

Introduction The construction industry is causing significant impacts on the environment. In the construction of buildings for various purposes, as well as infrastructure projects in general, there is the power consumption from the extraction materials phase to demolition. Moreover, it is also great given the impact of nonrenewable resources use. In this context, it is important to emphasize that such impacts are not restricted to the natural environment. The construction industry uses a vast range of materials, many of which contain chemicals whose action on human health is still unknown, exposing to risks both users of the buildings, such as those who participate in their production and employment (Sattler 2002). Colombo et al. (2006) mention that if society consider the purely technological development, the future of construction will follow the path of execution with the use of pre-made materials that result in an increasingly faster execution as in the case of allocation with equipment precast elements and even the substantially complete building. However, this model has proven to be destructive for the key elements of a good quality of individual and collective life and therefore needs to be associated with or even replaced by a more organic model, resulting in the construction of environments that allow the continuation of a life in harmony with the environment. Thus, the construction sector has to be necessarily approached from the point of view of sustainability. In this perspective, we can consider the past of construction and aggregate the present knowledge, showing, this way, an alternative to a future for the construction and future of life on the planet. The future of construction, then, may

99

be related to bio-construction models that combine the present technologies with the previous models, generating a model to be done on a smaller scale and with no or little industrial materials. So, it becomes more organic because it follows the model of nature without causing impacts just like the current buildings cause (Colombo et al. 2006). Bio-construction unites ecology, architecture, and town planning, prioritizing the use of natural materials (earth, wood, bamboo, stones) and the region, “aimed at building solutions with minimal environmental impact and greater integration with nature, identifying the building as a living organism, with its lifetime, transformations and needs” (Amaro 2017, pp. 45–46). This view meets the principles of sustainability, which increasingly need to guide the construction, given that it is considered one of the sectors that cause severe impacts on the environment due to the high consumption of materials and energy and to the high waste generation. According to Cantarino (2006), companies have invested in environmental responsibility, and many of them are specializing in bio-construction that combines ancient and innovative technologies to ensure sustainability not only in the construction process but also in the post-occupancy houses and apartments period. One may consider: Use of raw materials, recycled or natural, available on-site; management and water saving such as reuse or use of rainwater; alternative energy sources such as solar heating and wind energy; selective collection and recycling; construction techniques based on the use of clay, straw or bamboo. The bioconstruction covers a range of technologies and the ecological, economic and social viability of their application mainly depends on the assessment of the job site. (Cantarino 2006, p. 46)

Proposals such as bio-construction can collaborate directly with Agenda 2030, which is a plan of action for sustainable development. Among other important issues, the document seeks to promote the protection of the planet from degradation, considering both sustainable consumption and production, sustainable management of its natural resources, and urgent action to combat climate

B

100

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

change, so one can meet the needs of present and future generations (United Nations 2015). Thus, this article aims to present a reflection on the role of bio-construction as an instrument that can contribute in promoting sustainability in construction sector, considering the social, economic, and biophysical dimensions that are present in the current discussions on the social and environmental problems.

Bio-construction and Sustainability According to the Institute of Permaculture (IPOEMA), bio-construction involves several vernacular architecture techniques, some of them with hundreds of years of history and experience, presenting a characteristic preference for local materials, which allows, among other factors, the reduction in spending with manufacturing and transportation and the construction of housing with reduced cost and offers excellent thermal comfort. This practice includes aspects such as creativity, personal will, and ecological solutions adapted to each case and that considers local characteristics. It should be noted that bio-construction techniques search the maximum use of available resources with minimal impact at the stages of planning, execution, and use of the construction project (IPOEMA 2017). It is important to mention that bio-construction is related to the concept of vernacular architecture that differs from primitive architecture, given that its main characteristic is harmony with the environment, not only from a material point of view but also folkloric and cultural (Teixeira 2008). For the author, in general, the original term is related to something that has little research or technological development, unlike the vernacular architecture that uses professionals to its construction and takes into account the place and the microclimate, respect with other people and their houses, and the natural and built environment. So, there is a utility and sense of community, searching simplicity in construction solutions, being able to use techniques and materials belonging even to a preindustrial era (Teixeira 2008).

In addition to its relationship with the concept of vernacular architecture, according to IPOEMA (2017), bio-constructions are important elements of permaculture, seeking the integration of units built with their environment. For Mollison (1999), permaculture promotes energy, human food, and housing balanced with the environment, from the design, implementation, and maintenance of productive ecosystems that maintain diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. According to Soares (1998, p. 4), a permaculture project “results in seamless integration between people and the landscape, providing food, energy and housing, among other material needs and non – materials in a sustainable manner.” Complementing the above concepts, it is worth mentioning Mantovanelli (2012, p. 1), to whom “permaculture proposes systemic thinking and the conception of ecological principles so that the planning, management and improvement of the efforts made by individuals and communities can guide a viable future.” Jacintho (2007) explains that permaculture is the planning and implementation of sustainable human occupations, combining traditional practices with modern knowledge of the areas, especially in agricultural sciences, engineering, architecture, and social sciences, all addressed from the perspective of ecology. According to the author, for this process it is necessary to consider the permaculture design established in the area which there is a plan that involves, in addition to the technical aspects of the necessary actions, temporal and economic suitability of implementation and a willingness to adapt to environmental conditions where applicable (farms, rural settlements, villages, urban areas, residential lots, etc.). Local environmental condition is the biggest difference between permaculture design and other modes of occupation, planning, and land use. In general, traditional enterprises start from the premise of changing the physical and environmental reality in favor of a certain goal, “while planning to use permaculture methodology will try to fit the desired objectives for the environment, respecting its ecological dynamics and taking advantage of local resources positively” (Jacintho 2007, p. 39).

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

Considering the concepts and proposals of vernacular architecture, permaculture, and permaculture design, presented above, it is noted that bio-construction is a key component to the interaction of construction processes with the conservation of the environment, thus providing more sustainable actions. According to the Ministry of Environment (ME), bio-construction is “building sustainable environments through the use of low environmental impact materials, with suitability of local climate architecture and waste” (ME 2008, p. 9). In this process, the building systems are environmentally friendly during the design phase and construction (in the choice of materials and suitable building techniques) and along the building use (energy efficiency and treatment of waste) (ME 2008). Camillis (2017) points out that bio-construction techniques vary from place to place, since the materials available are different depending on geography and location. Bee (2015) reinforces this view by mentioning that building with natural materials or the ones available locally requires research on what works best in each region.

101

The bio-construction incorporates in its proposal factors such as considering waste as resources, using local materials, valuing traditional architecture, building considering the weather, and enjoying the natural energies, as shown in Table 1. In addition to these factors, there are many techniques that fit the profile of bio-construction, and practically every region of the world had at the beginning of its construction a more natural and organic model. It’s worth remembering that the term bio-construction is much more recent than the used techniques, since the term was developed in the 1970s, while some techniques are thousands of years dated (Colombo et al. 2006). According to Keeler and Burke (2010, p. 130), “alternative building techniques reflect the hands that mold, and, therefore, are often seen as rudimentary structures built by the need to use locally available materials.” However, even though this fact is generally true, now these techniques have gained increasing credibility due to modern interpretation.

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Table 1 Factors to be considered in bio-construction Consider waste as a resource

Using local materials Valuing traditional architecture

Build considering the weather and enjoy the natural energies

In bio-construction, building a house or planning a community must take into account the treatment of different waste. Furthermore, it is essential to reduce the amount of waste generated Whenever possible, it is necessary to opt for conscious and sustainable use of local materials such as earth, stone, straw, wood, etc. Since the progress of industrialization in the nineteenth century, traditional building techniques have been abandoned. People with few financial resources have less access to industrial goods and follow making the use of ancient techniques such as adobe, the stick-and-daub, and mud mortar. These techniques are associated with low-income population, which creates prejudice that remains to this day. On the other hand, society has experienced a time of breaking of this prejudice. This is due both to the recovery of original materials of historical monuments and to a growing concern for the environment. It is known that the construction industry is one of the activities that consume more energy and natural resources of the planet. Increasingly, organizations around the world seek a bailout from the traditional way of building, incorporating new technologies to optimize the construction processes In bio-construction are used the most of natural energies, like the sun and the wind. When building a house, for example, one must take into account the local climate. It is also important to consider the rainy season and the wind regime in the region

Source: The authors based on Ministry of Environment (2008)

B

102

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

Camillis (2017) also explains that the different techniques of bio-construction permit addressing the discussion about the possibility of making different efforts and from the cooperation demarcating collective wills – both from individual and society. “The bio-constructor makes the clay and the clay does bio-constructor; this ‘do’ is only possible in cooperation – the relationship” (Camillis 2017, p. 37). To Sattler (2002), to search for a form of sustainable construction transcends the simple production of a built environment, because it must be sustainable also in social and economic terms. Thus, bio-construction goes beyond the use of environmentally friendly materials and involves cultural, economic, social, political, and philosophical to promote a sustainable environment. According to the Ministério do Meio Ambiente (Ministry of Environment 2008, p. 9), a sustainable environment is one that “meets the housing needs, food and energy ensuring that future generations will have to meet the same needs.” Thus, it is necessary to think about sustainability at the local level (beware of the earth, sustainable management of forests, conscious extraction of resources) and globally. To contribute to building a more sustainable world is necessary, for example, consume carefully, giving preference to products from the region, and choose to use renewable energy. It should be emphasized that building a sustainable environment provides autonomy to the communities and the field of construction techniques and the upgrading of traditional techniques are a step closer to that autonomy. In this perspective, the communities do not have to depend on external resources to the environment where they live. Therefore, if there is conservation of the environment, society will have the resources necessary for their survival and future generations as well (MMA 2008). Considering the bio-construction characteristics and its importance for sustainability, the following item presents an analysis of construction techniques aimed at greater integration with the environment, environmental conservation and promotion of a sustainable environment.

Case Study: Espaço Maitá, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil The bio-construction, as mentioned above, involves several techniques that have been perfected over time and is characterized by the preference for local materials, reducing expenses with manufacturing and transport, and allowing to build with low energy demand, appropriate to the weather and local landscape (Colombo et al. 2006). With the passage of time and constant improvements in used construction techniques and technologies, humans started to look for a single model of construction, reducing the variety of materials and ignoring local needs. Searching for this model, the environments are becoming increasingly sterile and isolated from nature and consume more and more nonrenewable materials, and we do not care about environmental responsibility. This type of construction has the need to create a standard way of construction, tending to be a constructive method much faster and not caring about different environmental conditions, which ends up creating spaces that consume more and more energy, often needing ventilation, air conditioning, and artificial lighting (Pinha et al. 2015). Seeing the need for more sustainable bioconstruction proposals has proven to be a more viable alternative to the present building system. According to Soares (1998), it is known that the construction industry is the human activity that consumes natural resources and energy at the most, and so it is necessary to minimize the impacts from this activity, with the goal of better use of resources, recycling of materials, development of new technologies, and reducing energy consumption during construction, operation, and maintenance. For always thinking of a better relationship with the environment, bio-construction should employ techniques and materials that are best suited to each mode of construction and climate, minimizing environmental impacts by using renewable resources and integrating the building to the environment and society. In this perspective, from the studies carried out in a research project developed in center of study

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

and research of Atibaia College (CEPE/FAAT), this work demonstrates some techniques related to bio-construction used in Espaço Maitá, located in Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil. The Espaço Maitá (Fig. 1) is an institution devoted to the promotion of experiences with social and environmental focus, which include, for example, several courses related to environmental education, medicinal plants, agro-forestry, and bio-construction, among others. It has become a model in the region and uses and teaches various construction techniques to reduce environmental impacts (Espaço Maitá 2017). The building in question is located in an area of 9 ha and was built from the perspective of bioconstruction with materials found in the region, many of them taken from the property. The proposal merges more traditional techniques, such as mud walls, and more current, such as the use of soil-cement brick. As a basic concept, everything has been designed to generate minimal impact, and, during the construction process, a number of techniques that allow to re-evaluate the way

103

the building is seen today were used. It is a building designed to integrate function, environment, and society. One of the techniques used in Espaço Maitá is the mud wall (Fig. 2), which uses as starting material earth, straw, and bamboo. This technique has low production cost and generates passive thermal comfort (Lengen 2014; MMA 2008; Keller and Burke 2010). The walls were built strategically to protect the construction from strong winds, and elsewhere the ambiances do not have walls, in order to integrate the interior with the exterior of the building. The land is used as the main material for building this construction. The choice of this material was made due to its abundance at the site and because it causes low environmental impact, since it does not need much processing and, moreover, does not require transport, which minimizes the CO2 emissions. The process of construction of the entire project involved collaborative efforts with participation of several people from the local community, in which the

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 1 Espaço Maitá. (Source: The authors 2017)

B

104

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 2 Mud wall. (Source: The authors 2017)

techniques taught were put into practice. This form of work develops a new environmental relationship between the building environment and society. In addition, soil-cement bricks were used (Fig. 3), made from ground raw material and concrete. This technique creates blocks with this mixture, which are stacked to form a wall. These blocks are easy to construct and facilitate the passage of plumbing and electrical ducts and, being rapidly built, generate large passive thermal comfort, and the mud walls has low cost of production and offers other aesthetic standard to the construction. In manufacturing, burning is not required, and the bricks can be manufactured on site, because it is a simple mixing process. Another advantage of using this material is that none of it is wasted, as the broken bricks can be grounded and reused (Motta et al. 2014; Tajiri et al. 2011). In order to use natural light, the technique of zenithal opening was used (Fig. 4), consisting of a window in the roof using natural light and avoiding the need for artificial light. It reduces energy consumption in illumination during the day and may be a complement to lighting already generated by the windows. This window was also used to generate a greater comfort to the environment users where it was installed (Lengen 2014; MMA 2008; Tajiri et al. 2011). Regarding the wastewaters, the Espaço Maitá captures rainwater (Fig. 5) that is stored in tanks.

This technique allows rainwater reuse and more consciously use of drinking water provided by the municipal water network and provides savings on consumption and also promotes security of supply. The water collected is not for consumption, but is used in various activities such as washing internal and external areas, irrigation, and toilet use (Lengen 2014; MMA 2008; Tajiri et al. 2011). Still in relation to management of water, the evapotranspiration system (Fig. 6) in this location collects and treats the black water. The wastewater is decomposed into the system, which avoids the pollution of soil, surface water, and groundwater. In this system, human waste is transformed into plant nutrients, and water by evaporation is the output, which is completely clean. It is important to emphasize that all treatment is biological, with no use of chemicals (Galbiati 2009; Solomon et al. 1998). Finally, the green roof (Fig. 7) present in Espaço Maitá replaces the traditional cover tiles for plants, which, in addition to providing thermal insulation, has the function of creating a microbiome. This technique allows a temperature drop inside the building in hot weather, and, in cold days, the thermal blanket reverses this effect, causing the heat to stay inside the house, barring the low temperature. It also features easier maintenance than common tiles, but one should take some precautions, like watering in times of drought, because, as it has little soil, the roots

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

105

B

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 3 Wall made with soil-cement bricks. (Source: The authors 2017)

tend to dry out easily (Lengen 2014; MMA 2008; Tajiri et al. 2011). To conclude the presentation of the case study in Espaço Maitá, it is worth mentioning that in the local are held several training practices, which use bio-construction elements, such as the green roof and mud wall techniques and educational tools connected with the local environment. Thus, it is noted that, in addition to a set of techniques and methods, bio-construction is an important instrument for the promotion of actions aimed at sustainability, as well as education of individuals, an essential factor for ensuring the conservation and quality of life on the planet.

Final Considerations The construction industry, besides being highly impactful, dictates constructive standards and

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 4 Zenithal opening. (Source: The authors 2017)

processes and reduces people’s autonomy and diversity of constructive solutions. Thinking about the large existing bioclimatic differences in locations, and the great diversity of materials that can be used in construction, the standardization of materials and construction techniques is inadequate. In this sense, it is critical to reflect on bioconstruction, especially those aspects related to sustainability, durability, and comfort. Sustainable buildings can be very comfortable, efficient, nontoxic, and durable, with high aesthetic and environmentally friendly standards. In addition, the development of this work showed that the adoption of this practice goes far beyond the choice of techniques and environmentally friendly materials. It is a collaborative process, educator and transformer, to the extent that bio-constructors may have a deeper contact with the environment in which they live, share, and receive knowledge, besides contributing to environmental conservation and improving the quality of life.

106

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 5 Rainwater capture. (Source: The authors 2017)

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 6 Evapotranspiration system. (Source: The authors 2017)

Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil, Fig. 7 Green roof. (Source: The authors 2017)

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

References Amaro EKP (2017) Vivências de bioconstrução: um caminho para a leitura da paisagem. Dissertação, Universidade Estadual Paulista Bee B (2015) O manual dos construtores de cob. Deriva, Porto Alegre Camillis PKD (2017) Bioconstrução: a cooperação como prática In: Anais do VI Colóquio internacional de epistemologia e Sociologia da ciência da administração, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 26–28 April 2017 Cantarino C (2006) Bioconstrução combina técnicas milenares com inovações tecnológicas. Inovação Uniemp 2(5):46–47 Colombo CR, Sattler MA, Almeida MJ (2006) Bioconstrução: construção do passado ou do futuro? In: Anais do XI encontro nacional de tecnologia no ambiente construído, Associação Nacional de Tecnologia no Ambiente Construído, Florianópolis, 12–14 November 2006 Espaço Maitá (2017) Quem somos. http://espacomaita. com.br. Accessed 23 Feb 2017 Galbiati AF (2009) Tratamento domiciliar de águas negras através de tanque de evapotranspiração. Dissertação. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul Instituto de Permacultura (2017) O que é permacultura. http://ipoema.org.br/. Accessed 20 Feb 2017 Jacintho CRS (2007) A agroecologia, a permacultura e o paradigma ecológico na extensão rural: uma experiência no assentamento colônia. Disssertação, Universidade de Brasília Keller M, Burke B (2010) Fundamentos de projeto de edificações sustentáveis. Bookman, Porto Alegre Lengen JV (2014) Manual do Arquiteto Descalço. Livraria do Arquiteto, Porto Alegre Mantovanelli DF (2012) Quintais agroecológicos: sala de aula informal para capacitação formal: as experiências do assentamento rural Araras. Dissertação, Universidade Federal de São Carlos Mistério do Meio Ambiente (2008) Curso de bioconstrução. Secretaria de Extrativismo e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável, Brasília Mollison N (1999) Permaculture: designers manual, 8th edn. Tagari Publication, Tyalgum Motta JCSS, Morais PWP, Rocha GN et al (2014) Tijolo de solo-cimento: análise das características físicas e viabilidade econômica de técnicas construtivas sustentáveis. Exacta 7(1):13–26 Pinha PRS, Prompt CH, La Noce EM et al (2015) Bioconstrução na Reserva Biologica do Lago Piratuba: austentabilidade e tecnologias apropriadas. Biodiversidade Bras 5(1):74–93 Sattler MA (2002) Edificações e comunidades sustentáveis: atividades em desenvolvimento no NORIE/UFRGS. In: Anais do IV Seminário IberoAmericano da Rede Capacitação e Transferência de Tecnologia para Habitação de Interesse Social, Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas, São Paulo, 11–13 September 2014

107 Soares ALJ (1998) Conceitos básicos sobre permacultura. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília Solomon C, Casey P, Makne C, Lake A (1998) Evapotranspiration Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement. http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ pdf/WW/publications/eti/ET_tech.pdf. Accessed 07 May 2018 Tajiri CAH, Cavalcanti DC, Potenza JL (2011) Habitação Sustentável, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente Coordenadoria de Planejamento. Ambiental, São Paulo Teixeira CM (2008) Arquitetura vernacular. Cad Arquitetura Urban 15(17):29–45 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017

Blended Learning ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development Sally Caird and Robin Roy Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Synonyms Blended learning: hybrid learning, technologyenhanced learning, technology-mediated learning, mixed mode learning; Sustainable development: sustainability

Definition Blended learning may be defined as the design of learning experiences that draw on a combination of face-face, distance, or online delivery methods, learning technologies, delivery multimedia, and pedagogical methodologies to achieve a mix of

B

108

learning outcomes in educational or training contexts. Blended learning designs can support sustainable development, including the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability and protect global environmental resources to meet the needs of the present and future generations.

Introduction The concept of blended learning has its origins in the 1960s when new options for technologymediated education became available to complement conventional approaches to face-to-face teaching in higher education (HE) and other contexts. There are several synonyms for blended learning, including hybrid, technology-enhanced, technology-mediated, and mixed mode learning, although the term blended learning is probably the most widely accepted term (Spring et al. 2016). Sharma (2010) observes that blended learning was first used in the corporate world to describe workplace learning, using distance-taught printed materials, videos, and the web via the Internet. Graham (2012:335) offers a simple definition of blended learning as the provision of “learning experiences that combine face-to-face and online instruction,” although there are a variety of descriptions of how learning provision is blended, combined, or mixed. In HE institutions, blended learning has now become so widespread that many regard it as the “new normal” in describing HE approaches to teaching and learning (Norberg et al. 2011). The New Media Consortium (NMC) Horizon Reports acknowledge that the move to blended learning is one of the top trends in contemporary HE (Adams Becker et al. 2017). Moreover, there are claims that blended learning has the potential to radically transform the design and dynamic of teaching and learning in education (Garrison and Kanuka 2004). This is enabled by the widespread availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs), including the digital resources and technologies utilized in the provision of teaching, learning, and assessment, underpinned by ICT infrastructure, such as virtual learning

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

environment (VLE) platforms, networks, servers, and cloud computing services (Caird and Lane 2015). The ubiquity of the blended learning concept in HE is problematic for establishing a common understanding of the concept, which is essential for identifying how it contributes to sustainable development. Graham (2012:333) states that “Despite current popularity of the term blended learning, it is defined with considerable variation across institutional contexts.” This entry first examines the various conceptualizations of blended learning in HE teaching and learning systems and then proceeds to examine contemporary understanding of how HE blended learning provision contributes or might contribute to sustainable development and to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), established through the United Nations (UN) General Assembly commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Global Sustainable Development (UN 2015): • SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” • SDG 4 “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning for all.” • SDG 12 “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” • SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”

The Concept of Blended Learning While there is general agreement that blended learning refers to a combination of face-to-face teaching and online learning approaches, there are different approaches to the conceptualization and operationalization of blended learning (Graham 2012). A key issue is that blended learning may describe a variety of HE teaching and learning models that utilize ICTs to enhance or replace conventional models for delivering courses and modules. There are at least four main approaches to conceptualizing blended learning that address different combinations, blends, or mixes of teaching and learning approaches, learning technologies and delivery

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

multimedia, and pedagogical methodologies. These include: 1. Conventional face-to-face and/or mainly printbased distance teaching and learning approaches blended with technology-mediated online approaches (see Oliver and Trigwell 2005; Graham 2012) 2. A blended selection of learning technologies and delivery multimedia hosted on a virtual learning environment (VLE) platform (see Oliver and Trigwell 2005; Graham 2012) 3. A selection of different pedagogical methodologies underpinning the provision for teaching, learning, and assessment, for example, constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, and transmission learning theories (see Oliver and Trigwell 2005; Graham 2012) 4. Mixed approaches (drawing on the above three approaches) to focus on the intended learning outcomes, for example, a mix of learning outcomes across knowledge, skills, behaviors, or competencies (see Oliver and Trigwell 2005) Difficulties in defining and operationalizing the concept of blended learning are widely recognized. Oliver and Trigwell (2005:24) note that “The term ‘blended learning’ is ill defined and inconsistently used. Whilst its popularity is increasing, its clarity is not.” A useful way to operationalize the concept of blended learning is to consider both the quantity and quality of online provision needed in relation to an alternative provision, such as face-to-face teaching or distance learning provision, in the design and delivery of HE courses or modules and qualification programs. In one approach, Allen and Seaman (2003) classify HE courses based on how much content is delivered online as follows: • Traditional courses with oral or written delivery and no online learning options (0% online) • Web-facilitated courses using web-based technology to support mainly face-to-face on-campus teaching (1–29% online) • Blended/hybrid courses with online learning and face-to-face teaching (30–79% online)

109

• Online courses with little or no face-to-face teaching (80–100% online) The Allen and Seaman (2003) classification draws attention to different types of blended learning approaches, including web-facilitated, blended/hybrid, and fully online courses, the last of which is blended in the sense of different learning technologies and delivery media being combined (Allen and Seaman 2003). While this is a useful classification, it assumes that the proportion of online learning provision can be accurately calculated, although this may not be always possible. A similar approach by Jones (2006), albeit not based on quantification, offers a classification of blended learning courses ranging from courses with basic ICT usage (e.g., PowerPoint presentations); e-enhanced courses that supplement faceto-face teaching with access to online resources; e-focused courses that reduce or replace face-toface teaching with online forums, online assessments, and interactive learning materials; and e-intensive courses that are fully delivered online. Approaches, such as those adopted by Allen and Seaman (2003) and Jones (2006), offer useful, if rather simplistic, classifications that can have a limited facility to discriminate between different models of blended HE teaching and learning provision, particularly in distance HE systems. This draws attention to qualitative issues in the design of HE courses and modules and the ways ICTs are transforming HE teaching and learning delivery. Caird and Lane (2015) developed a new approach to classifying courses and modules by identifying detailed indicators of ICTs and multimedia, including rich multimedia, which create affordances for a more online, interactive, synchronous, and personalized provision for teaching, learning, and assessment with options for integrated teaching materials. This is illustrated by the following examples of ICTs and multimedia that may be used to support the: • Teaching provision (e.g., structured content, audio/video resources, integrated library resources)

B

110

• Learning provision (e.g., online tutorials, game-based learning, virtual 3D laboratory/ worlds) • Communication and collaboration, comprising the use of synchronous tools (e.g., VLE forums, online conferencing) and asynchronous tools (e.g., blogs and social networking media) • Assessment provision (e.g., plagiarism detection tools, computer-marked assessment/eassessment, badges of learning) The approach by Caird and Lane (2015) measures how ICTs are utilized in HE across a planned provision for teaching, learning, and assessment. This enables a classification of different HE teaching and learning models applicable to courses and modules, including conventional face-to-face or mainly print-based distance models and blended ICT-enhanced face-to-face and blended ICTenhanced distance models and online models. While different approaches to identifying and classifying course or module provision (see Allen and Seaman 2003; Jones 2006; Caird and Lane 2015) may be taken, clarity about the design of different models of HE blended learning provision is an essential step to understanding the outcomes for sustainable development.

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development In exploring the contribution of HE blended learning to sustainable development, it is notable that both concepts are multifaceted and open to a variety of interpretations, which complicates the understanding of their relationships and outcomes. This entry has already noted a variety of conceptualizations of the blended learning concept, of relevance to understanding the ways the concept is applied in HE teaching and learning design and delivery, and in related empirical studies. Similarly, sustainable development is a broad concept with social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Key sustainable development concerns identified by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in the Brundtland Report notably address

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

how to achieve intragenerational and intergenerational justice, recognizing the needs of the living, particularly the global poor, and the importance of protecting limited global environmental resources for the future (WCED 1987). However, a review of the available literature reveals that there are no empirical studies directly examining the relationship and/or contribution of HE blended learning to sustainable development. In view of the paucity of empirical evidence, this entry reframes the review of the contribution of HE blended learning provision to examine how it might address each of the key sustainable development concerns across the social, economic, and environmental dimensions and meet the sustainability triple bottom line, identified by Elkington (1999) across social equity, economic prosperity, and environmental protection, with reference to specific SDGs (UN 2015).

Blended Learning and Social Sustainability It is arguable that blended learning as part of HE teaching and learning systems has the potential to promote social sustainability through policies and plans to develop and maintain the availability of quality, inclusive, lifelong education that addresses the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal SDG 4 to “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning,” which recognizes the importance of quality and equitable education at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels (UN 2015). While the extent to which HE institutions address such goals is subject to much academic discourse, few studies have examined the benefits of blended learning as part of HE teaching and learning systems, with reference to delivering inclusive, quality, and lifelong learning. The integration of ICTs and rich multimedia in blended learning offers more options for providing inclusive education online by removing spatial-temporal barriers to learning, thereby offering students unprecedented flexibility to learn at a time and place of their choice (Caird and Lane 2015) and wide access to learning opportunities (Adams Becker et al. 2017). Moreover, ICTs and rich multimedia enable the

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

development of innovative pedagogies (Sharples et al. 2015), which are generally supportive of the SDG 4 to ensure quality education at all levels. This is exemplified by innovative pedagogies such as advanced learning analytics supporting individualized and individual-paced learning, crowd learning allowing students to share ideas online, and remote access to laboratories permitting scientific experimentation by students who may not otherwise have access to such facilities (see Sharples et al. 2015). The NMC Horizon Report claims that blended learning approaches support the provision of quality education through improving independent study, self-paced learning, and student creativity (Adams Becker et al. 2017). There are also claims that lifelong learning is supported using a blend of ICT and rich delivery multimedia through HE online learning systems, including the provision of open educational resources (OER) and massive online open courses (MOOCs) (Lane et al. 2014). Few empirical studies have examined the outcomes of blended learning provision; one longitudinal study in Spain conducted with a large undergraduate student population at the University of Granada examined students’ experiences of blended learning provision and found that it has positive pedagogical impacts on student retention levels and improved exam results (López-Pérez et al. 2011). In a US study, Tseng and Walsh (2016) compared the experiences and perceptions of students on a blended and a traditional face-toface taught undergraduate course at Jacksonville State University, using a range of instruments to collect in-depth data on their learning motivation, learning outcomes, skills, and achievements. This study found that blended learning provision improved students’ confidence, learning motivation, and satisfaction (Tseng and Walsh 2016), which is attributable to the affordances of blended learning for facilitating individualized, independent, and self-directed student learning. Moreover, Spring et al. (2016) research with leading international academics and researchers specializing in blended learning, confirmed the value of blended learning provision for student engagement, personalized learning, and enhanced learning outcomes. While there is some evidence that

111

blended learning supports quality, inclusive, and lifelong education, more empirical research is needed to develop the evidential base for claims that blended learning improves pedagogical outcomes for students (Halverson et al. 2012) and to clarify the ways different blended learning designs improve learning outcomes (Graham 2012). It is interesting to note that if, as it has been claimed, HE blended learning systems are becoming the “new normal” (Norberg et al. 2011), it will become increasingly appropriate to extend considerations of the role of HE blended learning approaches to the more general contribution of HE to sustainable development. An important United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) sustainability initiative called “Education for Sustainable Development” (also known as Sustainability Education and Education for Sustainability) has focused on greening the curriculum to support the UN SDGs, established at the time of the 2012 Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNESCO 2014). This includes meeting SDG 4 targets to integrate key sustainability concepts across the curriculum (target 4.7) through the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development framework (UN 2015) as discussed in the “Sustainable Higher Education Systems” entry in this encyclopedia (Caird and Roy 2018). Most recently, MOOCs have been created to deliver online, large-scale, widely accessible “Education for Sustainable Development” curricula to promote pro-environmental behaviors worldwide (UNESCO 2014).

Blended Learning and Economic Sustainability It is arguable that HE blended learning approaches have the potential to promote economic sustainability through policies and plans to develop and maintain accessible educational services that are economic, efficient, and effective over time and so deliver economic benefits. For HE institutions, there is the potential to use blended learning approaches with some level of online delivery in

B

112

educational programs to reduce staff time, cut costs, and develop business models to support larger student populations through both efficiencies and economies of scale, thereby improving financial sustainability. For the student, this may reduce the costs of tuition, travel, and residential accommodation, although any cost-savings may be sometimes fully appropriated by HE institutions. For public bodies, there is the potential to demonstrate that blended learning delivers value for money and a good return on public investment in education. The contribution of HE blended learning to economic dimensions of sustainable development may be considered with reference to SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” (UN 2015). This SDG identifies “limited access to education” as a form of poverty, in view of its importance for gaining employment, promoting equality, accessing services, and enabling participation in local and national decision-making. It is clearly also relevant to UN SDG 4 targets to ensure equal access to affordable and quality tertiary education by 2030 (target 4.3). Addressing the constraints on the availability, affordability, accessibility, and acceptability of study opportunities is central to wider participation in HE (Lane et al. 2014) and ultimately to the performance of economies worldwide. As yet, few studies have been published that examine the financial and economic benefits of blended learning as part of HE teaching and learning systems. The NMC Horizon Report claims that the integration of ICTs and multimedia in learning provision offers students accessible, lower-cost learning opportunities (Adams Becker et al. 2017). Moreover, a UNESCO report claims that online learning approaches can reduce costs, which should also apply to some forms of blended learning (UNESCO 2014). It is clear that costcutting is often a key HE institutional driver for developing blended learning approaches (Spring et al. 2016). It is expected, therefore, that HE institutions would have financial data on the benefits of transition from conventional HE approaches to a blended learning provision, although whether this information is publicly available is a different matter. Clearly more

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

empirical research is needed to address claims that blended learning improves cost-effectiveness for HE institutions and deliver benefits for the economy (Halverson et al. 2012).

Blended Learning and Environmental Sustainability There is the potential for blended learning as part of HE teaching and learning systems to promote environmental sustainability through policies and plans that attend to the design and delivery of HE teaching and learning curricula to reduce negative environmental impacts, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions and to sustain ecosystem services over time. This is relevant to SDG 12 to “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns” and SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (UN 2015). A significant challenge for HE is how to develop sustainable HE systems in terms of the design, production, and delivery of teaching and learning on courses, modules, and qualification programs, as discussed in the “Sustainable Higher Education Systems” entry in this encyclopedia (Caird and Roy 2018). Few studies have examined the influence of HE teaching and learning models on the environment, in terms of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, and of those available studies, even fewer have focused on blended learning approaches. However, the proliferation of ICTs transforming HE over past decades and the increasing prevalence of blended learning approaches create new research challenges for understanding the impacts of different HE teaching and learning models. Here we examine empirical studies that inform understanding of the influence of blended learning provision on aspects of environmental sustainability as part of distance and campus-based HE systems. Several studies, notably the Factor 10 Visions study “Towards Sustainable Higher Education” (Roy et al. 2005, 2008) and the SusTEACH “Sustainable Teaching Models” project (Caird et al. 2015a), have examined the environmental

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

impacts of different HE models of teaching and learning on courses and modules in the UK, which included blended learning approaches. These studies involved an environmental audit of HE courses and modules in UK institutions to include staff and student travel; the purchase and use of computers, printed educational materials, and paper; student residential energy use; and campus building energy and site operations. This enabled an assessment of the energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with different HE models of teaching and learning of courses and modules in campus-based and distance HE systems, which is relevant to SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (UN 2015). The Factor 10 Visions study compared several distance learning courses delivered by blend of print and online materials with some supportive face-to-face, telephone, or online tuition with distance-taught courses delivered by mainly printed educational materials. This found that the distance learning courses, which blended print with online provision, offered only a small reduction in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions (20% and 12%, respectively) when compared to mainly print-based distance-taught courses. This relatively small reduction was explained by the high student use of computing and consumption of paper for printing off webbased online material (Roy et al. 2005). However, comparisons between the distance-taught HE courses, including the courses with a blended learning provision, and the conventional campus-based courses revealed that on average the production and delivery of the distance HE courses used 87% less energy and produced 85% fewer carbon dioxide emissions than the campusbased courses when standardized per hundred student hours of planned teaching and learning. Opportunities to extend the examination of the impacts of HE blended learning approaches on energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in both campus-based and distance HE systems were addressed through the SusTEACH project. This study first developed a new classification of HE courses and modules in UK institutions

113

based on their primary teaching and learning model (Caird and Lane 2015) as outlined in the above section “The Concept of Blended Learning.” It then conducted an environmental assessment and calculated the energy use (in megajoules) and carbon dioxide emissions (in kilograms) associated with different HE teaching and learning models when standardized per student per hundred study hours (Caird et al. 2015b). This found that the average energy use and emissions associated with HE teaching and learning models per student per hundred study hours were from lowest to highest as follows: online models, blended ICT-enhanced distance models, print-based distance models, blended ICT-enhanced face-toface teaching models, and conventional campus face-to-face models (Caird et al. 2015a). As with the Factor 10 study, within the HE distance teaching system, blended ICT-enhanced HE models were comparatively better than the print-based distance teaching models at reducing energy use and carbon dioxide emissions (Roy et al. 2008), although these reductions were small relative to the significant reductions associated with online teaching and learning models (Caird et al. 2015a). The picture was more complex in campus-based HE systems when examining blended ICT-enhanced face-to-face teaching models, which only achieved slightly lower impacts than traditional campus models. The SusTEACH analysis revealed that a third of the energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with the blended ICT-enhanced face-to-face teaching model was attributable to student air travel between home and term-time residence. In some cases, this blended model involved students traveling long distances to attend the campus for short periods of face-to-face teaching while also learning online for part of the course, thereby offsetting the potential gains of increased online provision (Caird et al. 2015a). More attention is now being given to student travel (Versteijlen et al. 2017) particularly international travel, although the likely carbon dioxide emissions generated by international student air travel is rarely discussed (Davies 2015).

B

114

Both the “Factor 10 Visions” and “SusTEACH” studies showed that distance delivery of courses and modules was the most important factor in explaining the major differences between the distance- and campus-based HE systems, in terms of the energy usage and consequent carbon dioxide emissions. The strikingly lower impacts of distance learning were mainly due to a significant reduction in student travel and residential energy use and efficiencies and economies of scale in utilizing campus site facilities and operations by spreading the costs of production and delivery across large numbers of students (Roy et al. 2008; Caird et al. 2015a). The SusTEACH study findings suggested that where ICTs are used to design modules and courses to reduce the need for student travel and commuting, and to reduce the use of residential buildings, campus buildings, and operations, then significant reductions in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved (Caird et al. 2015a). The SusTEACH toolkit was subsequently developed to facilitate the design of sustainable HE modules and courses supported by an OpenLearn course (Caird and Lane 2013). Very few other studies have compared the environmental impacts of blended learning through different models for delivering HE teaching and learning (see Alharthi et al. 2018). However, there are several comparative studies of online HE models discussed in the “Sustainable Higher Education Systems” entry in this encyclopedia, which could be considered to be blended learning in some definitions given their use of a mix of learning technologies and delivery media hosted on a virtual learning environment (VLE) platform (see Oliver and Trigwell 2005; Graham 2012). Collectively, these studies point to the conceptual and methodological complexities (Roy et al. 2005, 2008; Caird et al. 2015a,b; Stewart and Khare 2015; Oliveira et al. 2017) and contextual factors (Harlow 2016) involved in making environmental comparisons between different models of HE teaching and learning. Moreover, such studies could be extended to cover additional environmental impacts, such as resource depletion, air and water pollution, threats to wildlife, and waste. However, energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are often a good indicator of these other environmental impacts (e.g., Kalbar et al. 2017), and so the design of HE teaching and

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

learning models to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions will often result in the reduction in other negative impacts.

Conclusions This entry has examined blended learning in HE systems and sustainable development, observing that both concepts are complex and multifaceted and have various interpretations and applications in research and practice. Particular challenges hang on the limited empirical evidence available to establish the relationships between blended learning, now considered prevalent in HE, and sustainable development, although there is currently growing research interest in seeking to understand the impacts of blended learning technologies (Adams Becker et al. 2017). This entry has considered the contribution of ICTs and multimedia in HE teaching, learning, and assessment to providing inclusive, quality, and lifelong learning (SDG 4) (UN 2015) through the development of innovative pedagogies (Sharples et al. 2015) to provide the benefits of online learning. The benefits of rich multimedia ICTs include the provision of opportunities for students to learn at a place and time of their choice using specially designed interactive materials and integrated resources to support independent and individualized learning, with options for collaborative learning with international online student community groups (Caird and Lane 2015). Moreover, the review has identified evidence that blended learning is associated with greater student confidence, motivation, engagement, creativity, and satisfaction with a greater capacity for independent and self-paced learning and enhanced learning outcomes (Tseng and Walsh 2016; Spring et al. 2016; Adams Becker et al. 2017). This entry has also addressed the paucity of empirical evidence supporting the contribution and benefits of HE blended learning across social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability, noting that blended learning offers the potential to promote:

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development

• Social sustainability, for example, by developing and maintaining the availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and equitability of HE (Lane et al. 2014) to address SDG 4 “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” • Economic sustainability, for example, developing and maintaining accessible educational services that are economic, efficient, and effective over time, and delivering economic benefits, with reference to SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” • Environmental sustainability, for example, by improving system efficiencies, economies, and effectiveness with reference to SDG 12 “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns” and also by reducing negative environmental impacts, carbon-intensive energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions and sustaining ecosystem services over time, with reference to SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (UN 2015)

115

access to education, and supports lifelong learning, whereas the benefits for economic sustainability are conditional on whether the design of blended HE models reduces costs, improves system efficiencies, increases scale efficiencies and economies, and delivers a good return on investment for the economy. The benefits for environmental sustainability are conditional on the design of blended HE models offering effective substitution or reduction in the main sources of HE energy use, including student travel, campus buildings and site operations, student residential buildings, and the purchase and use of equipment, to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. Nonetheless, the contribution of blended HE teaching and learning models to sustainable development requires further empirical studies to identify the best ways to support the sustainable development goals.

Cross-References ▶ Sustainable Higher Education Systems

While the benefits of blended learning HE models for the SDGs have been supported by a number of empirical studies, there is stronger evidence for the benefits of online and distance HE systems for social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Roy et al. 2008; Caird et al. 2015a). This is achieved by widening access to learning beyond the campus context, achieving scale efficiencies and economies by spreading costs across larger student numbers, and substituting the main uses of energy and sources of carbon dioxide emissions using distance methods and ICTs. In conclusion, blended HE teaching and learning models can be valuable for promoting the SDGs, particularly the targets around inclusive quality education (SDG 4), although the greatest gains across the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability may be achieved by making greater use of distance and fully online HE models. The benefits of blended HE models for social sustainability are conditional on whether the design of blended HE models improves learning outcomes, widens

References Alharthi AD, Spichkova M, Hamilton M (2018) Sustainability requirements for eLearning systems: a systematic literature review and analysis. Requirements Engineering 18(3):1–21. Available via https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00766-018-0299-9. Accessed 30 October 2018. Adams Becker S, Cummins M, Davis A, Freeman A, Hall Giesinger C, Ananthanarayanan V (2017) NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin. Available via http://cdn. nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf Allen IE, Seaman J (2003) Sizing the opportunity: the quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Sloan Consortium (NJ1). Available via https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530060.pdf Caird S, Lane A (2013) The environmental impact of teaching and learning, OpenLearn unit. Available via http:// www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/the-envir onment/the-environmental-impact-teaching-and-lear ning/content-section-0 Caird S, Lane A (2015) Conceptualising the role of information and communication technologies in the design of higher education teaching models used in the UK. Br J Educ Technol 46(1) 58–70. Available via https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12123

B

116 Caird S, Roy R (2018) Sustainable higher education systems. In: Leal Filho W, Velazquez L (eds) Encyclopedia of sustainability and higher education: campus greening, design, operations and carbon impacts. Springer, Heidelberg (in review) Caird S, Lane A, Swithenby E, Roy R, Potter S (2015a) Design of higher education teaching models and carbon impacts. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(1): 96–111. Available via https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2013-0065 Caird S, Swithenby E, Lane A (2015b) The SusTEACH methodology: assessment of the environmental impacts of higher education teaching models and development of an environmental appraisal toolkit. The Open University, 63pp. Available via http://oro.open.ac.uk/42478/ Davies J (2015) An analysis of the sustainability of different methods of delivering higher education. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Kuznetsova O, Paço A (eds) Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 67–79. Available via http://www.springer. com/la/book/9783319106892 Elkington J (1999) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business, New edition. Capstone, Oxford Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ 7(2):95–105 Graham CR (2012) Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In: Moore MG (ed) Handbook of distance education. Routledge, London, pp 333–350 Halverson LR, Graham CR, Spring KJ, Drysdale JS (2012) An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Educ 33(3):381–413 Harlow S (2016) The carbon-based environmental impact of learning at the University of Waikato. In: DEANZ2016: conference proceedings, 17–20 Apr. The University of Waikato, New Zealand, pp 49–53. Available via http://flanz.org.nz/flanzorg/wp-content/ uploads/2016/06/DEANZ16-Conference-proceedings 11-April.pdf Jones N (2006) E-college Wales, a case study of blended learning. In: Bonk CJ, Graham CR (eds) Handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, pp 182–194 Kalbar PP, Birkveda M, Karmakar S, Nygaarde SE, Hauschilda M (2017) Can carbon footprint serve as proxy of the environmental burden from urban consumption patterns? Ecol Indic 74:109–118 Lane A, Caird S, Weller M (2014) The potential social, economic and environmental benefits of MOOCs: operational and historical comparisons with a massive ‘closed online’ course. Open Praxis 6(2):115–123 López-Pérez MV, Pérez-López MC, Rodríguez-Ariza L (2011) Blended learning in higher education: students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Comput Edu 56(3):818–826 Norberg A, Dziuban CD, Moskal PD (2011) A time-based blended learning model. Horizon 19(3):207–216 Oliveira JH, Giannetti BF, Agostinho F, Almeida CMVB (2017) Decision making under the environmental

Blended Learning and Sustainable Development perspective: choosing between traditional and distance teaching courses. J Clean Prod 172:4303–4313 Oliver M, Trigwell K (2005) Can “blended learning” be redeemed? e-Learning 2(1):17–26 Roy R, Potter S, Yarrow K, Smith M (2005) Towards Sustainable Higher Education: environmental impacts of conventional campus, print-based and electronic distance/open learning systems, Final report DIG-08. Design Innovation Group, The Open University, Milton Keynes Roy R, Potter S, Yarrow K (2008) Designing low carbon higher education systems: environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(2):116–130 Sharma P (2010) Blended learning. ELT J 64(4):456–458. Available via https://doi-org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10. 1093/elt/ccq043 Sharples M, Adams A, Alozie N, Ferguson R, FitzGerald E, Gaved M, McAndrew P, Means B, Remold J, Rienties B, Roschelle J, Vogt K, Whitelock D, Yarnall L (2015) Innovating Pedagogy 2015: (Open University Innovation Report 4). The Open University, Milton Keynes. Available via http:// proxima.iet.open.ac.uk/public/innovating_pedagogy_ 2015.pdf Spring KJ, Graham CR, Hadlock CA (2016) The current landscape of international blended learning. Int J Technol Enhanc Learn 8(1):84–102 Stewart B, Khare A (2015) eLearning and the sustainable campus. In: Leal Filho W (eds) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 291–305. Available via https://link.springer.com/chap ter/10.1007/978-3-319-08837-2_20. Accessed 30 October 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31908837-2_20 Tseng H, Walsh E (2016) Blended versus traditional course delivery: comparing students' motivation, learning outcomes, and preferences. Q Rev Dist Edu 17(1):43–52 UNESCO (2014) Shaping the future we want UN decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014, (Final report) by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Available via https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docume nts/1682Shaping%20the%20future%20we%20want. pdf United Nations (UN) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. Available via https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con tent/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sus tainable%20Development%20web.pdf Versteijlen M, Perez Salgado F, Janssen Groesbeek M, Counotte A (2017) Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 28:80–89 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. In: Brundtland GH (ed) Report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available via http://www.un-documents.net/ our-common-future.pdf

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

117

Introduction

Blended Learning: Hybrid Learning, TechnologyEnhanced Learning, Technology-Mediated Learning, Mixed Mode Learning ▶ Blended Learning Development

and

Sustainable

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education Louis Brown University of Manchester, Birmingham, UK

Synonyms Appropriation of funding for sustainability in higher education; Financial management for sustainability in higher education.

Many accepted definitions of budgeting conclude that budgeting is for short-term financial planning. For example Merchant (1981) describes budgeting as a system that is “a combination of information flows and administrative processes and procedures that is usually an integral part of the short-range planning and control system of an organisation.” This differs from other modern definitions of budgeting such as “a budget is a statement of an organisation’s plans, priorities, goals, and objectives, expressed in financial terms, for a specific period of time” (Gibson 2009). The objectives of higher education institutions are determined by a number of stakeholders and external factors. Effective budgeting will facilitate the development of financial practices and policies to institutional, divisional, and academic unit budgets which reflect and promote pursuit of the goals articulated in the mission statement and other planning documents (Barr and McClellan 2018). The importance of a sustainability agenda to a given institution is inherent to the sustainability budget, and one should not overlook the importance of clearly defining the mission and goals of the organization as part of the budgeting process.

Definition Budgeting

Sustainability

Higher Education Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

A statement of an organization’s plans, priorities, goals, and objectives, expressed in financial terms, for a specific period of time (Gibson 2009). The term sustainability is used to assess a situation, process, or tangible entity that is viable and enduring in the long term. Tertiary and post-secondary educational institutions. The process of developing, revising, evaluating, and monitoring budgeting policies and operations, budgets, and budget performance for sustainability in tertiary and post-secondary educational institutions.

Types of Budget in Higher Education There are four common types of budgets in higher education institutions. Those types are operating, capital, auxiliary, and special funds (Barr and McClellan 2018). The operating budget at a higher education institution includes income from all sources and all expenditures for the specified budget year. Operating budgets incorporate both unrestricted and restricted income (the latter being income which may only be used for designated purposes based on the sources of that income) as well as reserve funds which are set aside by institutions for specific purpose of a long-term nature such as major repair projects. This could include long-term sustainability initiatives, such as replacing all bathrooms within the university

B

118

campus with more water-efficient tap, sink, and toilet installations. Many sustainability projects in higher education require long-term attention and funding. Capital budgets are created for the purposes of helping manage large capital improvement projects or campus-wide infrastructure projects. The renovation of a university campus in Portugal at the University of Coimbra had the aim to “achieve nearly zero energy performance through the total replacement of the actual lighting by LEDs and the installation of a photovoltaic system (PV) with 78.8 kWp, coupled with an energy storage system with 100 kWh of lithium-ion batteries” (Fonseca et al. 2018). Capital budgets are flexible and purpose based, given they are available for the lifespan of a given project, and are usually not limited to a period of time. Not all capital projects are of such a scope that they require a dedicated capital budget; these smaller projects are typically handled within the operating budget for a given budget period. Auxiliary budgets may exist in a higher education system. An auxiliary budget is independent of support from central institutional funds. Auxiliary budgets exist either as fully or partially funded through self-support. An auxiliary unit is commonly one which provides a product or service which can be funded through subscriptions, fees, and payments. An example may be a sustainable coffee cup initiative whereby a portion of university campus coffee sales are put toward the provision of a multiple-use coffee cup for each student. Special funds budgets are a type of budget which may be employed to monitor the revenue and expenses of specific sustainability initiatives or programs. Special funds budgets have a specific budget period or the life of the project. In some instances, a special funds budget will reflect revenue from an endowment (Barr and McClellan 2018).

Budgeting Models in Higher Education The budgeting model employed at any given financial institution depends on many different factors. The size of the institution, its history, its

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

internal organization, a nation’s budget model for higher education institutions, a nation’s academic culture, and a nation’s or institutions internal academic culture may influence the budgeting model at any given institution. The overall decision-making for budgeting can generally be understood to be either centralized or decentralized. Centralized decisionmaking situates control at the institutional level. Tight controls help assure direct linkage with institutional priorities and budget performance consistent with the approved budget. Decentralized decision-making locates control of budget decisions at the unit level. Budgets are developed and managed in a ground-up fashion as opposed to a top-down one. This approach takes advantage of the involvement of those with most direct knowledge of the programs and services being delivered and allows necessary flexibility to address rapidly evolving challenges and opportunities. A decentralized philosophy requires more time for processes, and it facilitates proactive budget management. As with budget models, a hybrid or blended approach to budget decision-making is more common than a purely centralized or decentralized one (Ruckenstein et al. 2016). There are additional budgeting models which support an overall centralized or decentralized structure. Incremental budgeting is a traditional budget mode in which budget proposals and allocations are based upon the funding levels of the previous year. Only new revenue is allocated, and budget cuts are made as a percentage of the institution’s historical budget (Hanover 2012). Zero-based budgeting is where, at the beginning of every budget planning period, the previous year’s budget for each unit is cleared. Every part of the institution must re-request funding levels, and all spending must be re-justified (Hanover 2012). Activity-based budgeting awards is activity-based budgeting awards financial resources to institutional activities that see the greatest return (in the form of increased revenues) for the institution. A performance-based budget awards funds based on performance which is determined by a number of defined outcomes.

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

The Role of Senior Leaders in Budgeting for Higher Education Presidents and Chancellors Presidents and Chancellors have a unique set of opportunities to institutionalize sustainability into the operational parts of the institution, such as the budget (HEASC 2017). There are several ways that Presidents and Chancellors can influence budgeting for sustainability in higher education institutions. They can influence the size of a sustainability budget in higher educations and the scope of a sustainability budget in higher education which would detail the amounts allocated to and/or the type of sustainability initiatives employed. Presidents can influence the purpose of a sustainability budget and decide which sustainability initiatives to prioritize. Presidents can influence the budgeting model employed, e.g., centralized or decentralized. Further, presidents influence how the budget is handled, by employing specific personnel such as a Chief Sustainability Officer to deal with the budget. Presidents can influence the impact of a sustainability budget by including performance evaluations of those implicated in allocating and managing the budget, as well as implementing monitoring and reporting mechanisms, such as asking for plans and updates. The Board of Trustees Within the oversight role, trustees have the opportunity to encourage the overarching conversation about sustainability and therefore influence how a sustainability budget is partitioned (Pelletier 2008). Trustees can make sure that sustainability is merged with other institutional goals and included in the institution’s planning documents and can ask for regular updates on progress. Trustees need to consider the financial implications of their institution’s sustainability commitments and consider both the costs and the shortand long-term savings of any given initiative. Long-term investments in sustainability projects such as energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and programming to increase students’ and staff awareness of wasteful behaviors would yield positive cash flow and lower

119

operating costs, which lead to less cost volatility and healthier budgets. Sustainability projects also have the potential to foster community partnerships and increased attractiveness to prospective students. In addition, they may also impact the “invest ability” of the institution. Chief Sustainability Officers The Chief Sustainability Officer may have direct control of many elements of the sustainability budget. The Chief Sustainability Officer may be able to determine the scope, the purpose, and the operational management of the budget. However, the Chief Sustainability Officer is unlikely to have the authority to define the size of the budget. The Chief Sustainability Officer may be able to influence the size of the budget if they can demonstrate the down-the-line operating cost savings of implementing initiatives for elements such as energy, waste, or water. The Chief Sustainability Officer is unlikely to be able to influence the way in which the performance of a sustainability budget is judged, given this could encourage bias. However, The Chief Sustainability Officer would be integral to the reporting and monitoring of the budget, as well as giving updates to and holding discussions with the President or Chancellor and the trustees.

Measurement, Performance, and Reporting of Sustainability Budgets in Higher Education Incurred costs from sustainability activities will be compared against the starting budget. Differences between the budget and the actual expenditures are called variances. Variances can be favorable (i.e., underspending) or unfavorable (i.e., overspending) and are usually recorded in a variance report (Gibson 2009). For a sustainability budget, a specific program report may be employed to track expenditures. In addition to budgeting reporting mechanisms, implementing a social, environmental, and economic impact measurement system which identifies both the costs and benefits from activities is critical to the evaluation of projects

B

120

(Epstein 2008). This can be applied when measuring the performance of a sustainability budget. There are financial and nonfinancial measures which permit the comprehensive evaluation of social, environmental, and economic impacts, facilitated by information technology capabilities that permit the collection, aggregation, and disaggregation of information for improved analysis, management, and reporting (Epstein 2008). To continue to improve resource allocation decisions at higher education institutions, it is critical to collect and analyze data (Epstein 2008). This can be applied to elements impacting a sustainability budget. All elements of the sustainability contribution model (inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes) should be measured and reported for improved management decisions and actions and for improved accountability to stakeholders (Epstein 2008). This data can then be included in internal sustainability reports to improve managerial decision-making regarding processes and products. How universities perform on sustainability is also an important factor for external stakeholders, since they are affected by board strategies and actions.

A Practical Case of Sustainability Budgets in Higher Education To support its work on sustainability, the University of Bedfordshire (United Kingdom) has three distinct budgets (University of Bedforshire 2018). The first is a capital budget. Since 2008 the University of Bedfordshire has invested £3.6 m capital in its carbon reduction program. The capital budget is not restricted to carbon reduction, but can be invested in assets that support the Sustainable Development Strategy and the Environment Policy. In 2017/2018, the capital budget for sustainability was set at £155,000, and for the 2018/ 2019 financial year, a budget of £436,000 has been approved, largely in part to the construction of a new “green” building. The second is a special funds budget. Every year since 2013/2014, the University has set aside a ring-fenced revenue budget for sustainability; however, additional sustainability spent takes place across the University.

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

In the financial year of 2018/2019, a budget of £31,000 has been approved. Finally, students and staff are able to request funding from the operating budget for sustainability projects via their “Sustainability Steering Group.” Examples of student and staff projects funded via the University’s operating budget include the Lift Sticker Campaign (2017), a Beekeeping Project (2018), a Recycling Stickers for bins (2018), and a Sustainability Forum for the UN Sustainable Development Goals Conference (2019).

Barriers to Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education Pressures on Budgets A study of Facilities Managers in 37 Canadian universities showed the participants perceived the largest barrier of sustainability initiatives at their university to be financial and resource based, as well as resistance to change (Wright and Wilton 2012). Following the global financial crisis in 2008, cost-cutting practices at many universities resulted in a deterioration of quality. More parttime faculty were hired, class sizes expanded, and additional actions freezes on hiring, construction of new facilities, and improving information technology were impacts (Altbach et al. 2009). There is significant pressure to reduce costs in the supply chain, yet switching to lower-cost suppliers may increase social, environmental, and economic impacts, and reactions from various stakeholders, including employees, customers, regulators, and community activities (Epstein and Buhovac 2014). This creates the need for leaders of higher education institutions to develop and implement funding strategies to maintain organizational sustainability, as well as environmental and human sustainability. Wright and Witton’s study identified that leaders need to focus on offering education that meets stakeholders’ needs while implementing funding strategies to support budget decisions for organizational sustainability (Rease 2016). The challenge is to integrate financial performance with sustainability performance, and this can evolve into a powerful system for executing strategy (Epstein and Buhovac 2014).

Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

121

The Politics of Budgeting There are many common obstacles for budgeting in higher education institutions. When budgeting for sustainability, understanding how decisionmaking processes affect sustainability budgets would be key, as budgeting and budget management are inherently political processes (Barr and McClellan 2018). Internal power structures and motivations may impact sustainability budgets. An understanding of these factors would help those responsible for a sustainability budget to operate effectively within the political environment. It is also useful to understand the budget history of the unit, as this may impact the budgetary practices and policies of a higher education institution (Barr and McClellan 2018). Bart (1989) also warns that budgeting “gamesmanship” is more likely to occur when managers are unknowledgeable, which reemphasizes the importance of having the right management personnel responsible for sustainability budgets. Usually, the larger and more complex the budget is, the greater the extent of which the budget is decentralized, which can exacerbate the risk of inadequate personnel.

and Chancellors have a unique opportunity to institutionalize sustainability into the budgeting processes. Trustees on the board have the opportunity to encourage the overarching conversation about sustainability, while those in management positions such as Chief Sustainability Officers have the opportunity to influence the scope, the balance, and the impact of the budget. Alongside standard budgeting reporting mechanisms such as variance reports, implementing a social, environmental, and economic impact measurement system which identifies both the costs and benefits from sustainability activities is critical to the evaluation of sustainability projects. All elements of the sustainability contribution model (inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes) should be measured and reported for improved management decisions and actions and for improved accountability to stakeholders. Macroeconomic and internal political factors are both common challenges for budgeting in higher education. A strong strategic sustainability agenda at an academic institution, combined with the instillation of skilled and moral leaders, can help to mitigate these factors.

Summary

References

Sustainability budgets in a higher education institution reflect and promote the pursuit of the goals articulated in the mission statement and other planning documents (Barr and McClellan 2018). Therefore, the size, scope, and nature of budgets allocated to sustainability initiatives are inherent to the sustainability agenda at a given institution. Four common types of budget are observed in higher education institutions. These types are operating, capital, auxiliary, and special funds (Barr and McClellan 2018). Overall, decision-making for budgeting is seen as centralized or decentralized; however, other models of budgeting exist such as incremental budgeting, zero-based budgeting, performance budgeting, and activity-based budgeting. Existing sustainability in higher education literature such as the “Sustainable Campus Index” demonstrates a preference for implementing decentralized budgeting (AASHE 2017). Presidents

AASHE (2017) The index for campus sustainability. Retrieved from: www.aashe.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/11/2017_Sustainable_Campus_Index.pdf. Last accessed 10 Oct 2018 Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2009) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference on higher education, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris Barr MJ, McClellan GS (2018) Budgets and financial management in higher education. Wiley, San Francisco Bart C (1989) Budgeting gamesmanship. Acad Manag Exec 2:285–294 Epstein M (2008) Making sustainability work. Routledge, London Epstein M, Buhovac A (2014) Making sustainability work: best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. BerrettKoehler Publishers, San Francisco Fonseca P, Moura P, Jorge H, de Almeida A (2018) Sustainability in university campus: options for achieving nearly zero energy goals. Int J Sustain High Educ 19(4):790–816

B

122 Gibson AM (2009) Budgeting in higher education. General Conference Department Education, Silver Spring Hanover research (2012) 6 alternative budget models for colleges and universities. Retrieved from: https://www. hanoverresearch.com/2012/04/5-alternative-budget-m odels-for-colleges-and-universities. Last accessed 6 Oct 2018 HEASC (2017) Sustainable development primer for higher education presidents, chancellors, trustees and senior leaders. Retrieved from: http://hub-media.aashe.org/ uploads/Presidents_and_Boards_Primer-DS.pdf. Last accessed 9 Oct 2018 Merchant KA (1981) The design of the corporate budgeting system: influences on managerial behavior and performance. Account Rev 56:813–829 Pelletier S (2008) Sustainability: what is the trustee’s stake? Trusteeship 16(5):8–14. Retrieved from: http://agb.org/trusteeship/2008/septemberoctober/sust ainability-what-is-the-trustees-stake. Last accessed 10 Nov 2018 Rease A (2016) Strategies for organizational sustainability in higher education. Retrieved from: https://scholarwo rks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3681& context=dissertations. Last accessed 10 Nov 2018 Ruckenstein AE, Smith ME, Owen NC (2016) How can we make UK higher education more sustainable? Retrieved from: https://www.timeshighereducation. com/features/how-can-we-make-uk-higher-educationsustainable. Last accessed 12 Nov 2018 University of Bedfordshire (2018) Budgeting for sustainability. Retrieved from: https://www.beds.ac.uk/sus tainability/about/budgeting-for-sustainability. Last accessed 12 Nov 2018 Wright TS, Wilton H (2012) Facilities management directors’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 31:118–125

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development Tainá Nicolau de Campos, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition With regard to the three elements of sustainable development - economic growth, social progress and effective protection of the environment - the construction industry importance cannot be

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

disregarded in this context. To do so, it is essential to include the life cycle assessment perspective in the quest for sustainability, considering three basic principles: resource management, life cycle design, and human and environmental design (Sev 2009).

Introduction Considering the impacts that civil construction industry may cause on the environment, it is necessary to choose sustainable materials to carry out the constructions, since natural resources must be considered as finite and the amount of waste generated is concerning. In terms of sustainability, it is also important to consider issues such as changes in climate and temperature, and the proposal to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, ensuring access to adequate housing for all. These are the assumptions cited in objective 11, found in the “Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development,” which is based on the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental issues (United Nations 2015). That said, it should be noted that interior design can offer ways to apply appropriate techniques and materials and thus contribute to reduce environmental impact without losing the personality or aesthetic aspects of the project and without necessarily raising the cost of the project. Pazmino (2007) defines sustainable design as one in which the product is environmentally correct, economically viable, and socially equitable, and that considers a range of items to be observed in the development/production of a product much larger than in conventional design. According to Moxon (2012), the work of designers and architects can produce favorable results with lower environmental impact. This is due to the use of local materials and methods, and use of bioclimatic design principles, which has the main aspects of “heat gain by insolation, solar shading, thermal inertia, thermal insulation, natural ventilation, air tightness and natural lighting” (p. 68). The author also mentions that designers have a wide range of possibilities regarding available

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

materials that are consistent with sustainability. In this sense, the use of materials, in turn, must first consider reducing, then reusing, recycling, and, finally, use of renewable sources. Moxon (2012) emphasizes the priority of reducing the amount of materials that is used, adopting reuse materials – such as demolition timber, choosing those with recyclable content, and, where there is no such possibility, opting for those which raw materials originate from renewable energy sources. Pazmino (2007) points out that in view of technological evolution of last decades, increase in consumption and search for high standards of comfort – that led to environmental degradation, the intervention of professional designer is increasingly necessary to improve the established relationship between products, environment, and society. Therefore, designers have at their disposal several possibilities for application of materials suited to sustainability. However, to analyze each material from an environmental point of view, it is necessary to incorporate the concept of Life Cycle Assessment – LCA (Rodrigues and Gregory 2017). In the light of the above, this article presents a reflection on the choice of environmentally friendly products in interior design and in what ways they can contribute to sustainable development, considering the life cycle of materials and buildings.

The Life Cycle of Buildings, Sustainability, and Interior Design When relating sustainability to interior design there are some inherent limitations to the built environment, because most of the time, when looking for a more ecologically balanced posture in the civil construction, only environmentally responsible products, use of renewable energy, and water saving are mentioned (Sarmento and Souza 2016). Papanek (1995, p. 115) points out that: [. . .] architecture can only thrive if the built houses are in harmony with the people living in them, with nature and with culture. This will mean a big step for users and for the sustainability of the built environment. “So, when thinking about

123

environments designed in harmony with the people who will live in them, the role of interior design is reflected on sustainability and, consequently, there is a contribution to sustainable development” (Sarmento and Souza 2016). According to Agopyan and John (2011), nowadays the civil construction sector presents accelerated growth, which generates housing and quality of life to the population, which are essential conditions for human life. On the other hand, it can be considered the sector of human activities that most consumes energy and resources, besides generating great amounts of waste. For Kozáková et al. (2014, p. 485): Energy consumption in buildings is a relevant issue to permanent sustainable development. Reduction of energy consumption in buildings and exhaust fumes is a priority for European Union and other countries. As stated by the U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA2013) in the International Energy Outlook, the energy performance of buildings (except for buildings not designated for production) was higher than 1/5 of overall world consumption in 2010. There is an expectation of another increase by approximately 0.6% per year in OECD countries and by 2.7% per year in nonOECD countries.

The authors still mention that “buildings have a significant share in overall energy consumption and, regarding the prognosis for future development, there is the expectation of further growth in consumption” (Kozáková et al. 2014, p. 485). In addition, the amount and kind of energy use during the life cycle of a building material, from the production process to its handling after the useful life can, for example, in different ways, over different periods of time, affect the flow of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (Lenzen and Treloar 2002). In addition to energy consumption, construction and its operations rely heavily on the use of water from the environment. Water is consumed in the extraction, production, manufacture, and delivery of materials and products to the construction site (Akadiri et al. 2012). Regarding the impacts related to the civil construction sector, it is also important to mention that the extraction and consumption of natural resources as building materials, or as raw

B

124

materials for building materials production in implementing construction works has a direct impact on natural bio-diversity, due to the fragmentation of natural areas and ecosystems caused by construction activities. As it is known, built environment consumes large amount of mineral resources, most of which are nonrenewable (Akadiri et al. 2012). In this way, the choice of the materials that will be used in a construction is of paramount importance, and for this purpose, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) should be used. In the life cycle assessment, there should be an analysis from the environmental perspective that considers the extraction of raw material, transportation and energy spent in this route, manufacturing, planning, use, generation of waste, and its disposal (Agopyan and John 2011). In the search for sustainability, LCA plays a fundamental role since it involves the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and possible environmental impacts that a product can produce throughout its useful life. In an LCA study of a product or service, all resource extraction and emissions to the environment are quantitatively measured over the lifecycle, from birth to death, as well as the potential impacts of resources used on the environment and human health (Ferreira 2004). When they opt for a particular material and manufacturing process, civil construction, architecture, and interior design professionals have an impact on humanity and ecology. These impacts are diverse and are related, among other factors, to the place of extraction of chosen raw materials and to the type of labor involved in materials processing. Thus, projects do not serve only the final consumer but all individuals involved in the process. It is clear, this way, that material selection has consequences for the whole society (Rodrigues and Gregory 2017). The LCA process has four components, which are successively: (1) – the Definition of Objectives and Scope, which defines and describes the product, process, or activity, and establishes the context in which the evaluation will be carried out, identifying the environmental limits and effects; (2) – Inventory Analysis, which identifies

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

and quantifies the energy, water and materials used, as well as environmental waste; (3) – Impact Analysis, which analyzes the human and ecological effects of the use of energy, water and materials used, as well as the environmental discard, mentioned in the previous item; (4) – the Interpretation, which evaluates the results of the two previous analyses and select the most appropriate product, process, or service (Ferreira 2004). Therefore, LCA should be included in the decision-making process of materials and resources to be used, as it enables the understanding of environmental impacts and impacts on health and human life. In this sense, it is a tool that should be used to better decision-making when choosing the materials to carry out a construction or an interior design, balancing the costbenefit. Serrador (2008, p. 267) supports this approach by explaining that LCA in buildings is “an internationally accepted method to qualify the total environmental effects associated with products, from the extraction of raw materials to manufacturing and transportation, installations, use and maintenance of a building, its final disposition and reuse.” According to the author, this procedure allows a scientific evaluation of the situation, considering each stage of the process, from its extraction to the demolition of the construction, analyzing what will be the environmental impacts, how much waste will be produced, the durability and quality of the material, etc. In this sense, interior designer interventions are increasingly necessary to achieve a better relation between product/process, environment and society, and this can initially be achieved with creation of a culture of designers aware of social problems and environmental impacts (Pazmino 2007). In order to bring socioenvironmental advantages to its proposals, designers must act in each phase of the product life cycle: pre-production, production, use, disposal, recycling, and reuse. This way, it is possible to take ecologically correct decisions that minimize various environmental impacts (Pazmino 2007). In this context, it is relevant to highlight that the civil construction sector is directly related to the search for sustainability, since it is considered

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

to be the largest consumer of resources and generates great amounts of solid, liquid, and gaseous residues (Tajiri et al. 2011). In order to ensure that the activities carried out in the field of construction can be considered sustainable, it is important to understand and incorporate the concept of sustainable development. According to the definition of the report issued by the Brundtland Commission, it is a development “that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations” (Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente 1991, p. 46). Regarding this issue, it is known that sustainability is based on three pillars: economic, environmental, and social. The first one considers not only the formal economy but also informal activities, which increase the monetary income and living standard of individuals. The second stimulates companies and organizations to consider the impacts of their activities on the environment, as also counts on the participation of the State in the issue of the implementation of socioenvironmental public policies. Finally, the third is the social dimension, considering the human aspect and its characteristics (Almeida 2002). Therefore, the fact that buildings must be sustainable has to be considered as fundamental, so that it is possible to have the resources and means to meet the needs of future generations, as well as to preserve those of the current generation. In a construction considered sustainable, the means are important, but the main point is how much this activity really minimized or stopped generating socioenvironmental impacts, besides the need to maintain the proposed system and not forgetting the human dimension that involves the concept of environment and sustainability. Sustainable construction refers not only to the planning and execution of the work but also to the operation and maintenance phases of the buildings. In this perspective, it is worth mentioning the concept of ecodesign, which took on greater proportions in the 1990s, due to the accelerated industrial development and the socioenvironmental impacts generated from this reality. Researchers were concerned about using a method for manufacturing products that would

125

cause less impact to the environment, without interfering in the quality and functionality of the final product. Vitor Papanek, an American designer, popularized the term through his idea of creating environmentally friendly products, that is, products with low environmental impact, making its application in the design of his tables and chairs (Papanek 1995). According to Naime et al. (2012), “the understanding of design as an activity involving project makes us think about the performance of the designer not only in the conception of the product itself, but in all the steps necessary for its production, distribution and disposal.” Thus, ecodesign conducts life cycle study of the products, in which there is a planning from the development through production, use, and discard. Papanek (1995) divides the product development process into six steps, which are considered as principles and requirements for an ecodesign project. The first stage emphasizes the choice for sustainable material, that is, nontoxic materials that use as little energy as possible in the manufacturing process and can be recycled. The second stage deals with efficiency in this process. The third step discusses how the parts are manufactured, suggesting greater durability, reducing the disposal, and the amount of waste. The fourth stage is concerned with the useful life of the product. The fifth stage is related to transportation; and the sixth stage involves the management and destination of waste generated (Papanek 1995). For Naime et al. (2012), each of the steps can be understood as principles and requirements for a sustainable project. In this context, it is necessary that the materials return to the productive cycles in a closed circuit chain, once the great majority of the raw materials are constituted by nonrenewable natural resources. From this perspective, it should be emphasized that the concepts of design and ecodesign have much to help change the paradigms in search of holistic parameters of broad sustainability. From that point, it is important to mention the interior design that, according to Brooker and Stone (2014, p. 11), involves “any type of interior

B

126

design, from decoration to renovation. It is the art of decorating interior spaces – rooms or environments – to convey a characteristic identity which goes well with the existing architecture.” For Sarmento and Souza (2016), interior design is the possibility to transform the geometry of a space into an environment rich in emotions, senses, and memories that reveal the identity of its users. The authors also mention that: The interiors reveal not only a physical environment, but also a psychological environment of values, meaning a symbology of tastes and meanings. The values relate to our awareness of the natural environment. If the human being has to live as an integrated and interdependent whole, it is necessary for him to identify the point of balance between the integrity of these built environments and their destructive exploitation. (Sarmento and Souza 2016, p. 1892)

In view of the above, it can be said that interior design affects the environment in different ways, and many professionals work to show how it is possible to incorporate sustainability principles into the internal environments as well (Rodrigues and Gregory 2017). For this, the professional needs to observe and study what would a sustainable interior design be. “The results do not necessarily have to fit into an ‘eco’ style: sustainability can simply be part of any good project” (Moxon 2012, p. 6). Manzini and Vezzoli (2011) mention that design projects should consider life cycle at all stages, and that all activities involved in preproduction, production, distribution, use, and disposal of the product are considered as one unity. In this sense, the authors describe Life Cycle Design (LCD) as one that perceives the relations between the consumption of matter and energy in the transformation of products and their respective emissions to the environment. LCD allows one to identify, in a particularized way, the set of consequences of a product proposal, even for those phases that would not normally be considered at the time of design. Manzini and Vezzoli (2011) also propose a culture in project design that is capable of transitioning from traditional proposals to sustainability, promoting a generation of products and

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

services that are essentially more sustainable, operating with LCD and design for sustainability. In this context, as a basic environmental objective, each project should minimize the use of materials and energy, as well as emissions and discards. In addition, it is extremely important to consider also the duration of the product life cycle, as well as reuse of some of its components and materials. Thus, for some products, it becomes a priority and more effective plan to start from strategies of optimizing product life cycle and extending the life of materials (Manzini and Vezzoli 2011). Regarding the ecological issue, some alternatives have been adopted by interior design professionals. It is possible to reuse material such as bamboo leftovers, recycled PET bottles or recycled glass, pallets, handcrafted and regional pieces, and natural fiber or wood furniture which have the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, while maintaining warmth and aesthetics of the environment. It is also possible to use LED bulbs in the lighting design, as well as natural lighting and ventilation. These techniques, in addition to giving personality and originality, are flexible, practical, and economically viable, since it uses old and unused materials and objects that the user already had, also making a significant contribution to the environment, as it reduces the inappropriate discard (Coutinho 2013). In Brazil, it is possible to find some sustainable furniture stores, which use reforestation wood, banana tree, ecological leather, among others, which can add value to the project, besides using of the technology and the functional techniques to plan and harmonize the environment at the same time (Coutinho 2013). Still considering the Brazilian reality, it is worth mentioning some examples of sustainable architectural and interior design projects carried out by professionals who care about the environment and who seek the use and development of technologies that collaborate for sustainability. Starting from this premise, there are some examples of Brazilian designers who seek the implementation of sustainable projects, such as the architect and interior designer Marisa Murta. In her decor and interior design projects, it is

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

possible to perceive her constant concern with two particular points: the guarantee of high durability of the products used and the ability to avoid waste. Thus, practices not only lead to considerable financial control, with less change of furniture, coatings, and other inputs, but also prevent the unnecessary production of waste. Marisa Murta uses three specific building systems for the adoption of sustainable interior design as the basis for her projects. The first refers to the intuitive system that has a connection with bioarchitecture, a concept that unites ecology, architecture, and urbanism, using construction processes in harmony with nature and its resources, promoting a balance between the environment and progress. The second is called passive system and refers mainly to the use of materials and techniques that perform well in the rationing of water and energy, such as in sanitary ware, lamps, and appliances of the “eco lines.” Finally, the active system, in which performance in the use of inputs and methods of abstraction and saving of water and energy is based on excellence, with the capacity to flexibilize its performance as the scenario of the space changes (TEM sustentável 2016). Considering a research realized by Marisa Murta, it is worth mentioning Kang (2003) and Jones (2003), who observe the interior designers who focus on responsible design plan, specifying and executing environmental solutions, reflecting a concern for the world’s ecology and user’s quality of life. In this process, they analyze materials, methods, transportation, maintenance, and disposal of all furniture, utensils, and equipment specified in an interior design. Another Brazilian example, the Andrade Morethin office develops projects that seek to adapt to the context, local conditions, and, at the same time, generate socioenvironmental and economic guidelines that can be applied on a national scale. Among the various projects, two houses stand out for the way they dialogue with sustainable thinking and practice, since they allow rapid assembly, low environmental impact, and little generation of waste. The first one (RR 2007) is located on the north coast of São Paulo and the second (OZ 2013) on the outskirts of the city of

127

São Roque – SP. The constructions concept was to generate shelters formed by a wooden roof and closings in steel tile with expanded polystyrene (EPS) core for thermal protection. In addition, there are large covers, glazed or screen protected, which ensure constant and controlled dialogue with the exterior (Aflalo 2014). According to Azevedo and Machado (2008), among other factors, the role of interior designer is to contribute to market reorientation, offering sustainable alternatives, and promoting socioenvironmental values, based on projects with focus on life cycle assessment that include concern with generation of income for the less favored communities. For the headquarters of the Socio Environmental Institute, in São Gabriel da Cachoeira in Amazonas, the Brasil Arquitetura office incorporated local constructive traditions, such as sills and plots of wood and vine. In addition to the concern with environmental comfort, the work incorporated local techniques, materials, and manpower, adding agility and economical, environmental, and cultural interaction (Aflalo 2014). Among recent projects, the Loeb Capote Arquitetura e Urbanismo office is the Bayer bridge, located at a point where the Pinheiros river in São Paulo meets the extravasation channel of the Guarapiranga dam. The bridge, for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists, acts as a point of connection between the banks of the river, expanding the network of bicycle paths and bringing the workers from the company Bayer and other citizens closer Santo Amaro subway station. “In the project, two metal islands structure the 90 m of extension and, supported on concrete pipes, they form stop locations covered with vegetation. The central span is mobile, ensuring local navigability” (Aflalo 2014, p. 63). Another aspect that can be applied in interior design is the furniture design, in which pieces are developed for people and even for specific places, and can be adapted to the sustainability issue, as the pieces by Hugo França who develops furniture sculptures from forest and urban waste. In order to do so, he makes use of naturally condemned trees, by weather conditions or by the action of the human being. That way, he is able to use them

B

128

completely to activate his sensibility and artistic side, working with their time marks, roots, and cracks (Hugo França 2018). In order to make the use of these waste possible, Hugo França and his team search the forests of Trancoso, in Bahia, besides having help from the local population. The drawing of the piece arises from the first cuts of the wood, then it is finished. In addition to having environmental responsibility in the creation and design of his pieces of furniture, he also develops public furniture projects, such as the new bank in the Ibirapuera Park, in Vila Mariana, in São Paulo, where he took fallen trees from the city and used them for the creation of the bank. His idea was to transform this material that would be discarded, being able to reuse it in some way. For that, he made use of a large Tipuana twig that could no longer be recovered (Hugo França 2018). In relation to this proposal, it is important to highlight that the role of the interior designer goes beyond design. These professionals have the responsibility to educate through their products and to encourage sustainable development through their work. In addition, they should design in order to reduce socioenvironmental impacts in all phases of a product life cycle and support initiatives that encourage material and energy reduction, income generation, and social inclusion (Azevedo and Machado 2008). Finally, the project “A gente transforma” considers design as a space in which the social and environmental are not disaggregated from cultural values to the benefit of people. The proposal reveals opportunities within and outside communities, opportunities that mean recognizing traditions, bringing the permanence of culture and boosting self-esteem and dignity through the opening of markets and income generation. The process begins with the immersion of the professionals with the residents of the communities, stimulating the look for the local beauty, resulting not only in a collection of handcrafted design products but in a creative process of stimulating the protagonism and the local self-recognition (Rosenbaum 2014). Thus, communities are stimulated, from their most authentic knowledge, to create opportunities to establish new alliances, new arrangements for

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development productive inclusion and creative expression. They find value in the production of products that represent their culture and knowledge. This, in addition to fostering the creative economy, enables community members to assume the freedom to act and to achieve autonomy as citizens. (Rosenbaum 2014, p. 21)

The project has already carried out interventions at Parque Santo Antônio, slum located in São Paulo; in Várzea Queimada in the backlands of Piauí and with the Yawnawá people, in the heart of the Amazon Rainforest in Acre (Rosenbaum 2014). As proposed by project “A gente transforma” (Lopes 2014), in search for sustainability it is fundamental that interior designers understand the social, ecological, and environmental consequences of their activities. Thus, the design that seeks sustainability must be integrally related to the capacity to promote production systems capable of responding to social and environmental requirements in its products and processes, considering their Life Cycle AssessmentLCA (Manzini and Vezzoli 2011).

Final Considerations According to Manzini and Vezzoli (2011, p. 99), “Environmental limits are evidences that it is no longer possible to conceive any design activity without confronting it with the set of relationships that, during the life cycle, the product will have in the environment.” Therefore, it should be emphasized that, even though it is challenging, it is necessary to evolve in the relationship between society and the environment, in order to achieve harmony between the two. It is necessary to rethink ways of experiencing daily life interacting with nature and generating less impact to the environment. In this way, it is evident that the multidisciplinarity in the search for solutions among those involved in the perspective of civil construction, for example, is of paramount importance when thinking about sustainability. Architects, engineers, and designers are indispensable in their role and need to define projects that contribute to the environment by reducing environmental impacts in construction together (Sarmento and Souza 2016).

Building Lifecycle and Sustainable Development

Therefore, it is noticed that civil construction and interior design are related, since both may apply the correct techniques and materials. It is also noted that the sustainable solutions are not necessarily the most economically unfeasible and that creativity makes all the difference in the project, which brings originality and at the same time contributes to reduction of environmental impact without losing environment’s characteristics or changing its aesthetics. In this perspective, to reach sustainability, it is essential to consider Life Cycle Assessment in the processes that involve sustainable construction and interior design, given that only in this way will it be possible to know and recognize the social and environmental impacts associated with these practices. It is also essential to consider the human factors in this process, valuing, for example, the local culture and integrating in the projects the spaces in which people live. Before production, the designer must also think of solutions that make his products accessible to the population as a whole, because if the intention is to protect the planet, the goal will be reached only with the adhesion of all consumers (Azevedo and Machado 2008). From the development of this work, it can be concluded that, interior design, associated with LCA, can directly contribute to sustainability, as it relates not only to the choice of greener products. Eco design is not the craft produced from scrap or recycling materials. It is a concept that takes into account not only the aesthetic, functional, safety, or ergonomic aspects of products but mainly the environmental factor throughout the product life cycle, in order to reduce the impact on the environment (Pazmino 2007).

References Aflalo LF (2014) Arquitetura e construção. Simbiose entre homem e planeta. In: Jatobá W (coord) Desafios do design sustentável brasileiro. Versal Editores, Rio de Janeiro, pp 43–76 Agopyan V, John VM (2011) O desafio da sustentabilidade na construção civil. Blucher, São Paulo Akadiri PO, Chinyio EA, Olomolaiye PO (2012) Design of a sustainable building: a conceptual framework for

129 implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2(2):126–152 Almeida (2002) O bom negócio da sustentabilidade. Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro Azevedo LTR, Machado J Jr (2008) Design ecológico e sustentável para todos? In: Castro MLAC, Nunes VGA (orgs) Os desafios projetuais na construção da sustentabilidade. Universidade Federal de Urbel^andia, Urbel^andia, pp 82–89 Brooker G, Stone S (2014) O que é design de interiores? Senac, São Paulo Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente (1991) Nosso Futuro Comum. Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro Coutinho EC (2013) Conceito sustentável na decoração de interiores. Rev Especialize 1(5):1–12 Ferreira JVR (2004) Análise do ciclo de vida dos produtos. Instituto Politécnico de Viseu, Santa Maria Hugo França (2018) http://www.hugofranca.com.br/pro cessos/. Accessed 23 Jan 2018 Jones L (2003) Why design environmentally responsible interior environments? Sustainable design for the built environment. Implications 1(6):4–5. http://www. informedesign.org/_news/Sustain01_06.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018 Kang M (2003) Sustainable design for the built environment. Implications 1(6):1–3. http://www. informedesign.org/_news/Sustain01_06.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018 Kozáková I, Prostějovská Z, Schneiderová Š (2014) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings. In: Proceedings of the creative construction conference, Czech Technical University, Prague, 21–24 June 2014 Lenzen M, Treloar GJ (2002) Embodied energy in buildings: wood versus concrete-reply to Borjesson and Gustavsson. Energy Policy 30(3):249–255 Lopes GK (2014) Percepções de sustentabilidade no cotidiano profissional do designer de interiores. Dissertação, Universidade Federal Tecnológica do Paraná Manzini E, Vezzoli C (2011) O desenvolvimento de produtos sustentáveis: os requisitos ambientais dos produtos industriais. EDUSP, São Paulo Moxon S (2012) Sustentabilidade no design de interiores. Editora Gustavo Gili, Barcelona Naime R, Ashton E, Hupffer HM (2012) Do design ao ecodesign: pequena história, conceitos e princípios from design to ecodesign: little history, concepts and principles. Rev Eletrônica Gestão, Educação e Tecnologia Ambiental 7(7):1510–1519. https://periodicos.ufsm.br/ reget/article/viewFile/5265/3630. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 Papanek V (1995) Arquitectura e Design. Ecologia e ética. Edição 70, Lisboa Pazmino VA (2007) Uma reflexão sobre Design Social, Eco Design e Design Sustentável. In: Anais do I Simpósio Brasileiro de Design Sustentável, Universidade Federal do Paraná, 4–6 September 2007 Rodrigues TZ, Gregory A (2017) Análise de materiais em design de interiores. Mix Sustentável 3(1):26–35. http://mixsustentavel.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2017/05/ Mix-Sustenta%CC%81vel-5-Artigo-3.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2017

B

130

Business Education for Sustainable Development

Rosenbaum M (2014) Transformação pelo design. In: Jatobá W (coord) Desafios do design sustentável brasileiro. Versal Editores, Rio de Janeiro, pp 10–25 Sarmento ACL, Souza PFA (2016) Indicadores de sustentabilidade aplicados ao design de interiores: análise do modelo IDSRS. In: Anais do 12 Congresso brasileiro de pesquisa e desenvolvimento em design, Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizote, 4–7 October 2016. http://pdf.blucher.com. br.s3-sa-east-1.amazonaws.com/designproceedings/ ped2016/0160.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2017 Serrador ME (2008) Sustentabilidade em arquitetura referências para projeto. Dissertação, Universidade de São Paulo Sev A (2009) How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development 17(3):161–173 Tajiri CAH, Cavalcanti DC, Potenza JL (2011) Habitação Sustentável. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente Coordenadoria de Planejamento Ambiental, São Paulo TEM sustentável (2016) Design de interiores sustentável – suas técnicas e benefícios. http://www.temsustentavel. com.br/design-de-interiores-sustentavel/. Accessed 23 Jan 2018 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017

Business Education for Sustainable Development Meredith Storey, Sheila Killian and Philip O’Regan Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Acronyms CSR ESD HEIs PRME SDGs

Corporate Social Responsibility Education for Sustainable Development Higher Education Institutions Principles for Responsible Management Education Sustainable Development Goals

Definition Education and collaboration from business and management faculties contributing to Sustainable

Development, which is understood as advancing ‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’

Introduction The field of business education for sustainable development is a dynamic one, with the positions of both business and business schools constantly changing with regard to sustainable development. An overarching trend, however, is a move away from accepting the pedagogical patterns of the past and toward innovation-seeking to meaningfully contribute to a sustainable society. This triggers a paradigm shift in the field of business education. As well as imparting knowledge and skills, business and management educators must prepare students to be citizens who are mindful of sustainability, responsibility, and ethics within whatever field they occupy on graduation. Education for sustainable development first came to international prominence following the 1987 UN General Assembly “Brundtland Report” and “Our Common Future” publications. “Sustainable development” was defined as “. . . development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, pp.43). This has become a seminal definition, providing the foundation for current work, which stresses the importance of education in shaping students to be future business leaders with the knowledge and skills to address the needs of an unsustainable world. Over time the broad call for education to foster sustainable development became more focused on ways in which individuals and groups might support sustainable development through the Millennium Development Goals. The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) significantly advanced the efforts of the UN to embed sustainability in education. Post-2015, the current period is dominated by the Sustainable Development Goals. This moves the field past a simple call to support sustainable development

Business Education for Sustainable Development

through education, to a series of more specific challenges calling for the actions of business and business education to align for sustainable development (UNESCO 2005). Business education is understood to incorporate all higher-level education in business, and so includes university-level schools of business and/or management education faculties. Advancing sustainable development requires support in the form of curricula, assessment methods, student engagement, teaching resources, and pedagogical approaches. Each of these methods for advancement is discussed in more detail below. The next section draws upon both UN-based foundational texts which highlight the urgency of sustainable development and the academic literature for sustainable business curriculum. Building upon this, this section looks critically at organizations which partner with and contribute to embedding sustainability and responsibility through partnerships, curricula, and student engagement. Each initiative is evaluated for usefulness in line with the SDGs. Aligning key actors who embed the SDGs and the ethos of responsible management education frames the discussion to address the present work contributing to business education for sustainable development and opportunities that exist across higher education. Efforts to promote business education for sustainable development have been supported by platforms such as the Principles for Responsible Management Education initiative, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative, Aim2Flourish, Oikos, and many more actors in the field who contribute to business school engagement with sustainability. However, it is also important to be cognizant of the dynamic relationship between business and society, the rapid pace of change, and the way in which these shapes both sustainable development and business education. The need for sustainable development underpins both UN texts and academic sustainability research. Advancement of the SDGs has become progressively more important among organizations and initiatives that focus on business education since the launch of Agenda 2030. For that reason, this text seeks to develop an understanding of the scope of business education for

131

sustainable development. To a large extent, the current UN focus is on business school curricula and the language of sustainable development in academia. This critical framing of organizations and initiatives in the field builds on this foundation and draws attention to the significance of collaborative action for sustainable development.

Business Education for Sustainable Development Within the field of sustainable development, a number of key texts from the United Nations and UN bodies such as UN DESA, the UN Global Compact, and UNESCO, have become influential in setting the scope of business and education in delivering on sustainability goals (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; UNESCO 2005; United Nations 2016; Sustainable Development 2017; Global Climate Action Playbook 2017; Business Solutions to Sustainable Development 2017; Making Global Goals Local Business 2017; Blueprint for Business Leadership on the SDGs 2017). There is an increasing recognition of the key role of private or for-profit corporations in contributing to sustainable development. This, in turn, has led to a focus on the role of business schools and education more broadly to deliver on sustainable development; this is a role supported by key actors in the field of business education including accreditation bodies and international networks (AACSB 2015, 2016, 2017; Global Compact LEAD 2015; UN PRME 2015, 2016; EFMD 2017). These bodies bring a range of different emphases, including themes such as anti-corruption, climate action, gender equality, human rights, and the development of sustainable mindsets (UN PRME 2017). The significance of the role of business education in delivering on sustainable development is underscored by an emphasis in a recent statement by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Stressing the urgency and importance of educating business students to become bold leaders and innovative thinkers so that on graduating, they can become drivers of sustainability, the Secretary General remarked: “Never has the task of

B

132

nurturing responsible leaders of the future been more important. . . Students that understand the values of corporate responsibility, sustainability and ethics can be more effective change-makers, and their work can advance the common good” (Guterres 2017). How to Design Business Curriculum for Sustainability Sterling (2004) proposes three potential response levels for embedding sustainability in teaching practice: (1) educating about sustainability, (2) educating for sustainability, and (3) capacity building. In terms of the first element, it is important that curricula cover the main organizations that support business activities for sustainable development. The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), for instance, aligns mainly large corporates around ten principles of social and environmental sustainability. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a consistent and comparable reporting platform for business responsibility, with a range of optional reporting levels and key performance indicators. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) addresses the financial sector, furthering the dialogue on sustainable investment with a focus on environmental, social, and governance issues. The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a UN body that develops global standards on labor and supply chain issues and acts as a resource for business, government, and civil society. It is important that business students become familiar with these and other organizations that shape the field. Beyond this “educating about,” the emphasis on values and understanding in Guterres (2017) underscores the importance of education for sustainable development to incorporate more than knowledge and skills. The social, environmental, and economic challenges that the current cohort of business school students may face in the future have not yet become apparent. In order to futureproof their education along the sustainability dimension, it is important to focus not only on our current knowledge of the issues but also to foster students’ abilities to think critically and make responsible and ethical decisions in a range of circumstances. Visser and Crane (2010),

Business Education for Sustainable Development

for instance, suggest that performance as a sustainable business leader comes from intrinsic factors which motivate an individual to be an agent for change as an expert, facilitator, catalyst, or activist. In order to develop these capacities within an individual student, business schools need to do more than impart skills and knowledge. There is also an imperative to include a range of intangible elements that address the place of values, attitudes, and beliefs in work for sustainable development. Visser and Crane stress these “intangibles” as critical elements in developing individual education and awareness. Students need to develop their own relationship and narrative around sustainability. By understanding this relationship and orientation, their capacity to make a contribution and lead in sustainable development issues can be fostered. Another key issue to address is language. It is important that graduates are equipped with an appropriate vocabulary to engage with their employers and other stakeholders (Young and Nagpal 2013; Painter-Morland 2006). Unfortunately, the terminology on sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate citizenship, and conscious capitalism is somewhat confused in business and business education. Texts such as Habisch et al. (2005), Perrini (2006), Crane (2008), Idowu and Leal Filho (2009), Aras and Crowther (2010), and Killian (2012) tend to use CSR as a unifying term while stressing the need for clarity in language, specifically defining sustainable topics so they may be meaningfully understood. Others prefer social responsibility, corporate responsibility, or more transient terms such as corporate citizenship or conscious capitalism. Because CSR and sustainable development themes have different implications in different fields, it is important that vocabularies can be developed and imparted in order to translate, for example, from marketing to engineering. This is important within both education and stakeholder dialogues. Research is ongoing in the area, seeking to define common vocabularies across these different fields. It is important that this work is kept current through ongoing connections between theory and practice. These connections also allow the main issues in

Business Education for Sustainable Development

the field to enter the classroom and facilitate a more developed and holistic understanding within students and faculty alike (Filho 2000). In order to bridge the gaps between disciplines and between the classroom and the boardroom, faculty must actively engage in promoting engagement with other disciplines that take them and their students outside of a siloed understanding of what sustainability might mean (Waddock 2007). The tools and solutions students will need to contribute to sustainable development in the future will be interdisciplinary. Professionals and educators in business need to find ways to translate their own field-specific expertise and make it accessible to others while at the same time remaining open to acquire new knowledge and ways of looking at familiar problems from other perspectives. Sharing insights and best practices across diverse disciplines will help to minimize any misalignment between bad management practices and education in the field (Ghoshal 2005). This ethos is built on a foundation of reflective practice, helping to understand the norms in one’s own field (Gosling and Mintzberg 2004). With shared understandings, innovative and responsible leadership also needs to be developed in students (O’Toole and Bennis 2009). This enables them to both inspire and be inspired and develop critical perspectives on how to lead based on principles of accountability, good governance, and stewardship. The call to align reflective practice (Gosling and Mintzberg 2004), good management practices (Ghoshal 2005), and innovative leadership (O’Toole and Bennis 2009) is gradually being mainstreamed for business as well as business schools. Business is increasingly seen as one element of an ecological system (Senge 2006). This aligns with a shift from education in the form of “fractured knowledge” (Waddock 2007) toward a focus on graduate attributes and responsibility as holistic traits developed within students. Support from Partnership Organizations As set out in Storey et al. (2017), a range of partnership organizations and networks have coalesced around sustainability and responsibility in management education, and they provide support for business schools in education for sustainable

133

development. In this section, we outline the role of five such groups: United Nations’ sponsored Principles for Responsible Management Education initiative (UN PRME), the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI), the Academy of Business in Society (ABIS), the Global Business School Network (GBSN), and the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC). The UN Principles for Responsible Management initiative is a network of over 650 business school signatories and supporting organizations working to promote responsible management education. This global network operates across six continents to connect purpose, values, methods, research, partnerships, and dialogue for responsible business education (UNPRME.org 2017). The vision of PRME has evolved to support the SDGs, connect actors, and build upon best practices in the field. The implementation of PRME in supporting suitable curriculum design and practice is well supported in the literature (Bendell 2007; Wals 2010; Rusinko 2010; Solitander et al. 2012; Young and Nagpal 2013; Sunley and Leigh 2016; Parkes et al. 2017; Haertle et al. 2017; Annan-Diab and Molinari 2017; Storey et al. 2017; Rosenbloom et al. 2017; Gentile 2017a; Decamps et al. 2017; Weybrecht 2017). Proximity to the UN Global Compact offices allows UN PRME to promote partnerships for the SDGs and international dialogue for progress. UN PRME has vigilantly embedded the SDGs into their core ethos by updating the mission to “transform management education and thought leadership globally by. . . developing learning communities and promoting awareness about the United Nations’ SDGs” (UN PRME 2017). UN PRME is closely tied to the SDGs and facilitates opportunities across higher education institutions (HEIs) to educate around the SDGs. The Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI) originated as collaboration between the UN Global Compact and the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). The focus is on the development of responsible leadership, generally using a collaborative approach and stressing innovation. In supporting

B

134

business education for sustainable development, GRLI provides a holistic framework for considering “I, we, all of us” within the greater relationship of business and society. GRLI promotes the SDGs in the context of global leadership and the underlying crises of climate change and migration, emphasizing links between responsible leaders, sustainable advancement, and whole-person development. Similar to UN PRME, the GRLI has also updated their attention to align work toward the SDGs as they “promote awareness of global responsibility as the highest order of responsibility and contribute to the realization of the UN SDGs” (GRLI 2017). The GRLI’s network of leaders, activists, and educators aims to drive change in the field of business education for sustainability and beyond. As a partnership organization for higher education, the GRLI overtly includes the SDGs in work with all collaborators to inspire radical and innovative education for sustainable development. The Academy of Business in Society (ABIS) emphasizes shared research and networking events. ABIS takes as a foundational underpinning the “. . . belief that challenges linked to globalization and sustainable development require new management skills, mindsets, & capabilities” (ABIS Global 2018). ABIS was founded at INSEAD Business School in France and has a largely European focus. It aims to align collaborations, hosting round tables and experiential learning opportunities related to economics, finance, and thoughtleadership. These initiatives contribute to partnerships and dialogue in business education for sustainable development. The inclusion of the SDGs is implicit to the work of ABIS. Sustainable development is core to their work while striving to create thoughts, partnerships, and innovations to drive change across their global network. The work of ABIS broadly fits the duality of global and local calls for sustainable development and creates dialogue among business and social partnerships. More specifically, ABIS ties the work of business in HEIs to individual goals through collaborations with Innovation for Sustainability, which aids economic growth, industry and innovation, sustainable communities, and responsible consumption (Sustainable Development 2018).

Business Education for Sustainable Development

The Global Business School Network (GBSN) is a nonprofit partnership aligning businesses, business schools, foundations, and aid agencies for collaborative, responsible management learning and engagement. GBSN has a specific focus on the contribution that can be made by business schools to increase prosperity and sustainable development in the Global South. Through collaborations with business schools, businesses, foundations, and aid agencies, real-world alignment of business priorities and sustainable development can be developed in business school education (GBSN 2017). These partnerships contribute to both global and local collaborations and network building in the field. This is underpinned by GBSN’s mission to “build management education capacity for the developing world. . . [by] harnessing the power of a global network of leading business schools to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing, advancing management education that delivers international best-practice with local relevance” (GBSN 2017). GBSN strives to be a leader in contributing to Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education (GBSN 2017) and supplements their collaborations with explicit reference to the SDGs. GBSN aims to develop synergies between business schools and businesses to inspire social development, economic benefit, and sustainable education. The Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EUAC) is a good example of a regional network of HEIs aiming to advance curriculum reform, divestment, sustainable food, climate justice, and societal impact across business education (EAUC 2017). The network operates out of the UK and Ireland and supports research and dialogue on best practices to embed environmental topics across curriculum and into business education. The network’s vision strives to manage university engagement and action “. . .Where the principles and values of environmental, economic, and social sustainability are embedded” (EAUC 2017). This work directly couples SDG 4, Quality Education, and SDG 13, Climate Action, to inspire thoughtful and innovative education. Sharing individual experiences and organizational best practices within a relatively homogenous region can be particularly useful to

Business Education for Sustainable Development

faculty working in the area and also contributes to the global and local implications of the SDGs. Classroom and Curriculum Support A range of organizations offer support and resources for sustainable business education at the classroom and curriculum level. Four such initiatives are Aim2Flourish (Aim2Flourish 2017), Giving Voice to Values (Gentile 2010), The Sustainable MBA texts (Weybrecht 2010; Weybrecht 2013, 2016), and the Sustainability Literacy test (SULITE 2017). Aim2Flourish is a storytelling platform using appreciative inquiry to highlight businesses, often smaller firms, who are contributing to sustainable development as understood by the SDGs. The idea is for groups of university students to find and tell the story of business innovations that contribute directly to the SDGs and exemplify best practices in the field. This work connects students directly to businesses through interviews and thoughtful dialogue (Aim2Flourish 2017). This platform aligns directly with Agenda 2030 and the SDGs to highlight best practices and scalable work which contributes to sustainable development. As an online platform related to the global Agenda, Aim2Flourish is scalable and practical in introducing students to the complex nature of organizational stakeholders, decisionmaking, and the greater external environment in which an organization operates. Aim2Flourish exposes students to innovative sustainability practices in for-profit industries, developing critical thought between classroom engagement and real-world activity. The online portal requires students to self-select relevant SDGs to each innovation story, allowing them to embed sustainable development principles against for-profit businesses as a meaningful classroom supplement. Giving Voice to Values (GVV) is a resource platform that empowers individuals to voice their own beliefs and take action when their organization is acting in conflict with their own values. The Giving Voice to Values book, curriculum, and online platform empower students at every level to address concerns about unethical workplace behavior (Gentile 2010; Gentile 2017a,b). The text is supported by online resources which stress

135

how to address unethical and greed-driven workplace practices. The series highlights skill-sets and individual choice which one can develop to be powerful and effective in suggesting changes in their workplace and beyond. This series provides strong research to support the ethos of sustainability and responsibility in business classrooms worldwide, empowering leaders and educators to act ethically and share best practices for sustainable development and responsible behavior. The core GVV texts predate the SDGs, but the message and tone possess the same ethos to advance ethical, responsible, and sustainable thought-leadership. The Sustainable MBA texts present sustainability within traditional business school disciplines including accounting, economics, entrepreneurship, ethics, finance, marketing, organizational behavior, human resources, operations, and strategy (Weybrecht 2010). The platform provides tools to share sustainable practices in business curricula, endorsed by industry leaders including Net Impact, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), UN Global Compact, Unilever, Tata, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Similar to the GVV series, the Sustainable MBA texts predate the SDGs, though they do make explicit reference to embedding the MDGs in business education for economics. The tone of the text fosters sustainable development throughout a wide range of business school curricula to holistically engage the learning process with sustainable themes. The Sustainable Literacy Test (Sulitest) is an international tool for assessing university students’ level of global and local knowledge on sustainability topics (SULITE 2017). The test, which is taken online, incorporates a randomized set of questions covering both global issues and a set of questions localized to the individual country. The full question bank is aligned with the SDGs and partners with the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) and themes of core knowledge, skills, and mindsets to measure individual knowledge in the field. The mission of this testing platform is to “Improve and measure sustainability literacy worldwide by providing citizens and organizations with internationally recognized and locally relevant assessment

B

136

tools; by promoting and advocating for Education on Sustainable Development, and by sharing meaningful information and data with researchers, educators, and other relevant stakeholders” (Sulitest 2017). The test is useful in tracking learning in a group of students over time and across a wide variety of sustainable concepts, reflective of local and global knowledge. The Sulitest provides a strong measure of knowledge, around questions and themes directly contributing to the SDGs. These tools can be used by groups of students or individuals on an ad hoc basis but are perhaps most useful when integrated into curriculum and assessment. They can be used individually but, because of the dominance of the SDGs, lend themselves to integration. Student Opportunities Students enrolled in business programs may also take advantage of a number of student-centric initiatives. Two examples are Enactus (2017) and Oikos International (2017), both of which act as student networks aiming to connect with businesses and other external stakeholders around sustainable development issues. Enactus is a global community of business leaders, academics, and students with a focus on entrepreneurship, the environment, and the economy. Enactus advances community development, human empowerment, and innovation throughout their global network of business schools (Enactus 2017). With participation in 1710 HEIs across 36 countries, this global organization offers international student competitions and engagement opportunities, particularly in the area of transformative entrepreneurship. Student engagement with social enterprise facilitates the development of localized content and the documentation of best practice in a regional context. Enactus’ local chapters advance their global sustainability work, contributing to SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 16 through their promotion of entrepreneurship with positive social, environmental, and economic impact. Focusing on the singular discipline of business entrepreneurship allows the lessons and opportunities around sustainable development to be deeply explored and implemented.

Business Education for Sustainable Development

Oikos International, or Oikos, is a global, student-driven network which offers sustainability-based conferences, games, cases, and competitions for students, aiming to foster dialogue on sustainability at global and local levels (Oikos 2017). Oikos differs from other resources as their 40-student chapters advance sustainable development with alignment to UN PRME and GRLI collaboration, creating an Oikos-UN PRME Research Hub (UN PRME 2017). Partnerships between Oikos and other major partnership organizations create synergy with student engagement. Oikos support for the Research Hub and student research aligns the work of each organization to promote a unified message for research and dialogue for sustainable development. The work of Oikos does not specifically reference the SDGs but does aim to strengthen sustainable action competence among students around themes such as climate, energy, resources, inclusion, and well-being. The core foci of Oikos research directly aligns with the SDGs and allows students to advance the work that inspires them. Student-led networks play a major role in generating student engagement around issues of equality and sustainability. They offer opportunities for hands-on student learning, engaging with the sometimes messy but always current practice of business organizations. With support from faculty, such networks have the potential to elevate business education for sustainable development from the silo of an individual course on CSR, management, or entrepreneurship to allow for more holistic engagement with the SDGs.

Discussion Currently, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) has published 3772 partnerships that contribute specifically to the SDGs (Sustainable Development 2017). These partnerships represent 11,227 users and organizations taking action for sustainable development. These projects are supported by for-profit, not-forprofit, and governmental originations working

Business Education for Sustainable Development

toward sustainable development relevant to their field. Moving beyond the influence of business schools and higher education specifically, these organizations play a broad role in contributing to global sustainable development. The employees of these for-profit, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations must be knowledgeable in their specific field to contribute to economic, social, and environmental success. With that understanding, employees should have a holistic education in both their field of work and the sustainable implications of their actions. Many of these employees have received formal education from business schools. Therefore, embedding themes of responsibility and sustainability in business school education will benefit organizations in their core business and pursuit of sustainable development. Business education for sustainable development is an increasing part of business school accreditation, and its current momentum is likely to continue as sustainability becomes a more important topic for action and research. While there are many actors at play in the field, each serves a unique purpose in the support and promotion of responsible management in business schools and beyond. The resources listed above are intended as examples rather than as a comprehensive list, and the field is very dynamic, with regional variation and an array of new opportunities open to students and faculty each year. These partnerships, classroom supports, and student opportunities are most effective when implemented in an integrated way by the business school. To a large extent, this is contingent on the school having an explicit expression within their mission or values to promote sustainable development, or sustainability more generally, in their education. With an increased emphasis on research-led education, it is also important for faculty to be given the opportunity to set research agendas on topics related to sustainability and responsibility, and that publication in these fields is recognized as valid within the research strategy of the school. While business education alone cannot solve present issues of sustainable development, interdisciplinary engagement centered on the business school can more holistically engage students of all disciplines.

137

Combining the school’s strategy with teaching and research in related areas can cement sustainability in business education so that graduates are well-positioned to react to the changing economic, ecological, and social environment around them.

Conclusion Business education for sustainable development aims to embed an ethos of sustainable and responsible decision-making across higher education and business schools. Because of the power wielded by corporations in society, the strategies adopted by their leaders at various levels within the organization can greatly influence the development and impact of sustainability initiatives. For this reason, students in business schools need to develop skills, knowledge, and values during their time in tertiary education. Enhanced critical thinking on sustainable themes and topics prepares them to have positive impacts on their workplaces after they graduate. This understanding is broadly supported in the above literature and initiatives; however there is great urgency around the SDGs and Agenda 2030. Building on this excitement in the field and embedding sustainable development globally into business school partnerships, curriculum, and engagement not only promotes the SDGs but also educates students to be mindful and critical of the urgency for sustainable development throughout business and society.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability and Sustainable Development ▶ Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development ▶ oikos, International Student Organization for Sustainability in Economics and Management Education ▶ Sustainability Balance

B

138

▶ Sustainable Literacy ▶ Sustainability Literacy Test ▶ Transferring Knowledge for Development

Business Education for Sustainable Development

Sustainable

References ABIS Global. (2018). The academy of business in society [online] Available at: http://abis-global.org/ (Accessed 10 Oct 2018) AACSB (2015) The state of sustainability in management education – challenges and opportunities [online]. Available at: http://www.aacsb.edu/blog/2015/decem ber/the-state-of-sustainability-in-management-education/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 AACSB (2016) Sustainability innovations in business programs [online]. Available at: http://www.aacsb.edu/blog/ 2016/june/sustainability-innovations-business-programs/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 AACSB (2017) Inspiring sustainability and social good [online]. Available at: http://www.aacsb.edu/blog/ 2017/april/inspiring-sustainability-and-social-good/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 AIM2Flourish (2017) AIM2Flourish [online]. Available at: http://aim2flourish.com/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Annan-Diab F, Molinari C (2017) Interdisciplinarity: Practical approach to advancing education for sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals. Int J Manag Edu, 15(2), pp.73–83 Aras G, Crowther D (eds) (2010) NGOs and social responsibility. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley Bendell J (2007) World review. J Corp Citizsh Winter 28:4–14 Blueprint for Business Leadership on the SDGs (2017). Blueprint for business leadership on the SDGs [online]. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/ library/5461/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Business Solutions to Sustainable Development (2017) 2017 United nations global compact progress report: business solutions to sustainable development [online]. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact. org/library/5431. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Crane A (2008) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford Handbooks, Oxford Decamps A, Barbat G, Carteron JC, Hands V, Parkes C (2017) Sulitest: a collaborative initiative to support and assess sustainability literacy in higher education. Int J Manag Edu 15(2):138–152 EAUC (2017) EAUC the environmental association for universities and colleges [online]. Available at: http:// www.eauc.org.uk. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 EFMD (2017) The entrepreneur’s guide to building a successful business [online]. Available at: https://www. efmd.org/images/stories/efmd/downloadables/Researc h/Sustainability/The%20Entrepreneurs%20Guide%

20to%20Building%20a%20Successful%20Busine ss%202017.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Enactus (2017 Enactus [online]. Available at: http:// enactus.org/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Filho WL (2000) Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 1(1):9–19 GBSN (2017) GBSN [online] Available at: http://gbsn.org/ . Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Gentile M (2010) Giving voice to values. Yale University Press, New Haven Gentile M (2017a) Giving voice to values: a global partnership with UNGC PRME to transform management education. Int J Manag Edu 15(2):121–125 Gentile M (2017b) Giving voice to values – how to speak your mind when you know what’s right [online]. Givingvoicetovaluesthebook.com. Available at: http:// www.givingvoicetovaluesthebook.com/. Accessed 19 Nov 2017 Ghoshal S (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Edu 4(1):75–91 Global Climate Action Playbook (2017) UN Global Compact: global climate action playbook 2018 [online]. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/ library/5561. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Global Compact LEAD Overview (2015) Global Compact LEAD Overview [online]. Available at: https://www. unglobalcompact.org/library/1311. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Gosling J, Mintzberg H (2004) The education of practicing managers. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(4):19 GRLI (2017) Global responsibility diagnostic and GRID – GRLI [online]. Available at: http://www.grli.org/pro jects/grid/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Guterres (2017) The secretary general – message to the 2017 principles for responsible management education global forum [online]. Available at: http://www.unprme. org/resource-docs/SGLettersigned.pdf/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Habisch A, Jonker J, Wegner M, Schmidpeter R (2005) Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin/New York Haertle J, Parkes C, Murray A, Hayes R (2017) PRME: building a global movement on responsible management education. Int J Manag Edu 15(2):66–72. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ Agenda21.pdf Idowu SO, Leal Filho W (2009) Global practices of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin Killian S (2012) Corporate social responsibility: a guide with Irish experiences. Gill & Macmillian, Dublin Making Global Goals Local Business (2017) Making global goals local business: a new era for responsible business [online]. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact. org/library/4321. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 O’Toole J, Bennis W (2009) A culture of candor. Harv Bus Rev 87(6):54–61 Oikos International (2017) Oikos [online]. Available at: http://Oikos-international.org/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Painter-Morland M (2006) Triple bottom-line reporting as social grammar: integrating corporate social responsibility and corporate codes of conduct. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 15(4):352–364 Parkes C, Buono AF, Howaidy G (2017) The Principles for responsible management education (PRME): the first decade–what has been achieved? The next decade–responsible management education’s challenge for the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Perrini F (2006) Developing corporate social responsibility: a European perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Rosenbloom A, Gudić M, Parkes C, Kronbach B (2017) A PRME response to the challenge of fighting poverty: how far have we come? Where do we need to go now? Int J Manag Edu, 15(2), pp.104–120 Rusinko CA (2010) Integrating sustainability in management and business education: a matrix approach. Acad Manag Learn Edu 9(3):443–455 Senge P (2006) Systems citizenship. In: The leader of the future. Leader to Leader, (41), p21–26 Solitander N, Fougère M, Sobczak A, Herlin H (2012) We are the champions: organisational learning and change for responsible management education. J Manag Educ 36(3):337–363 Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 49–70 Storey M, Killian S, O'Regan P (2017) Responsible management education: mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. Int J Manag Edu 15(2):93–103 Sulitest (2017) Sustainability literacy test [online]. Sulitest.org. Available at: http://sulitest.org/en/index. html. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Sunley R, Leigh J (eds) (2016) Educating for responsible management: putting theory into practice. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield Sustainable Development (2017) Sustainable development knowledge platform [online]. Available at: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Sustainable Development (2018) Sustainable development knowledge platform [online] Available at: sustainable development.un.org/ (Accessed 30 October 2018) UN PRME (2015) Partner with business schools to advance sustainability [online]. Available at: http:// www.unprme.org/resource-docs/businessbschoolpart nerships.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 UN PRME (2016) The sustainable development goals: a guide for business and management education [online]. Available at: http://www.unprme.org/resource-docs/ SDGGuideforManagementEducationweb.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 UN PRME (2017) Principles for responsible management education initiative [online]. Available at: http:// unprme.org/. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 UNESCO (2005) Education for sustainable development: an expert review of processes and learning. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/ 001914/191442e.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017

139 United Nations (2016) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development [online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/ 2015/08/120815_outcome-document-of-Summit-foradoption-of-the-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2017 Visser W, Crane A (2010) Corporate sustainability and the individual: understanding what drives sustainability professionals as change agents Waddock S (2007) Leadership integrity in a fractured knowledge world. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), pp.543–557 Wals AEJ (2010) Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and transformative social learning stepping stones for developing sustainability competence. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(3):380–390 Weybrecht G (2010) The sustainable MBA, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester Weybrecht G (2013) The sustainable MBA, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester Weybrecht G (2016) The future MBA. Wiley, Chichester Weybrecht G (2017) From challenge to opportunity–management education's crucial role in sustainability and the sustainable development goals–an overview and framework. Int J Manag Edu 15(2):84–92 World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987) [online]. Available online at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future. pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017 Young S, Nagpal S (2013) Meeting the growing demand for sustainability-focused management education: a case study of a PRME academic institution. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), pp.493–506

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Clinton Cassar University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Definition Ethics is the study of human behavior, encompassing the rational dimension of morality, which “is concerned with the norms, values and beliefs embedded in social processes which define right and wrong for an individual community” (Crane and Matten 2004:11). When such principles, as postulated by Steiner and Steiner (2003), are entrenched in business operations, often in codified or written form (Harris 2002), these fall

B

140

under the term “business ethics.” This refers to when business actions, situations, activities, and decisions at an individual or corporate level are taken with moral adequacy being the main crux (Goodpaster 1998; Crane and Matten 2010:5).

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

society. They are essential to make sure that decisions are economically viable to reap the profit desired, ethically aware of people’s varying needs and also environmental friendly to fulfill such goals within the earth’s carrying capacity.

Introduction Even though the phrase Good ethics is good business has gained reconnaissance in corporate discourse, it should not be considered as a panacea applied universally and utopically in each and every context to justify its implementation. As Singer (2018) states, the legal and political context, which determines the market system influencing a particular corporation, should be first and foremost considered. Therefore, it is wise and propitious to reflect more upon business ethics to achieve sustainability in ever-changing times. Coming to terms with and relieving the plight of economic instability, relentless globalization, corruption, and new paradigms has left its toll upon many corporations, time and again enmeshing them in cut-throat competition. More often than not, all this results in unsound, illegal, or immoral decisions that are far from being sustainable. Hence, the arduous task to incorporate ethics and sustainability within any corporation has been felt ever since the formulation of Agenda 21 in 1992, as stressed in Chapter 30. On the other hand, the Brundtlandian vision of sustainable development has laid the foundations for the definitions pertaining to “sustainable business,” since these embrace the notions of needs, futurity, and equity, molded to befit the business arena: adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future. (IISD et al. 1992:1)

Although many argue that ethics and sustainability do not share common ground, since the former is coined with a set of standards and the latter is regarded as a process, both are of burgeoning importance in a corporation’s commitment towards

The Need for Business Ethics and Sustainability According to Bowie (1989 as cited in Hoffman 1991), a corporation’s main aim is profit maximization, subject to a number of constraints, such as governmental legislation: Business does not have an obligation to protect the environment over and above what is required by law; however it does have a moral obligation to avoid intervening in the political arena in order to defeat or weaken environmental legislation. Doing more and above than such rules is unfair, since according to Friedman (1970), corporations are inanimate units that do not have any kind of responsibilities, including even environmental concerns, since these are considered as “side constraints upon business’s pursuit of profit” (DesJardins 2007). DesJArdins (2007) asserts that this should initiate dichotomous opportunities for lobbying from consumers: • To demand the availability of environmental friendly products from the business or • To encourage legislation that binds any business to act in a sustainable manner Failing to do so, the business has no ethical responsibility to promote sustainability. It may continue to focus on profit maximization, albeit harmful towards the environment. Bowie’s (1989 as cited in Hoffman 1991) ideology promotes more of a bottom-up approach, since consumers have a pivotal role in changing mindsets – either that of the government or the business itself. This contrasts the ideology of Kofi Annan who, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, pointed out that corporate sector has a pivotal

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

role in implementing sustainability since it possesses the required resources: And more and more we are realizing that it is only by mobilizing the corporate sector that we can make significant progress. The corporate sector has the finances, the technology and the management to make this happen. (Annan 2002, para. 5–6 as cited by Witt 2012)

These diverging viewpoints should make one discern that no matter what any corporation can give new impetus to the pillars of sustainability, which are affected in a variety of ways and at different levels through business activities: The Environment • Organisms are affected by hunting, fishing, agriculture, and animal testing. • Natural habitats and ecosystems are disturbed by deforestation, mining, construction, and pollution. • Planet earth is affected by activities causing species’ extinction and climate change (Zsolnai 1996). The Society • People often resort to lobbying (Hamilton and Hoch 1997) to put pressure on other organizations or the government to take action. • Child labor, poor working conditions, and low wages often breach human rights (Muchlinski 2012). • Fair trade (Jaffee 2010) takes into consideration the well-being of people, their produce, and even their income. • Health hazards affect employees and even the community, mainly through different forms of pollution. The Economy • Bribery (Weber and Getz 2004) affects economic outcomes and operations within the corporation and society. • Salaries (Nichols and Subramaniam 2001) and investments (Hudson 2005) contribute to a country’s quality of life. • Supply chain responsibility (van Tulder et al. 2009) influences production of resources, human resources, and values.

141

The Culture • Giving importance to culture could increase corporation’s efficiency and competitive position (Barney 1986). • Due to globalization, multinational companies affect the organizational culture of other smaller corporations and that of the community. It is in this regard that the dire need to integrate business ethics and sustainability is required to benefit from a number of advantages. According to Post et al. (2002), these include: • • • • • •

Decreasing harm to society Increasing profitability Fostering industrial relations Increasing employee productivity Diminishing criminal penalties Preventing actions which are of detriment to employees • Allowing employees to act coherently with their personal ethical beliefs

Different Dimensions of Business Ethics An organization, firm, or corporation is essentially a system that functions through the following subsystems, as put forward by Parsons (1977 as cited in Witt 2012): • A behavioral system, which takes into account the needs that determine one’s actions • A personal system, which gives importance to internal motives that affect one’s actions with the desired outcomes • A social system, which focuses on roles, that encourages concerned actors to interact • A cultural system, which emphasizes on the system’s norms, and attitudes. These determine the interaction between different actors within this system Business ethics is determined by the cultural system, which relies on the intergenerational transmission of elements such as language, religion, customs, morals, and law through four different levels:

B

142

• The supraculture which refers to the economic and political forces shared by nations • The macroculture which focuses on the national identity and origins shared by people • The mesoculture which emphasizes on the norms shared by groups or communities within a macroculture • The microculture which gives prominence to norms and values shared by the smallest social groups such as an organization, family or clan (Srnka 2004) These cultural levels do not function in isolation but often manifest themselves within corporations, which act as a microcosm of the national culture. At times, this leads to the formation of “a culture within a culture” since the wider cultural environment, comprising of the supraculture and macroculture, leaves its imprint on the confined corporate cultural environment made of the mescoculture and microculture. Hunt et al. (1989) seem to verify this, by stating that different cultures “guide service and product quality, selection of distribution channels, advertising content and treatment of customers” within an organization. These “different cultures” or subcultures are affected according to Hofstede (1980) by the following factors, emerging mainly from the national culture: • Power distance means the degree of inequality in the distribution of power. A culture which accepts high power distance will accept uneven distribution of power in a corporation. • Uncertainty avoidance dimension focuses on the threat of ambiguity that members of a community feel threatened by. • Dimensions of individualism means that a society emphasizes on the expectation that every individual is responsible for one’s wellbeing. On the other hand, collectivism encourages a sense of cohesion. • Masculinity versus femininity focuses on the division of emotional roles. Masculinity implies that society observes dominant social roles by gender (Hofstede 2001) based on assertiveness and competitiveness, whereas femininity takes into account gender roles

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

overlap (Hofstede and Hofsted 2005) focusing on modesty, solidarity, and nurturance. • Long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the culture’s orientation. Long-term orientation emphasizes mostly on future rewards, while short-term is more inclined towards rapid results, high consumption, and low savings (Hofstede 2001). Besides the abovementioned, Kluckholn and Strodtbeck (1961 as cited in Maznevski et al. 2002) add six more dimensions of culture, which could help in reducing conflicts when practicing business ethics: • The nature of people – Are people good, neutral or evil? • Relationship with people – Is the relationship individualistic (importance given to the person), collateral (importance given to the welfare of groups), or lineal (ordered position within groups)? • Relationship with nature – Do people show mastery over it, harmony towards it or are they subjugated to it? • Relationship with time – Do people focus on the past, present, or future? • Human activity – What is our primary mode of activity – is our orientation one of being-inbecoming, doing, or reflecting? • Personal space – How do we think about space – is it public, private, or mixed? The organizational culture varies from one corporation to another, according to the latent cognitive components such as assumptions, values, and beliefs and manifest elements such as artifacts and symbols (Schein 1985; Kotter and Heskett 1992). According to Shakeel et al. (2011), the “cognitive components” which also include the workforce’s knowledge, behavior, and values are crucial for decision-making. They add that it is difficult to get to the roots of decision-making, since culture and ethics are interrelated and intertwined. This is debatable since ethical behavior is based on morality, which alas is not embraced in the same manner by all cultures. Hence, having different code of ethics across a

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

range of corporations might create dissimilar behaviors (Ferrell and Gresham 1985:89). This is practiced in varying degrees, as delineated by Raiborn and Payne’s (1990) hierarchy: • Basic behavior reflects the minimal involvement. • Currently attainable behavior is considered moral but not laudable by society. • Practical behavior is difficult to attain but can be achieved through diligence. • Theoretical behavior is the highest potential for ethical behavior. Alternatively, Sauser and Sims (2007) intertwine the degree of commitment towards ethical behavior together with organizational structure: • In a culture of defiance, members in the corporation resist or refuse authority, promoting minimal or no ethical procedures. • In a culture of neglect, leaders wish to follow ethical procedures but due to various shortcomings, they may not always be successful. Such factors include lack of understanding as well as communicating the code of ethics, failing to detect violation of such codes and lack of care in performing such tasks. • In a culture of compliance, the business follows the legal and ethical standards, even though members of the organization disagree with them. Thus, even though the organization complies with standards, the employees do not embrace the true spirit of such values. • Unlike previous examples, in a culture of character, the organization is aware of the ethical standards and embraces them to the full. There is a high level of morality, trust, fairness and integrity. Hence, achieving the highest rank of Raiborn and Payne’s (1990) hierarchy or implementing Sauser and Sims’s (2007) culture of character, involves some soulsearching by the entire organization, which often leads to a transformative experience. Despite such ideologies appear theoretical in approach, these should serve as an eyeopener to ameliorate organizational behavior.

143

Values Related to Business Ethics and Sustainability Among the norms and values which are at the core of a corporation’s culture of character, one finds integrity, objectivity, equity, and responsibility. Integrity Jacobs (2004) makes reference to two types of definitions for integrity, given by the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) – one referring to the physical aspect linked to undivided wholeness and the other, which is mostly related to business ethics, focuses on morality, coined with words such as uprightness, honesty, and sincerity. Integrity, a ubiquitous term in business ethics, should be a consistent interpersonal and corporate value, among personnel in a corporation. This is closely related to the Integrative Social Contacts Theory (ISCT) which deals with: • A theoretical “macrosocial” contract appealing to all rational contractors. • A real “microsocial” contract by members of numerous localized communities (Donaldson and Dunfee 1994:253). The former, which alas is often hard to achieve, justifying why it is described as theoretical, refers to leaders who should promote openness, co-operation, worthwhileness, and safety within corporate integrity. The major obstacle is how these leaders should act as influencers and claimants at different levels – for employees and even organizations on a local and global scale – to acquire the necessary financial resources for the firm’s operations (Jensen and Meckling 1976; Zingales 2000 as cited in Eccles et al. 2014). That is why DeGeorge (1993) stresses that a good rapport among employees should be established, through the provision of continuous training and profit sharing. He also adds that “multinational corporations can compete with integrity by exceeding their legal obligations.” This seems to contradict Bowie’s (1989 as cited in Hoffman 1991) view of a corporation’s legal responsibilities as DeGeorge (1993:189) captures a more humane approach, since all this involves

B

144

“respecting human rights, fostering human development, and transcending the moral minimum.” The real “microsocial,” would be involving employees, who are not only units within the corporation but also active members in the community. Donaldson and Dunfee (1999:viii) state that “the challenge for businesses is to be not only faithful to timeless principles but also reflective of their members’ more local values, including ones that are cultural and religious.” This indicates that through their cultural baggage and experiences, employees could serve as an indicator to what is needed in the community and how such needs can be addressed by the business, especially through corporate social responsibility. Solomon (1992) notes that integrity should include a balance between institutional loyalty and moral autonomy. It is also associated with moral humility and altruism towards others. Objectivity Objectivity refers to sound and factual decisions that should not be obscured by any bias and conflicts of interest, since this could lead to offering inferior services to customers, limited economic growth and stagnation. A number of threats might be the cause of this: • A Self-Interest Threat happens when an individual takes advantage of financial interests including company transactions, incentive arrangement, or security of employment. • An Intimidation Threat happens when an individual’s objectivity is tampered by threats usually from influential people who determine the decision-making process or employability of the concerned individual when disagreement takes place. • A Self-Review Threat requires the re-evaluations of a previous judgment to ascertain that it complies with corporate’s standards. • The Familiarity Threat happens when close acquaintance or relationships with other individuals might hamper corporate decisions. • An Advocacy Threat happens when an individual endorses an idea that compromises objectivity (FEE 2003).

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

Fairness and Equity Fairness, often linked with environmental justice, refers to when all people are treated in an just manner vis-à-vis the distribution of costs and benefits of any project, policy, or program. According to Liu (2018), justice lies at the core of sustainability and there cannot be one without the other, which in fact he refers to as “just sustainability.” This signifies that when justice prevails in any society, the community would need to share both benefits and burdens equally. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. As a result, different types of equity, especially in a spatio-temporal context, need to be considered, as put forward by Haughton (1999): • Intergenerational equity (or the principle of futurity) • Intergenerational equity (or contemporary social equity or social justice) • Geographical equity or transfrontier responsibility • Procedural equity • Inter-species equity Intergenerational and intragenerational equity refers to fairness provided to people living “now” and “later,” as Redclift (2005) asserts. The “now” can be easily relatable, which is not always the case for the “later.” Besides being unforeseen, the latter cannot be easily translated nor measured. In fact, Bell and Morse (2008) question whether the “later” is an immediate one or involves a span of 10, 100, or 1000 years. Even though it should not be generalized, some researchers link the intergenerational and intragenerational aspect together since they believe that who cares for their “descendants would generally show concern for their contemporaries” (Ramlogan 2010). This should be associated with the principle of good heritage, which states that the present society should leave fewer burdens for future generations “to transform its heritage from burden to gain, from limitation to freedom of acting, from hardly changeable destiny to the ability of achieving happiness” (Keiner 2003:388).

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

Dobson (1999) points out that the needs of future generations have to take priority over the current one. While his reasoning is valid, however, another approach would be Rasmus Karlsson’s (as cited in Pavlich 2010:39) contractual reasoning, where he reverses perspectives by stating: “What would we want the present generation to do if we were in the shoes of some future unborn generation?” While showing empathy towards others is laudable, it is difficult to do so with nonexistent beings (Hubin 1976:71). This is because they cannot reciprocate to the actions of the current generation and therefore the latter cannot have any obligations towards future generations. Geographical equity or transfrontier responsibility requires political action to solve not only local but even global environmental problems. This might often lead to environmental racism, through deliberate or unintentional action. It disregards or harms people of a particular race or geographical location, creating inequalities as documented in Boyce (2007), Bullard et al. (2007), Mohaiand Bryant (1992), Pastor (2007), Ringquist (2005), and Szasz and Meuser (1997) as cited in Ash et al. (2013). This has been an inexorable issue throughout the years due to underdevelopment, dominion, and colonialism, resulting in the tragedy of commons. This is what Princen (1997:243–244) refers to “distancing” which is “the separation between primary resource extraction decisions and ultimate consumption decisions occurring along four dimensions – geography, culture, bargaining power, and agency.” Many developed countries made use of their colony’s resources to utilize them back in their homeland. In order to protect one’s environmental rights, Haughton (1999) also mentions procedural equity which focuses on the need of participation and regulatory systems within legal jurisdiction, in order that people can be treated fairly. However, Haughton (1999) together with Ash et al. (2013) raise a number of concerns regarding procedural equity and geographical equity that need to be considered: • Equal access of information is required so that the community is informed, especially in

145

deprived areas, where illiteracy is prevalent. Often, some corporations might take advantage of communities that lack social capital and political influence that offer little resistance and no democratic framework (Bullard 1990; Hamilton 1995; Pastor, 2003; Saha and Mohai 2005 as cited in Ash et al. 2013) to conduct illicit actions. • Equal treatment should be provided where political boundaries are concerned. In fact, Haughton and Hunter (1994) suggest that when transboundary pollution happens, affected countries should have the same rights to defend themselves against polluters in the same way the host country would. Corporations might affect market prices, causing lower property value where environmental hazards occur. This often leads to migration by deprived communities (Banzhaf and Walsh 2006; Been 1994). Haughton (1999) also takes into consideration other species, such as plants and animals a par to humans, through inter-species equity, to instill more consciousness towards environmental stewardship in upkeeping ecosystems’ vitality and maintaining biodiversity. Responsibility “Social responsibility is the obligation of decision makers to take actions which protect and improve the welfare of society along with their own interests” (Davis 1975 as cited in Carroll 2016). However, it is not only the responsibility of decision makers, but also of every individual within the corporation. It is for this reason that Garrido (2013) distinguishes between individual responsibility (the personal attitude) and objective responsibility (the set of values that define a person or organization). Carroll’s (2016) definition includes four components: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities as a foundation to frame what corporations should undertake. These four components were later incorporated in a model known as the CSR pyramid. Economic Responsibilities This responsibility envisages corporations to be profitable and encourage investments by

B

146

shareholders to continue operation by employees, as required by society. Legal Responsibilities Corporations should follow ground rules in order to operate according to the law as required by society and is expected to: • Comply according to the government’s expectations • Comply with various local, national and international regulations • Fulfill legal obligations to all stakeholders • Provide goods and services that meet legal requirements • Engage employees who act as law-abiding corporate citizens Legal responsibilities mostly affect leaders, but the threat of litigation against corporations arises most often from employees and consumers when treated unfairly. Ethical Responsibilities Operating in an ethical manner, meaning to do what is right, just, and fair, without harming all stakeholders, as expected by society includes: • Being good corporate citizens and performing consistently with societal norms and values • Recognizing new norms being adopted by society • Recognizing that integrity and ethical behavior go beyond compliance with laws • Preventing compromising ethical norms to achieve profit Philanthropic Responsibilities Corporate philanthropy means being a good corporate citizen by showing altruism towards others as desired by society, usually through voluntary opportunities that include physical and human resources. Employees’ morale and level of engagement reflect a corporation’s level of philanthropic responsibility (Carroll 1991 as cited in Carroll 2016). Even though the model is theoretical in essence, it should not be seen as a snapshot of

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

responsibilities, but more of dynamic long-term obligations towards sustainability, taking into account future generation of stakeholders.

Weaving Business Ethics and Sustainability: A Transformative Way Forward Implementing Sauser and Sims’ (2007) culture of character in a corporation is not plain sailing. It requires the right frame of mind and organizational skills employed by leaders through, “decision-making processes, rewards, norms, heroes, stories, rituals, and other artifacts to create a strong culture” (Graham 2015). Ardichvili et al. (2009) rightly state that “ethical culture starts at the top and is conveyed by example. . .. the CEO and senior management live their lives with great personal integrity” and they “do what they say they’re going to do.” Even though leaders should act as role models, they should also been kept adjourned with the latest trends in order to promote good governance. Ethical decision-making is influenced by internal factors such as a leader’s ethical sensitivity and moral character. Honing moral reasoning requires maturity, experience, and education, which develop in a series of sequential stages as delineated in Kohlberg’s model of moral development (1969). However, there are also external factors which exert their influence on decision-making, such as culture and the environment. It is for this reason that Khurana and Nohria (2008) recommend professionalizing managers. In doing so, leaders require continuous professional development, which consists of a type of education, as Dewey (1910) affirms, that combines knowledge, skills, and “activity-related” knowledge, dealing with what Srnka (2004) proposes as the “affectivecognitive-behavior spectrum of ethical dimension.” Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) fulfills this, as it should re-orient not only leaders but even employees, to bridge the gap between knowledge and attitudes which are subject to “macroenvironmental pressures, personal relationships, individual values, and motivations” (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development

Re-orienting education, especially in higher education institutions, requires the individual to “transform in order to be transformative” (Sterling 2004), taking into account the “head, heart, and hands” triad to accomplish it, as encouraged by Sipos et al. (2008): • The head refers to the cognitive domain where the person should have acquired knowledge to gain experience by doing, linking it to craftsmanship. Schön (1983), who adds on Khurana and Nohria’s (2008) notion of professionalism, argues that one’s expertise, indirectly referring to knowledge, is the sum of: basic science, applied science, and competences. This conforms with Rousseau (2006), Nielsen (2010), and Fichter (2016) who state that decision-making should happen through reflection. Introspection and critical reflection leads to metacognition, which is reflecting on one’s own thinking. It is based on connections, past experiences, and knowledge as stated by Dewey (1910); (1944), Kolb (1984), and Roberts (2002 as cited in Singleton 2015) which by and large, should add meaning to business experience, initiating this transformative experience. Hence, craftsmanship should promote ethical behavior and sustainability, according to one’s own judgment and surrounding environment, contributing to society at large (Sennett 2008). Of utmost importance in view of ethics and sustainability is that according to Khurana and Nohria (2008) a professional takes a decision not only on knowledge but also in relation to the environment that surrounds the corporation. In fact, Mayer and Frantz (2004) confirm that love of place leads to fostering sustainable behaviors. • The heart refers to the affective domain, where values and feelings translate in responsible behavior. Affectation determines what one values or cares about, especially in decisionmaking. • The hand refers to the psychomotor domain, where the person hones practical skills, leading to deep engagement.

147

Dewey views these three aspects as “dynamic interplay,” which contrasts Simon’s idea, that the three should be separated as head (cognition), heart (emotion) and hands (routines) (Cohen 2007a:777 as cited in de Graff 2018). While Simon refers to “routines” which are more standardized activities, Dewey makes use of the word “habits.” Simon’s terminology seems to conform with the behavior theory of the firm which states that in any corporation, individuals take decisions based on routine or their daily habits, confirming that the majority of hurdles in a business are attitudinal (Dewhurst and Thomas 2003). Even though we might try to promote ethical values, “unconscious motives” influence us to reach incomplete or contradictory facts, political dominion and insufficient resources to accomplish tasks. Through deep engagement, reflection, and relational understandings, a corporation might promote ethical and sustainable behavior. It should be able to create an atmosphere of collegiality that promotes an experience that can change one’s relationship with the world – as Dewey (1934) envisions – “a new way of seeing, a new way of being in the world that is transformative.”

Conclusion Business ethics has orthodoxy (correct policy) and orthopraxis (correct practice) at its core, which could be achieved through the mind, heart, and hand triad, touted as the best means to promote a transformative business ethic, diverging from an epistemological change in worldviews to an ontological process spearheading change of being in the world (Lange 2004). In essence, despite being heavily criticized, all this lies within the pragmatic framework, which should inherently consider the corporations’ sustainability in terms of products and services provided, business conduct and quality standards. This pragmatic approach would shift gears from taking decisions based on routines or habits. It promotes reflective decision-making and multiperspective pluralism in a democratic climate, where exchange of experiences and knowledge between leaders and employees can give more

B

148

insight not only on the needs of the community but also of the surrounding environment so that “when ethical issues arise, [the] CEO . . .gathers facts and takes action” (Ardichvili et al. 2009). Similarly claimed by Visser (2017), the “Pragmatist Critical Perspective” challenges traditional business ideologies mentioned earlier, such as profit maximization, efficiency, and productivity to consider the needs of the environment and different stakeholders. Practicality underpins the pragmatic philosophy, which excludes the utilitarian possibility that each moral choice is based upon calculation. Moral decision-making is of utter importance for any corporation especially in the light of sustainability as “one also chooses what specific experience he/she acquires, what kind of person one wants to become, what kind of self is in the making, and what kind of world is in the making” (Zhu and Jesiek 2017). Since sustainability deals with the notion of futurity, there is no guarantee that decisions will actually materialize, often disheartening corporations. This is because a decision taken in one situation might change in the future, requiring a different course of action, as stated by Emison (2004): the circumstance must inform the choice of ethical theories depending on which make the most sense and to what extent these theories still hold.

This transformative approach, through its pragmatic outlook, might offer solutions to deal with situations at hand, even in the future – by shifting gears – transforming attitudes and behavior to face a prosperous future.

References Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting behaviour. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Ardichvili A, Mitchell JA, Jondle D (2009) Characteristics of ethical business cultures. J Bus Ethics 85(4):445–451 Ash M, Boyce J, Chang G, Scharber H (2013) Is environmental justice good for white folks? Industrial air toxics exposure in urban America. Soc Sci Q 94(3):616–636 Banzhaf S, Walsh RP (2006) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of environmental gentrification. Am Econ Rev 98(3):843

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Barney JB (1986) Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Acad Manag Rev 11(3):656–665 Been V (1994) Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighbourhoods: disproportionate siting or marketing dynamics? Yale Law J 103:1383–1422 Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable. Earthscan, London Carroll AB (2016) Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. Int J Corp Soc Respon 1(1):3 Crane A, Matten D (2004) Business Ethics – A European Perspective. Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization Oxford University Press Oxford Crane A, Matten D (2010) Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press GRA, New York de Graff FJ (2018) Ethics and Behavioural theory: how do professionals assess their mental models? J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3955-6 DeGeorge RT (1993) Competing with integrity in international business. Oxford University Press, New York DesJardins J (2007) Business, ethics, and the environment: imagining a sustainable future. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall Dewey J (1910) How we think. Hrath & Co, New York Dewey J (1934) Art as experience. Penguin Group, New York Dewhurst H, Thomas R (2003) Encouraging sustainable business practices in a non-regulatory environment: a case study of small tourism firms in a UK National Park. J Sustain Tour 11(5):383–403 Dobson A (1999) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford Donaldson T, Dunfee TW (1994) Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts theory. Acad Manag Rev 19:252–284 Donaldson T, Dunfee TW (1999) Ties that bind: a social contracts approach to business ethics. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag Sci 60(11):2835 Emison GA (2004) Pragmatism, adaptation, and total quality management: philosophy and science in the service of managing continuous improvement. Eng Manag Rev IEEE 32:113–121 Fédération des Experts Comptables (2003) A conceptual approach to safeguarding integrity, objectivity and Independence throughout the financial reporting Chain. FEE, Brussels Ferrell OC, Gresham L (1985) A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. J Mark 49:87–89 Fichter R (2016) Do the right thing! Developing ethical behavior in financial institutions. J Bus Ethics 151:69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3275-7

Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/is sues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html. Accessed 30 July 2018 Garrido P (2013) Objective and subjective responsibility in business sustainability https://repositorium.sdum. uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/28174/1/BS_2013_PG.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2018 Goodpaster KE (1998) Business ethics and stakeholder analysis, the corporation and its stakeholders in. In: Clarkson MBE (ed) Classic and contemporary Reading. Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 102–123 Graham, J (2015) The Role of corporate culture in business Ethics. http://www.academia.edu/5343243/The_Role_ of_Corporate_Culture_in_Business_Ethics. Accessed 3 Aug 2018 Hamilton JB, Hoch D (1997) Ethical standards for business lobbying: some practical suggestions. Bus Ethics Q 7(3):117 Harris WM (2002) Environmental justice, sustainability, and the role of planning ethics. J Environ Law Litigation 17(2):499 Haughton G (1999) Environmental Justice and the Sustainable City. J Plan Educ Res 18(3):233–243 Haughton G, Hunter C (1994) Sustainable cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers/Regional Studies Association, London Hoffman WM (1991) Business and environmental ethics. Bus Ethics Q 1(2):169–184 Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values abridged edition. Sage, Newbury Park Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, Behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks Hofstede G, Hofsted JG (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York Hubin D (1976) Justice and future generations. Philos Public Aff 6(1):70–83 Hudson R (2005) Ethical investing: ethical investors and managers. Bus Ethics Q 15(4):641–657 Hunt SD, Wood VR, Chonko LB (1989) Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. J Mark 53:79–90 International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Deloitte & Touche, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (1992) Business strategy for the 90s. IISD, Winnipeg Jacobs DC (2004) A pragmatist approach to integrity in business ethics. J Manag Inq 13(3):215–223 Jaffee D (2010) Fair trade standards, corporation participation, and social movement responses in the United States. J Bus Ethics 92(2):267–285 Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360

149 Keiner M (2003) Re-emphasizing sustainable development: the concept of Evolutionability on living chances, equity and good heritage. Environ Dev Sustain 6:379–392 Khurana R, Nohria N (2008) It’s time to make management a true profession. Harv Bus Rev 86(10):70–77 Kohlberg L (1969) Stage and sequence: the cognitive moral developmental approach in socialization. In: Goslin D (ed) Handbook of socialization theory and research. Rand MacNally, Chicago, pp 247–480 Kotter JP, Heskett A (1992) Corporate culture and performance. Free Press, New York Lange EA (2004) Transformative and restorative learning: a vital dialectic for sustainable societies. Adult Educ Q 54(2):121–139 Liu L (2018) A sustainability index with attention to environmental justice for eco-city classification and assessment. Ecol Indic 85:904–914 Mayer FS, Frantz CM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24:503–515 Maznevski ML, Gomez CB, DiStefano JJ, Noorderhaven NG, Wu PC (2002) Cultural dimensions at the individual level of analysis the cultural orientations framework. Int J Cross-cult Manag 2:275 Muchlinski P (2012) Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework. Bus Ethics Q 22(1):145–177 Nichols D, Subramaniam C (2001) Executive compensation: excessive or equitable. J Bus Ethics 29(4): 339–351 Nielsen RP (2010) Practitioner-based theory building in organizational ethics. J Bus Ethics 93(3):401–406 Pavlich D (2010) Managing environmental justice. Rodopi, Amsterdam Post JE, Preston LE, Sachs S (2002) Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. Calif Manag Rev 45(1):6–28 Princen T (1997) The shading and distancing of commerce: when internalization is not enough. Ecol Econ 20: 235–253 Raiborn CA, Payne D (1990) Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and continuum. J Bus Ethics 9:879–889 Ramlogan R (2010) Sustainable development: Towards a Judicial Interpretation. Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development, vol 9. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227 Rousseau DM (2006) Is there such a thing as ‘evidencebased management’? Acad Manag Rev 31(2):256–269 Sauser WI Jr, Sims R (2007) Fostering an ethical culture for business: the role of HR managers. In: Sims RR (ed) Human resource management: contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 253–285 Schein EH (1985) Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

B

150 Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New. Basic Books, New York Sennett R (2008) The craftsman. Yale University Press, New Haven Shakeel M, Mazhar Khan M, Aslam Khan M (2011) Impact on culture on business ethics. Far East J Psychol Bus 3(2):59–70 Singer A (2018) Justice failure: efficiency and equality in business ethics. J Bus Ethics 149(1):97–11 Singleton J (2015) Head, heart and hands model for transformative learning: place as context for changing sustainability values. J Sustain Educ 9. http://www. jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 03/PDF-Singleton-JSE-March-2015-Love-Issue.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2018 Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9:68–86 Solomon RC (1992) Corporate roles, personal virtues: an Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Bus Ethics Q 2(3):317–339 Srnka KJ (2004) Culture’s role in marketers’ ethical decision making: an integrated theoretical framework. Acad Mark Sci Rev 1. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www. ams-web.org/resource/resmgr/original_amsr/srnka012004.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2018 Steiner GA, Steiner JF (2003) Business, government and society: a managerial perspective. McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York Sterling S (2004) Sustainable education: Revisioning learning and change. Green Books Ltd, Devon van Tulder R, van Wijk J, Kolk A (2009) Corporate social responsibility implementation. J Bus Ethics 85(2): 399–412 Visser M (2017) Pragmatism, critical theory and business ethics: converging lines. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3564-9 Weber JS, Getz KS (2004) Buy bribes or bye-bye bribes: the future status of bribery. Bus Ethics Q 14(4):695–711 Witt MD (2012) Assessing the compatibility of Business Ethics and Sustainable Development Dissertation, Uppsala University. http://www.diva-portal. org/smash/get/diva2:504934/fulltext01.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2018 Zhu Q, Jesiek BK (2017) A pragmatic approach to ethical decision-making in engineering practice: characteristics, evaluation criteria, and implications for instruction and assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 23(3):663–679 Zsolnai L (1996) Environmental ethics for business. Manag Res News 19:9–15

Business Social Responsibility ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Business Social Responsibility

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems Johannes Platje1 and David Slim Zepeda Quintana2 1 WSB University in Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland 2 Graduate Sustainability Program, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

Introduction The world is becoming increasingly interconnected and complex. It is now common to speak of events influenced by the “butterfly effect,” in which organizations and institutions suffer the effects of apparently distant and unrelated actions of others. This represents a very serious problem for the survival of organizations and business sustainability, since it is possible that there are threats to their integrity that are unknown or that, while known, are not considered. The task of managing a modern organization is very complex with drastic potential effects, which probably requires a change in how organizations are being managed. This chapter outlines the elements and concepts that create business unsustainability. First, a discussion is presented to define business sustainability. Business sustainability is an ambiguous, yet widely discussed, concept in recent decades intended to embed sustainability into business management. In the second section, the concept of business fragility takes place; this is a new approach to avoid threats and collapse scenarios for business sustainability. The third section discusses ignorance management, an approach that considers the complex role that ignorance and uncertainty may play in business sustainability. Finally, the fourth section presents a discussion on early warning systems. This is an instrument to reduce ignorance and fragilities and enhance preparation to deal with unexpected events that can threaten business sustainability.

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems

Business Sustainability Business companies are important stakeholders in the transition toward sustainable development, as they have huge potential to increase the already existing positive impacts on economic progress and quality of life and to reduce negative impacts (Crane and Matten 2016; Econsense 2017). Hawken (1993) argues that business is the only institution large and powerful enough to solve our sustainability problems; however, current understanding and strategies for business sustainability seem to be limited and insufficient to address these complex, global, and interconnected issues. Although extensive literature on the topic exists, it is missing a comprehensive view of how firms should approach embedding sustainability in their business models (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008; Bocken et al. 2014). Perhaps the first challenge is to clarify what business sustainability really means. There is some ambiguity when discussing business sustainability, and a specific definition is hard to find. However, different authors agree that business sustainability requires an approach toward the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and financial aspects) with the intention to respond to the business’s short-term financial needs without compromising its (or others’) ability to meet its future needs (Elkington 1994; Sharma 2002; Labuschagne et al. 2005). In practice, this is difficult to achieve, as many owners and managers may want their business to be at least as profitable as in the past and, ideally, more profitable in the future (Bansal and DesJardine 2014). The current models to achieve business sustainability have shortcomings in the area of positively impacting the triple bottom line (Haugh and Talwar 2010), since trade-offs exist, while in practice one aspect may receive more attention than others. These models of business sustainability try to find out how firms can benefit from addressing societal and environmental concerns (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Ferraro et al. 2005). This approach may artificially polarize business and society, reinforcing the tension between business demands and social expectations, which can

151

create feedback loops further polarizing business and society (Smith and Lewis 2011). Managers seek immediate financial gains from their social and environmental investments, rather than embracing the tension among the economic, social, and environmental elements of the system and creatively integrating solutions into firm activities (Kleine and Von Hauff 2009). Sustainable development is often perceived as an aspirational goal, and early ideas on implementing business sustainability focused on concepts such as achieving stability and efficiency improvements (Ahern 2011). However, in the current complex, interconnected, and globalized systems, these aims may produce side effects and unexpected events that can lead to collapse scenarios (Taleb 2007). In this context, we need to be skeptical about the innovation-efficiency measurements that organizations are applying and be able to identify whether we are creating resilient or fragile systems and organizations.

Business Fragility Business, like all other natural and human systems, is constantly under threat of all kinds of events. In order to ensure its survival, business should care about its resilience (Winnard et al. 2014). The idea of resilience is closely linked to the idea of sustainability since, in the end, it is not always a question of aspiring to more and more profits, e.g., the fallacy of endless growth (Strauss 2010). Rather, it is about being able to continue generating profits and, through that, generate benefits for the community (Boudreau et al. 2008; Derissen et al. 2011). Focus on increasing profits can lead to fragilities, reducing business resilience (Taleb 2012). The concept of fragility has been widely used in different areas such as construction (Ellingwood et al. 2004), health (Seeman and Delmas 2006), finance (Eichengreen and Hausmann 1999), and ecology (Montoya et al. 2006). Fragility can be defined as the ability of an object or system to be easily damaged or broken; these damages are generally irreversible, which can be interpreted

B

152

as a loss of functionality (Ansar et al. 2017). For this reason, identifying fragilities in a system should be a priority, as they threaten business sustainability (Platje 2015). Usually, a system is the least fragile when it is robust and resilient (Passos et al. 2018). However, resilience may not be enough when complexity and interconnection are added to a system (Ries 2016). This interconnectivity is a source of fragility for businesses because, despite having numerous connections and a large size, the system itself is just as fragile as the most fragile component of the system (Ansar et al. 2017). Perhaps the solution to achieve business sustainability is not to generate a robust and resilient business to reduce the fragility but instead to look for business anti-fragility. Being anti-fragile goes beyond resilience and robustness, since these only seek to reduce the negative effects on business that come from stressors, volatility, randomness, and uncertainty (Bin Shawiah 2016). Anti-fragile systems benefit from volatility and randomness (Taleb 2012). However, creating such a system is extremely difficult due to intrinsic issues in our current business management paradigms (Hamel 2007). Furthermore, randomness and uncertainty come from elements out of our control, and it is difficult for businesses to analyze or prepare for unexpected, unpredictable, and uncertain events (Posner 2010).

Ignorance Management Are some companies too big to disappear? The answer is no. Can a company go from dominating the world to falling into oblivion? The answer is yes. Examples of this are many: Blockbuster, Kodak, Pan Am Airlines, Enron, and Lehman Brothers (Lucas and Goh 2009; McDonald and Robinson 2010; Davis and Higgins 2013). The reasons why these companies failed become obvious after the collapse has taken place: technological advances, terrorist attacks, unethical practices, lax financial regulations, etc. The truth is that for businesses to predict these events is practically impossible, which leads us to question whether we really have all the information

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems

necessary to ensure the survival of business (Posner 2010). The question here is to know whether we can learn from these cases and see beyond the things that we think are obvious (Paltrinieri et al. 2014). In recent decades, the application of knowledge management techniques has become widespread among firms and is currently considered a paradigm for business management (Gonzalez and Martins 2017). However, this focus on knowledge may result in the neglect or ignorance of other equally important factors influencing the performance of businesses, including the unknown (Carrillo 2007). It is necessary to consider the complex role that ignorance and uncertainty may play in the business sustainability; therefore, the management of ignorance appears as an attractive approach to deal with those unexpected events that may compromise the survival of business (Wynne 1992). In order to understand this focus on ignorance, a distinction can be made between key elements of knowledge – knowns and unknowns – as well as between awareness and unawareness (Fig. 1) (Israilides et al. 2013). In other words, “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know” (Rumsfeld 2002). In Fig. 2, a taxonomy of ignorance is presented. An early warning system (EWS), as discussed below, is an instrument to reduce ignorance and fragilities that also helps a business prepare to deal with unexpected events that can threaten business sustainability.

Early Warning Systems Nowadays, the world is increasingly impacted by unexpected events that create enormous challenges for the survival of companies. Not many people predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Internet revolution, the financial crisis of 2007, the euro crisis, Brexit, etc. Such events can create threats but can also become a business opportunity (Posner 2010; Taleb 2012). Within this

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems

153

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems, Fig. 1 Overview of the ignorance management (Israilides et al. 2013)

B

Ignorance

Irrelevance

Error

Incompleteness

Distortion

Confusion

Untopicality

Inaccuracy

Uncertainity

Absence

Vagueness

Probability

Ambiguity

Fuzziness

Taboo

Undecidability

Nonspecifitciy

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems, Fig. 2 Taxonomy of ignorance (Smithson 2012)

context, an important issue is whether a company has the capacity to create an early warning system for threats to the sustainability of the business. Studies on EWS have been carried out, especially in areas such as prevention of natural disasters, finances, risks in the market, IT, medicine, and

others (Mackenzie 1999; Erdik et al. 2003; Yu and Madoff 2004; Wu and Kanamori 2005; Bussiere and Fratzscher 2006). However, little has been discussed about these systems’ use as a management tool, and even less has been discussed about their relationships to business sustainability.

154

Here are several different definitions of an EWS: Warning system is any system of biological or technical nature deployed by an individual or group to inform of a future danger. Its purpose is to enable the deployer of the warning system to prepare for the danger and act accordingly to mitigate against or avoid it. (Dwivedi 2010) An early warning system (EWS) is technology and associated policies and procedures designed to predict and mitigate the harm of natural and humaninitiated disasters and other undesirable events. (Rouse 2016) It prevents loss of life and reduces the economic and material impact of disasters. To be effective, early warning systems need to actively involve the communities at risk, facilitate public education and awareness of risks, effectively disseminate messages and warnings and ensure there is constant state of preparedness. (Wiltshire 2006) [An EWS is] a system that identifies disturbances within itself that are likely to have a significant impact – and disseminates information relevant to the needs of a timely response scheme. This enables appropriate decision making such as resource allocation, facilitates appropriate adoption actions and identifies further response requirements. (Murphy et al. 2007. [An EWS] is a chain of information communication systems comprising sensor, detection, decision, and broker subsystems, in the given order, working in conjunction, forecasting and signalling disturbances adversely affecting the stability of the physical world; and giving sufficient time for the response system to prepare resources and response actions to minimise the impact on the stability of the physical world. (Waidyanatha 2010)

An EWS should include a cognitivebehavioral managerial element, as formal models may miss weak signals (Bertoncel et al. 2018b). “Early warning systems serve as a key management tool for anticipating potential disasters or other negative events (Trzeciak and Rivers 2003).” (quote from Bertoncel et al. 2018a, p 407). They help to identify, screen, and appraise warning signs and respond to them (Bertoncel et al. 2018a, p 412). An EWS is needed as people tend to be unable “to acknowledge black swans [because they] tend to focus on things already known to us, and therefore fail to consider those for which we lack knowledge (Amyotte et al. 2014).”

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems

Determinants and elements of an EWS are, first of all, a lack of awareness of vulnerability and fragility issues (Mandelbrot and Hudson 2010; Taleb and Martin 2012), functional stupidity (Alvesson and Spicer 2010), lack of general trust (Raiser et al. 2008), and adherence to technocentric paradigm (Gladwin et al. 1995), reducing the capacity to create an EWS. Functional stupidity can be defined as “an absence of reflexivity, a refusal to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and avoidance of justifications” (Alvesson and Spicer 2012). It consists of reflexivity, i.e. the ability and willingness to discuss and question existing knowledge, rules, norms of behavior, etc. (Alvesson and Skoldberg 2009), justification, i.e. provide reasons and explanations for decisions (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006), and substantive reasoning (this lacks when focus is on narrow or short-term aims, and broad perspectives are not considered). The worldview considered to be relevant for ignoring threats to business sustainability is the technocentric paradigm. This concerns the belief that technology and economic growth can solve all different types of problems (Gladwin et al. 1995). When believing all problems can be solved by engineering and using more resources, this is likely to lead to neglect of events that can cause significant, irreversible damage to the company or region. A high level of general trust (trust in people in general) facilitates cooperation among people with new ideas. It makes the organization more adaptively efficient (Raiser 1997, 1999). Trust between stakeholders within the company is important, as it may reduce barriers to flow of information crucial from the point of view of EWS. General trust may support the openness to weak signals from outside the company. Furthermore, when there is a lack of general trust as well as a lack of trust in suppliers, customers, and people working in the company, this may create difficulties in finding cooperative solutions requiring a quick reaction in case of unexpected events. Other issues important for the development and functioning of an EWS are the creation of scenarios (Posner 2010; Taleb and Martin 2012; Bertoncel et al. 2018a), involvement of outsiders

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems

(Posner 2010), whistleblowers (Harford 2011), the use of different theoretical models (Feyerabend 2010), the ability to learn as quickly as possible in situations of extreme volatility (Posner 2010, pp. 22–23), awareness of volatility and inclusion in risk management (Mandelbrot and Hudson 2010), procedures for accountability (Posner 2010), use of system analysis (Sterman 2000; Posner 2010), awareness of strength and limitations of the human mind (Beck 2017), teamwork, intuition (Patton 2003; Bertoncel et al. 2018b), learn from “near mistakes, misses or failures” (CCPS 2012; Amyotte et al. 2014), and the creation of testable hypotheses (Posner 2010). As our world has become increasingly complex, observing and identifying thresholds and signs of drastic changes that require changes in organizations and systems become even more complex. In this sense, the development of early warning systems emerges as a theoretical approach with certain appeal to help solve these complex problems.

Cross-References ▶ Awareness of Sustainability Issues ▶ Behavioral Aspects and Change Management for Sustainable Development ▶ Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development ▶ Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

References Ahern J (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc Urban Plan 100:341–343 Alvesson M, Skoldberg K (2009) Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. SAGE, London Alvesson M, Spicer A (2010) Metaphors we lead by: understanding leadership in the real world. Routledge, Abingdon Alvesson M, Spicer A (2012) A stupidity-based theory of organizations. J Manag Stud 49:1194–1220 Amyotte P, Margeson A, Chiasson A, Khan F (2014) There is no such thing as a black swan process incident. Hazards 24(159):12–21 Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Budzier A, Lunn D (2017) Big is fragile The Oxford handbook of mega project

155 management 1:40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780198732242.013.5 Bansal P, DesJardine M (2014) Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg Organ 12:70–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1476127013520265 Beck H (2017) Irren ist nützlich: Warum die Schwächen des Gehirns unsere Stärken sind. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG Bertoncel T, Erenda I, Bach MP et al (2018a) A managerial early warning system at a smart factory: an intuitive decision-making perspective. Syst Res Behav Sci 35:406–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/ sres.2542 Bertoncel T, Erenda I, Meško M (2018b) Managerial early warning system as best practice for project selection at a smart factory. Amfiteatru Econ 20:805–819 Bin Shawiah FF (2016) Risk management strategies for dealing with unpredictable risk in Saudi Arabian organisations. PhD diss., University of Salford Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P, Evans S (2014) A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J Clean Prod 65:42–56. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification: economies of worth. Princeton University Press, Princeton Boudreau M-C, Chen A, Huber M (2008) Green IS: building sustainable business practices. Inf Syst A Glob:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWAT.2005.1461133 Bussiere M, Fratzscher M (2006) Towards a new early warning system of financial crises. J Int Money Financ 25(6):953–973 Carrillo FJ (2007) The coming of age of knowledge-based development. J Knowledge Manage 11(5):3–5. Center for Chemical Process Safety (2012) Recognizing catastrophic incident warning signs in the process industries. Wiley, Hoboken Crane A, Matten D (2016) Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford Davis T, Higgins J (2013) A blockbuster failure: how an outdated business model destroyed a giant Derissen S, Quaas MF, Baumgärtner S (2011) The relationship between resilience and sustainability of ecologicaleconomic systems. Ecol Econ 70:1121–1128. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.003 Dwivedi R (2010) Role of media in disaster management and early warning. Amity Inst Disaster Manag 1–34 Econsense (2017) How companies can improve their impact on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and harness the power of digitalization: a practical handbook for managers. Econsense. Germany Eichengreen B, Hausmann R (1999) Exchange rates and financial fragility (No. w7418). National bureau of economic research Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manag Rev 36:90–100 Ellingwood BR, Rosowsky DV, Li Y, Kim JH (2004) Fragility Assessment of Light-Frame Wood Construction Subjected to Wind and Earthquake Hazards. J Struct

B

156 Eng 130:1921–1930. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce) 0733-9445(2004)130:12(1921) Erdik M, Fahjan Y, Ozel O, Alcik H, Mert A, Gul M (2003) Istanbul earthquake rapid response and the early warning system. Bull Earthq Eng 1(1):157–163 Ferraro F, Pfeffer J, Sutton RI (2005) Economics of language and assumptions: how theories can become selffulfilling. Acad Manag Rev 30:8–24 Feyerabend P (2010) Against method, 4th edn. Verso Books, New York Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T (1995) Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable for Implications Development : and Theory. Acad Manag Rev 20:874–907. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280024 Gonzalez RVD, Martins MF (2017) Knowledge Management Process: a theoretical-conceptual research. Gestão Produção 24:248–265. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104530x0893-15 Hamel G (2007) The future of management. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston Harford T (2011) Adapt: Why success always starts with failure. Farrar, Straus and Giroux Haugh HM, Talwar A (2010) How Do Corporations Embed Sustainability Across the Organization? Acad Manag Learn Educ 9:384–396. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amle.9.3.zqr384 Hawken P (1993) Ecology of commerce: how business can save the planet. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London Israilides J, Lock R, Cooke L (2013) Ignorance management. Bus Inf Rev 27:33–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0266382109357389 Kleine A, von Hauff M (2009) Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. J Bus Ethics 85:517–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551009-0212-z Labuschagne C, Brent AC, Van Erck RPG (2005) Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J Clean Prod 13:373–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2003.10.007 Lucas HC, Goh JM (2009) Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. J Strateg Inf Syst 18:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsis.2009.01.002 Mackenzie K (1999) Parasites as pollution indicators in marine ecosystems: a proposed early warning system. Mar Pollut Bull 38(11):955–959 Mandelbrot BB, Hudson RL (2010) The (mis) behaviour of markets: a fractal view of risk, ruin and reward. Basic Books, London Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Adm Sci Q 48:268. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659 McDonald LG, Robinson P (2010) A colossal failure of common sense: the inside story of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Crown Business Montoya JM, Pimm SL, Solé RV (2006) Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 442:259–264. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nature04927 Murphy K, Packer C, Stevens A, Simpson S (2007) Effective early warning systems for new and emerging health

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems technologies: developing and evaluation framework and assessment of current systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23:324–330 Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Amyotte P, Cozzani V (2014) Dynamic approach to risk management: application to the Hoeganaes metal dust accidents. Process Saf Environ Prot 92:669–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psep.2013.11.008 Passos DS, Coelho H, Sarti FM (2018) From resilience to the design of antifragility. In: PESARO 2018: The eighth international conference on performance, safety and robustness in complex systems and applications, pp 7–11 Patton MQ (2003) Inquiry into appreciative evaluation. N Dir Eval 2003:85–98 Platje J (2015) Sustainability and antifragility. Econ Environ Stud 15:469–477 Posner KA (2010) Stalking the black swan: Research and decision making in a world of extreme volatility. Columbia University Press, New York Raiser M (1997) Informal institutions, social capital, and economic transition: reflections on a neglected dimension. EBRD Raiser M (1999) Trust in transition. In: postcommunist transformation and the social sciences, pp 77–96. Rowman & Lilltefield publishers. Oxford Raiser M, Rousso A, Steves F, Teksoz U (2008) Trust in transition: cross-country and firm evidence. J Law Econ Org 24:407–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ ewm060 Ries T (2016) Forward resilience in context. In Forward Resilience: Protecting Society in an Interconnected World (pp. 1–22). Washington DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations Rouse M (2016) Early warning system. Available on: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/early-warningsystem Rumsfeld D (2002) Press Conference by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. In Press Conference, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO HQ, Brussels, Belgium Seeman E, Delmas PD (2006) Bone quality—the material and structural basis of bone strength and fragility. N Engl J Med 354:2250–2261. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/nejmra053077 Sharma S (2002) Research in corporate sustainability: what really matters? In: Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment, pp 1–29 Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad Manag Rev 36:381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMR.2011.59330958 Smithson M (2012) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer Science & Business Media, New York Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Boston Strauss W (2010) The myth of endless growth: exposing capitalism’s insustainability. Lulu press. North Carolina

Business Unsustainability and Early Warning Systems Stubbs W, Cocklin C (2008) Conceptualizing a sustainability business model. Organ Environ 21:103–127 Taleb NN (2007) Black swans and the domains of statistics the black swan. The American Statistician 61(3):198–200 Taleb NN (2012) Antifragile – things that gain from disorder. Penguin Books, London Taleb NN, Martin GA (2012) How to prevent other financial crises. SAIS Rev Int Aff 32:49–60 Trzeciak S, Rivers EP (2003) Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health. Emerg Med J 20:402–405. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.20.5.402 Waidyanatha N (2010) Towards a typology of integrated functional early warning systems. Int J Crit Infrastruct 6(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcis.2010.029575

157 Wiltshire A (2006) Developing early warning systems: a checklist. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Early Warning (EWC), pp 27–19 Winnard J, Adcroft A, Lee J, Skip D (2014) Surviving or flourishing? Integrating business resilience and sustainability. J Strateg Manag 7:303–315 Wu YM, Kanamori H (2005) Experiment on an onsite early warning method for the Taiwan early warning system. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(1):347–353 Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2:111–127. https://doi. org/10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2 Yu VL, Madoff LC (2004) ProMED-mail: an early warning system for emerging diseases. Clin Infect Dis 39(2):227–232

B

C

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development Rolando M. Rodríguez Lima Faculty of Education of Galileo University, Guatemala city, Guatemala

Definition The term “greening” may have a direct meaning. A viable definition might refer to the action and result of its effects, over plants, fields, meadows or when pastures that were dry turn green in color (Definicióna 2018). This intervention might be expanded to cover campus greening at the universities. For instance, Jiménez Martínez (2017) indicates that it may encompass ideas or concepts or activities such as: (a) Recording of ecological practices carried out in daily university operations (energy consumption decrease, reuse of water, waste classification, etc.), which are regarded as efforts to institutionalize sustainability through the implementation of new relationships among the university community and its environment (b) The consideration of practices and perceptions of students and professors regarding sustainability (c) Incorporating sustainability as an academic discipline and as a study program of higher education

Introduction Whether due to the pressures to which they have been subjected or by the conscious taking of an indicative posture, universities have neglected – to a lesser or greater degree – their social objectives, such as the education of socially conscious citizens, capable of linking scientific knowledge to social needs and providing inclusive ideas that contribute to the larger society. Hence, it is necessary to analyze the interests and approaches to sustainability within these institutions, beyond guiding documents that express their political commitment. A congruent articulation between the institutional vision and academic activities and the social environment is necessary (Reyes Escutia 2006). Becoming aware of university campus greening requires transforming not only the academic aspect (curriculum) but also the entire context that surrounds teaching, including rethinking and redesigning learning spaces.

Perceptions of Sustainability and Greening and the Difficulties that Arise Incorporating sustainability in universities continues to be a challenge. Ensuring its adoption and diverse paths to achieve it has not been easy. It also allows us to recognize that sustainability requires mandatory elements such as professional development of university teachers as well as university self-transformation and capacity

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

160

building to create a process of knowledge construction in all its members (Jiménez Martínez 2017). Despite growing attention to the greening of the curriculum and the greater urgency to do so, the usual barriers to curriculum development and transformational education still obstruct fulfillment of the final objectives for the actualization of a sustainable world. Such barriers include financing, bureaucracy, academic territorialism, a fear of innovation that might risk the established reputations, inadequate leadership, lack of skills regarding an authentic sustainable curriculum, hesitance to interdisciplinary curricula, concerns about alienating conservative students who view an ecological study plan as political, personal alienation from nature, and what Haigh (2007) calls “persistence of obsolete mentalities from the industrial age.” Greening on campus combines academic content, administrative policies, and facility management practices. It enables a deployment of education for sustainability in the entire campus. Many Latin American universities are prioritizing sustainability and environmental conscience at present and are measuring themselves to improve their performance in these areas. According to evaluations carried out by 228 institutions in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, a 54% increase has been registered since 2014 in regard to sustainability objective compliance (Las universidades de América Latina dan prioridad a la sostenibilidad 2017). In Central America, Universidad Galileo of Guatemala created the Sustainable Development Institute (IDS by its name in Spanish) in January 2014 and includes within its objectives the environmental policy of the university, accompanied by a strategic plan which outlines actions in the short, medium, and long term. Incorporating sustainability in the university continues to be a challenge. Drawing from the social sciences, the relationship between this concept and the university engenders, at least, the following three approaches following previous systematic elaborations (Jiménez Martínez 2017):

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development

1. Documenting the “greening” of campus operations (Carlson 2015), that is, to register ecological practices carried out in daily university operations (energy consumption decrease, reuse of water, waste classification, etc.), which are regarded as efforts to institutionalize sustainability through the implementation of new relationships among the university community and its environment. 2. Considering practices and perceptions of students and professors regarding sustainability (Harring et al. 2017, p. 159). 3. Greening of the curriculum and incorporating sustainability as an academic discipline and as a study program for higher education (Heiskanen et al. 2016). In this task, professors seek two elements: self-training and using educational tools for teaching. Ensuring these adoptions and diverse paths to achieve results has not been easy throughout time. It also allows us to recognize that sustainability requires mandatory supports such as professional development of university teachers as well as university self-transformation and capacity building to create a process of knowledge construction in all its members (Jiménez Martínez 2017). In order to achieve this, it is necessary to have policies regarding university management in relation to its surroundings (environmental impact). The following courses of action may be considered: • Promote a university environment that constitutes a model for the care of the environment, health, and safety • Foster responsible use of water, energy, and resources, waste management, and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and other sources • Contribute to establishing an environmental protection culture among members of the university community, through campaigns and other means of awareness • Include environmental issues in study programs

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development

• Contribute to the realization of environmental awareness and education actions aimed at an external audience, especially communities located in influence areas near the university In order to investigate the knowledge of professors regarding the environmental policy of Universidad Galileo and its strategic plan (Política Ambiental de la Universidad Galileo y su Plan Estratégico 2015–2019 2015), a survey was made to a simple group of professors from the Faculty of Education, in order to learn their perceptions about it (see Annex). The sample of respondents was 35 professors, belonging to different programs offered by the Faculty of Education (from both the weekday and Saturday programs). The results obtained from the survey are the following:

161

Survey Results The following analysis made be inferred from the information presented in Table 1: • The majority of professors surveyed do not know if there is an action plan but consider that “there should be,” based on observing the gardens and cleanliness. • Although they point out that the action plan does not exist because it has not been communicated, they consider that because the university is a technological university, “there must be a plan.” • Since they can observe three types of garbage bins in the corridors
to place paper and cardboard, organic waste, and aluminum and plastic, respectively – they think that planned environmental actions exist.

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Percentage distributions of sample’s answers facing the three main questions asked (see Annex) to 35 respondents. (Source: Created by the author)

Questions 1

2

3

Answers Existence of an Action Plan in which the University has defined control and improvements actions of its environmental impact Existence of a planned environmental evaluation and control of interventions Existence of a program with activities addressed to environmental sensibilization at the university’s internal level

Percentage 43%

It exists but without any application Frequency Percentage 10 29%

It exists and it’s applied in practice Frequency Percentage 11 31%

15

43%

14

40%

6

17%

9

26%

14

41%

11

32%

Don’t exist Frequency 14

C

162

As we can see, there has not been proper communication, despite the fact that the communication strategy of the environmental policy and its strategic plan (Política Ambiental de la Universidad Galileo y su Plan Estratégico 2015–2019 2015) states the following: Both the environmental policy and the 2015–2019 strategic plan of Universidad Galileo will be made known to the entire Galileo community, through the different communication channels that the university has. Internal level knowledge of its existence and discussion requires active participation, in good measure, of all the entities that make up Universidad Galileo. Involvement of entities that execute internal and external communication of the university and its personnel will be a decisive factor for the knowledge and appropriation of the policy and its strategic plan (p.20). All of the above allows us to be an example and to be taken as a lesson for other universities and countries. To establish the feasibility of carrying out the Strategic Environmental Plan 2015–2019 of Universidad Galileo, let us analyze its purposes and progress achieved so far:

Strategic Objective 1

Establish mechanisms that allow the modernization of the curriculum in all university programs, educating professors and students to create knowledge and university awareness on the protection of natural resources and their sustainability, allowing education to integrate economic, social, and environmental aspects in the process.

Reviewing the activities, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions, we see with concern that being in the year 2018, what was proposed in the short and medium term has not been accomplished completely. Nevertheless, there is an exception that refers to the following activity/indicator: “Introduce courses on the

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development

environment and sustainable development in university programs, preparing professionals in all disciplines with an education that allows them to incorporate natural resource and environmental preservation in their future jobs/2 courses implemented within the curriculum of the careers offered by the university.” The Faculty of Education has included in its curriculum the environmental preservation course in all its programs, and the Faculty of Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy teaches environmental pollution and its prevention in all its programs as a way to raise awareness.

Strategic Objective 2

Create an environmental protection, care, use, and continuous management of natural resources focus, offering teacher training programs that allow them to transfer to students knowledge, practices, research processes, and sustainable development, in order to achieve comprehensive education of the university community.

Reviewing the activities, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions, we see with concern that being in the year 2018, what was proposed in the short and medium term has not been accomplished there is an exception. An early alert system for floods created by the Faculty of Systems Engineering and Computer Science/Area of Mechatronics and Telecommunications, which was placed in five different points of the Coyolate River, in the Suchitepequez Department at about 3 h from the university premises, this system sends the alert via message to mobile phones, preventing the loss of human lives. They have also developed a system to measure real-time energy consumption in the eight stories of the university building. This is part of the initiative to reduce energy consumption, which began with installing LED lighting throughout the campus.

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development

Strategic Objective 3

Promote the sustainable use of material, technological, and financial resources so that the academic administration may enhance their use, thus reducing negative environmental impact as well as costs.

Reviewing the activities, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions, we see with concern that being in the year 2018, what was proposed in the short and medium term has not been accomplished. Again there was an exception in the following activity/indicator: “To develop a volunteer program for the environment and sustainable development, which allows university professors and students who wish to contribute, to generate the social projection of the university / Professor and student volunteer and social projection program, approved and functioning.” To this end, the Universidad Galileo Network for Environmental Responsibility (RedGRA by its name in Spanish) was created. This network holds monthly meetings and has implemented some actions leading toward campus greening. This organization is based on the voluntary contribution of professors, students, and administrators at the Universidad Galileo.

Strategic Objective 4

Promote applied research to the creation of an environmentally sustainable campus through the implementation of programs that allow the inclusion of doctoral research, supervised professional practices or other variations of graduation exams in bachelor’s and master’s degrees, thus allowing the linking of university education with the environmental commitment to our country and the society to which the acquired knowledge is to be transmitted to. Reviewing the activities, indicators, and means of verification and assumptions, we see with

163

concern that being in the year 2018, what was proposed in the short and medium term has not been accomplished entirely. There was, however, the following activity/indicator: “Construction, development and implementation of technologies that contribute to the efficient use of natural resources / Number of technological prototypes or designs developed, tested and implemented.” Through RedGRA and its Energy Working Group, an inventory of lighting types was made in order to quantify the impact of the LED lighting that was installed. A real-time automated energy monitoring system has been set up. If we rely on the concept of project feasibility to determine if the idea will deliver the benefits that are initially expected from it, and observing the progress and achievements that the Environmental Strategic Plan 2015–2019 has had, we consider that it is feasible. However its progress has been limited, and in order to be able to carry it out, the Institute of Sustainable Development, ISD, should undertake actions that enable the fulfillment of its objectives. Up to 2018, the ISD and RedGRA have considered that voluntary work on behalf of faculties and of the different areas of the university might avoid the implementation of the plan to be considered an intrusion in the academic freedom of the different areas of the university, but this strategy requires longer deadlines. This experience might be useful to other universities seeking the greening of their institution.

Campus Greening As stated by “Transforming universities intro green and sustainable campuses” (United Nations Environment Programme 2013), universities could play a key role in the development of metrics to measure the progress of the green economy initiative and efforts made toward the greening of university campus and the community in general. Campuses could be considered pilot tests for the collaboration among different disciplines, scholars, workers, and students. As universities

C

164

play an increasingly essential role in achieving the desired future, greener campuses should contribute in greater measure to the wider effort to achieve sustainable universities. In particular, universities have historically been safe havens for innovators and artists. In “Chalmers University of Technology” (Kjällstrand 2008), the objectives of a group of ideas depict how to increase the number of university courses that have an element of environmental science, sustainable development, or both and how to use the campus as a teaching tool. The task assigned to students here was to use design to communicate a reduction in energy and resource use. Some examples of this were the signs placed on elevators which encouraged users to take the stairs instead and signs which encouraged opening doors manually instead of relying on automatically operated doors. These messages were combined with other messages such as “Climate change impacts all of us,” “Small changes in our daily lives can make a difference,” “Think about saving energy,” and “Use the stairs instead of the elevator, it is better for you and the environment.” Other examples of environmentally adaptable strategies, which were planned for Chalmers, were lower energy consumption rays in conference rooms or circuit breakers that shut off electricity when people leave public rooms, like dinning and copy rooms. From “Green guide for universities” (Sustainia and IARU International Alliance of Research Universities 2014), a number of measures might be applied which highlights the importance of defining, programming, and implementing that could improve the greening of university campuses. The most important measures cover the following dimensions: 1. Though we may love the outdoors, on average, we spend approximately 70% of our lives inside. Buildings have become our natural habitat and have a profound impact on our lives and a great impact on the environment, both locally and globally. Buildings account for nearly 40% of total energy use, and our resource consumption and the waste generation attributed to

Campus Greening and Sustainable Development

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

construction of buildings are also very significant. So campus buildings offer one of the greatest opportunities for improvement when it comes to making universities more sustainable. Informing building users on the optimum usage is key to guaranteeing that the buildings have maximum performance in their use. The costs associated with maintenance and operations are often higher than construction, so investing in energy efficiency as well as waste and water management can bring significant savings. A building’s energy use, whether electrical or thermal, remains one of the largest sources of CO2 emissions in any given university and thus requires significant attention. Identifying key stakeholders who have the greatest level of influence over building design and operations, and getting their buy-in, is critical to making significant reductions to planned and ongoing energy consumption. Engaging building occupants is also critical. The full potential of energy-efficient design and technology can only be realized if the occupants and operators are informed and committed.

Universidad Galileo has initiated an entrepreneurship project for aluminum and paper waste, proposing that project management be handled by the administrative staff. Garbage from the different buildings is classified, separating paper and aluminum. When the necessary volume is reached, the product will be sold to companies that collect paper and aluminum for recycling or resale to recycling companies. The proceeds from the sale shall be equally distributed among the staff in charge of the project.

Conclusions 1. The inclusion of the concept of sustainability in the curriculum of the different academic programs of a university will be achieved more efficiently if it is done voluntarily by those in charge of the said programs.

Campus Sustainability

165

2. The involvement of internal and external university communication entities and its personnel shall be a decisive factor for the communication and ownership of the strategic plans of the institution. 3. Student and faculty commitment to campus greening is essential; it is necessary that they are informed about institution policies and plans on this matter.

Annex Survey to professors

1. Existence of an action plan in which the university has defined control actions and management of its environmental impact. Does not exist Exists, but does not apply Exists and is applied 2. Existence of an evaluation and control system of

planned environmental actions. Does not exist Exists, but does not apply Exists and is applied

3. Existence of an action program aimed at internal environmental awareness in the university. Does not exist

Environmental Problems. Educ Sci 7(1):36. http://doi. org/10.3390/educsci7010036. https://www.mdpi.com/ search?authors=Niklas%20Harring&orcid=0000-00018690-1376 Heiskanen E, Thidell Å, Rodhe, H (2016) Educating Sustainability Change Agents: The Importance of Practical Skills and Experience. J Clean Prod 123:218–226 Jiménez Martínez NM (2017) SISTEMATIZACIÓN DEL DIPLOMADO EN GESTIÓN MEDIOAMBIENTAL EN EL CAMPUS MORELOS DE LA UNAM. Debates en Evaluación y Currículum – Congreso Internacional de Educación Currículum 2017 /Año 3, No. 3/ Septiembre de 2017 (págs. Año 3, No. 3). UNAM Campus Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos Kjällstrand KE (2008) Campus greening at Chalmers University of technology Karlfeldt. In: 5th EMSU conference, environmental management for sustainable universities, Barcelona Las universidades de América Latina dan prioridad a la sostenibilidad (2017) Sistema Iberoamericano de Responsabilidad Social Empresarial. 23 de mayo de. Obtenido de http://sirse.info/las-universidades-deamerica-latina-dan-prioridad-a-la-sostenibilidad/ Política Ambiental de la Universidad Galileo y su Plan Estratégico 2015–2019 (2015) RedGRA Universidad Galileo. Enero de. Obtenido de https://redgra.galileo. edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PAUGAL.pdf Reyes Escutia F (2006) Universidad pública y sustentabilidad. Entre el discurso contemporáneo y la práctica formativa. I Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación. Chiapas Sustainia and IARU International Alliance of Research Universities (2014) Green guide for universities. Obtenido de http://www.iaruni.org/ United Nations Environment Programme (2013) Greening Universities toolkit transforming universities into green and sustainable campuses: a toolkit for implementers. Tongji University, New South Wales

Exists, but does not apply Exists and is applied

Campus Operation References Carlson S (2015) Whatever Happened to the Drive for Campus Sustainability?. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 8 Nov 2015. Web 1 Apr 2016 Definicióna (2018) Diccionario definiciona. abril de. Obtenido de https://definiciona.com/enverdecimiento/ Haigh M (2007) Greening the university curriculum: appraising an international movement. J Geogr High Educ 29(1):42 Harring N, Davies P, Lundholm C (2017) Learning Economics and Attitudes to Market Solutions to

▶ University Development

Operations

for

Sustainable

for

Sustainable

Campus Sustainability ▶ University Development

Operations

C

166

Campus Sustainability Policies Paulo Santos Almeida1 and Anderson Soares Lopes2 1 University of São Paulo, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Member of the research group Hospitality in Service Competitiveness (Anhembi Morumbi University) and CIDSGAM – CIDSGAM – City, Sustainability and Environmental Management (EACH/USP), São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Sustainability policies at university campuses include initiatives to minimize the negative environmental, economic, social, and health effects of using their resources to fulfill their teaching, research, extension and partnership functions, and management of ways to help society to do. the transition to sustainable lifestyles in a variety of key actors such as: engineers, economists, environmentalists and lawyers (Velazquez et al. 2006), students in the fields of gerontology and obstetrics, information systems and cultural studies, leisure and tourism, marketing and hospitality, textiles and fashion, social change and management of public policies and biotechnology, seeking a world with greater respect for differences and the natural environment.

Introduction This study discusses sustainability policies at university campuses, mainly with regard to global paradigm shifts. The study was conducted with an understanding that the addition of socioenvironmental sustainability policies and practices in higher education tends to provide different perspectives. The prospect of sustainability can be encouraged by different actors and organizations in the most diverse and complex societal environments. For example, higher education institutions may

Campus Sustainability Policies

seek to develop ways to make their operations, policies, and campus designs more environmentally friendly. Governments may present speeches at international conferences on sustainable development policies – not for reasons of proactivity, but mainly in response to the current scenario of environmental degradation on the planet. However, it should be noted that these initiatives may encounter resistance economic aspects are considered. Sustainability in higher education and on university campuses requires a set of tools in all dimensions of practice, encompassing teaching, learning, research, and the routine activities of educational institutions. Sustainability policies may be presented to students in higher education and at universities. Speeches about sustainability may be given at conferences or other events that are promoted or participated in by the school. Finally, the the community of educational institutions and nearby residents may be engaged in the parameters of sustainability (Kapitulčinová et al. 2018). As an example, the Symposium on Sustainability in University Campuses (SSUC 2017) was organized by the Superintendence of Environmental Management of the University of São Paulo (USP), Manchester Metropolitan University, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Research and Transfer, and the Center for Applications of Life Sciences and Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Program in Brazil in 2017. The main goal of this event was to promote the exchange of information and the submission of projects regarding activities related to the research and teaching of good practices in the context of sustainable campuses. It aimed to develop a network of universities with the possibility of cooperation in the context of sustainability, as well as to build methodologic approaches to the routine operations of participating campuses (SSUC 2017). Brazil also held other events with similar goals, such as the VI International Conference on Environmental Education and Sustainability held in 2014 at Social Service of Commerce Bertioga, whose participants included individuals from several countries such as South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, and Kenya (SESC SÃO PAULO 2014). In 2015, the

Campus Sustainability Policies

Latin American Meeting of Sustainable Universities at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul discussed proposals for higher education indicators and universities’ environmental performances. That event contemplated themes associated with the sustainable operation and development of university campuses (BRASIL 2015). A historically important event occurred in 1977 in the city of Tbilisi, Georgia. The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education was organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Environmental information should reach people of all ages, levels, and areas in formal and non-formal ways (UNESCO 1978). In this way, the transmission of knowledge about sustainability patterns may lead to transformations in citizens’ ways of life. Within the ambit of urban spaces, this approach could enable the construction and development of sustainable and resilient cities that share factors associated with the search for the best quality of life for their populations and greatest preservation of the environment. Among other means, this is made possible through the population’s awareness of their rights and duties within the environment. The Tbilisi Conference sought to address environmental issues in contemporary society: the role of education in the face of environmental challenges; environmental education, efforts, and strategies for development at the national and international levels; and the modalities and needs for regional and international cooperation in the development of environmental education (UNESCO 1978). The implementation of the theme of sustainable development – and consequently issues related to sustainability and preservation in education – involved the integration of sustainable development in some educational programs and the possibility of an additional course on sustainable development (Lozano et al. 2015). Opening remarks at the Tbilisi Conference were given by the academic V. A. Kirillin. A message from Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, Secretary General of the Communist Party of the USSR, emphasized the need to disseminate

167

knowledge and skills to protect the environment by being part of the general system of education and training (UNESCO 1978). This conference demonstrated the desire for the development of new practices in the economic, scientific, and cultural contexts (UNESCO 1978) to protect nature and the planet. The human demands on the planet are now of a volume and type that threaten the future well-being of all living species (The Swansea Declaration 1993), both human and non-human. The prospect of sustainability in higher education and the environment of university campuses are related and overlapping, with common goals. Brazil and other countries of the world, especially those with advanced economy, are moving forward on these issues, even though the progress may be slow. This study focused on authors and institutions that seek to explore the topic of sustainability policies on university campuses using periodical publications as noted in the bibliography (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008; Boks and Diehl 2006; Brazil 2015; Buffa and De Almeida Pinto 2016; Costa and Rauber 2009; Dubois et al. 2017; Freeman et al. 2004; Grindsted 2011; Grindsted and Holm 2012; Harring et al. 2017; Hidalgo 2007; Kapitulčinová et al. 2018; Lozano et al. 2015; Morales Suárez et al. 2005; SESC SÃO PAULO 2014; SSUC 2017; the International Sustainable Campus Network 2018; the Swansea Declaration 1993; UNESCO 1978, 2009). The objective of this study was to explore the implementation of sustainability policies on university campuses. A hypothesis of the research indicates that a university campus may develop environmental actions and policies with a view toward preserving the environment.

University Campuses In Brazil, the first universities were established in the first half of the twentieth century by merging existing isolated colleges. They followed a classic model whose function was to create the necessary frameworks for the state, political-cultural leaderships, and liberal professionals (Buffa and De Almeida Pinto 2016). In the 1920s, the Union of

C

168

Graduate of Polytechnic School, Medical School, and Law School would arise as the first university institution created in Brazil by the federal government. It was initially called the University of Rio de Janeiro, then the University of Brazil, and finally the University Federal of Rio de Janeiro (Costa and Rauber 2009). Due to factors related to the period of construction and consequently the paradigms of the time, many Brazilian university campuses were created with buildings and infrastructure that do not adhere to the general guidelines of sustainability. When examining factors such as architectural-urbanistic characteristics, these universities were built to be imposing buildings in urban centers (Buffa and De Almeida Pinto 2016). In the 1960s, the so-called modernization process of Brazilian universities adopted the American campus traditions, starting with the University of Brasília and the University of Campinas (Buffa and De Almeida Pinto 2016). In this approach, university campuses are built to be more like small cities, especially when considering factors such as their size, population, and other activities (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). For a long time, the community surrounding universities and established educational institutions have presented core issues, such as students, their audiences, and their teachers, to the university’s operations and governance (Wright and Greenwood 2017). This audience may include a university’s visitors, researchers, and employees – namely, the population installed in the context of the university campus. All of these community members are also known in the fields of management and economics as stakeholders, who usually come to value and direct corporate goals (Freeman et al. 2004) – in this case, the educational institution, university, and its university campus. The declarations, norms, and policies of sustainability in higher education involve several actors in this process (Grindsted 2011). As in other sectors, such as tourism and lodging, Brazilian university campuses lack measures on the environment and the implementation of concepts that involve sustainability parameters, political guidelines, or standards that consider the organization of the sector. In Brazil, an approach began to be developed with greater intensity after the

Campus Sustainability Policies

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known as Rio 92, as it took place in the city of Rio de Janeiro; Dubois et al. 2017). This event sought to discuss environmental problems as a way to build the governance. The reality highlights the importance of the implementation of sustainability in higher education. In recent decades, research on the environment at university campuses and other colleges has produced relevant data on environmental degradation scenario. With this need for sustainability efforts, educational institutions can serve as important, fundamental organizations in the pursuit of environmental preservation and sustainable development (Grindsted 2011). For example, industrial design engineering students at Delft University of Technology are seeking to design commercially viable products for their portfolios that bring together the concepts of innovation, sustainability, and competitiveness (Boks and Diehl 2006). Although this task may be challenging and sometimes unrecognized, the students have to potential to provide a product for society in the consumer market at a fair price, while respecting the environment and protecting the environment. Concepts related to sustainability have directed Brazilian university policies, as well as public policies (Dubois et al. 2017). However, these advances are still undertaken very cautiously and are sometimes relegated to the background. However, due to societal changes occurring around the world, there is no sector that does not been require changes in production, economic, and services area (including the maritime and space sectors) (Morales Suárez et al. 2005).

Sustainability at University Campuses and Higher Education Institutions As a result of the new global understanding of the relationship between the environment and development, we have sought to address the role of the state as a promoter of production and consumption, which induces sustainability (Dubois et al. 2017). The issue of sustainability in higher education is considered to be relevant mainly because it provides the opportunity to spark a debate about the role of universities in the advancement of

Campus Sustainability Policies

sustainable development, the formulation of national legislation (Grindsted 2011), environmental preservation, and development of social and environmental fields. Obviously, university campuses have always had impacts on the environment, such as pollution generation (from generators and vehicles), environmental degradation, energy and water consumption, and the consumption of materials used teaching and research activities (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). In the global environment, these issues contribute to other environmental problems as well, such as climate change and ocean acidification in coastal cities (Harring et al. 2017). The relevance of sustainability in higher education and the university campus environment is due to the fact that its stakeholders may become policy makers or other influential people after leaving the university. These people are essential to seeking alternatives to create a healthier world (Boks and Diehl 2006; Saadatian et al. 2011), thus contributing to sustainable development in society. Therefore, the addition of university programs that highlight sustainability in higher education is important. Through teaching, there is an opportunity to influence the students (Harring et al. 2017) and future professionals in different fields, including business management, law, economics, physiotherapy, environmental management, hospitality, marketing, medicine, fashion, and tourism, among others. In this context, it is important to note that the inclusion of sustainability in a broader perspective can demonstrate sustainable means and practices to students in other fields that are closely related to the commercial sphere. Consequently, the development of better teaching processes may be needed (Boks and Diehl 2006). Declarations on sustainability in higher education have been seen in the national legislation of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, but they have been moderate or mild (Grindsted 2011) regarding their standards. The International Climate Conferences presented statements about the importance of sustainability in higher education (Grindsted 2011). In these experiences on university campuses, the implementation of sustainability and sustainable development perspectives used working groups

169

on sustainable development and the participation of students in sustainable development and sustainability (Lozano et al. 2015). The Lübeck Declaration is one of the most extensive documents that affirms the importance of universities and their campuses (Grindsted 2011) in sharing information, ideas, and good practices. By using sustainability orientation and integration of the specific principles of research, education, and services in education for sustainable development, universities can take a leading role and further consolidate their position as future workshops (Lübeck Declaration: Universitites for Sustainable Development 2009). The International Conference on Financing Education for Development, held in Bonn, Germany in June 2009, agreed. The conference recognized that national governments should provide the resources to ensure the right to education of all citizens. The goal is to improve the quality of work and life of people seeking to find links between adult education, health, and sustainable development (Bonn Declaration 2009). The implementation of sustainability in higher education was also viewed as a moral obligation in university campus operations in The Swansea Declaration in 1993, the American College and University President Climate Commitment in 2007, the Charter for an Alliance of French Universities in 2008, and the International Sustainable Campus Network/GULF Charter in 2010 (Grindsted and Holm 2012). For example, the Swansea Declaration (which was presented at the conclusion of the Association of Commonwealth Universities 15th Quinquennial Conference, August 1993, in Swansea, Wales) states that universities have a responsibility to help society seek ways to shape its policies and actions. Diverse sustainable and equitable forms are needed to make the world an environmentally safer and more civilized place (The Swansea Declaration 1993). At the International Sustainable Campus Network, the goal was to develop strategies to promote a global forum of 80 educational institutions from approximately 30 countries on different continents (Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania) to facilitate the exchange of experiences and information. The issues were associated with

C

170

the development of good practices for sustainability in the context of routine daily operations, research, and teaching in the environment of colleges, universities, and their campuses (International Sustainable Campus Network 2018). The International Sustainable Campus Network sought to combine its activities in the field of sustainability and have important institutions as members, including Covenant University, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, RMIT International University Vietnam, Tsinghua University, University of Alberta, University of Cape Town, The University of Melbourne, University of São Paulo, and The University of Western Australia (International Sustainable Campus Network 2018). In Spain, it was observed that universities should seek to plan and allocate resources, bring together their different stakeholders, and encourage them to participate in activities related to sustainability and environmental education in an effective way (Hidalgo 2007). The most important thing is to unite the efforts of those involved for their different perspectives. Spain is part of the International Sustainable Campus Network at the Technical University of Madrid (International Sustainable Campus Network 2018). However, regardless of whether a location participates in class institutions that develop actions in the context of sustainability, it is important to consider the initiatives of each human being and educational institution as an isolated entity to promote sustainable development and avoid the negative impacts generated by human beings on this planet.

Campus Sustainability Policies Statements about the adoption of sustainability parameters in higher education and the environment of colleges and university campuses are important. However, it is well known that signing a statement does not necessarily imply its implementation (Grindsted 2011). Thus, it is also necessary to incorporate these issues into the planning and policies of educational institutions. Thus, sustainability may become an emerging competitive factor for universities in the future

Campus Sustainability Policies

(Grindsted 2011). For this reason, university campuses – together with their academics, students, and researchers – should seek to develop efficient tools to discover solutions to global problems and seek reconciliation between society and the natural environment (Saadatian et al. 2011). This study was carried out on articles published from 2000 to 2013 that focused on higher education for sustainable development (HESD) in periodicals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production, the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, and the Journal of Education for Sustainable Development. In the institutional context of the educational sector, sustainable development encompasses key issues such as strategic implementation policies, values, vision, mission, and strategic planning of the institution (Lozano et al. 2015). In this way, trends can be highlighted in order to classify university campuses in terms of their sustainable campus operations and monitoring tools (Grindsted 2011). Thus, sustainable development can become a factor of differentiation, as well as a primary factor in the design and development of policies in the context of sustainability for university campuses. As an example of an organization that seeks to collaborate with colleges, universities, and their campuses in a mission to develop sustainable policies, the International Sustainable Campus Network has four working groups that focus on issues such as buildings and their sustainable performance; planning and goal setting across the campus; integration of research, teaching, and facilities; and corporate–university dialogue (International Sustainable Campus Network 2018). Environmental protection measures can already be seen at some universities as they find a sustainability model to reduce the negative impacts of their activities (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). In research on the routine operations of university campuses, the themes most often associated with the issues of sustainable development and sustainability include waste and recycling, equality and diversity, access and facilities for people with disabilities, and energy efficiency (Lozano et al. 2015). These themes and measures are very similar to the reality of cities located in developed countries. From this perspective, for a

Campus Sustainability Policies

sustainable trajectory, individuals must be prepared to make individual sacrifices for the environment and/or be willing to accept and comply with governmental policies. The creation of these sustainability standards is one of the most important guiding paradigms we face today (Harring et al. 2017). In another example, a university policy has become a reality. The University of São Paulo has been developing a new university environmental policy, which was applied on all campuses (São Paulo, Piracicaba, Pirassununga, Lorena, and other campuses) on January 5, 2018. This act could change the reality of people’s environmental conscience in the university community. The policy aims to implement the best approaches to office and administration campus consumption, new building sustainability, flora and fauna, special lands, waste, mobility, and environmental education. The university’s community will get to experience sustainability in reality.

Conclusions This study has aimed to demonstrate that the debate and mobilization of the international community (through a body such as UNESCO or UNEP) regarding the promotion of environmental education, respect for the environment, and the need to adopt sustainability in the urban and natural environment in society has long taken place, starting with the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education in 1977 in the city of Tbilisi. In Brazil, the first universities did not have extensive guidelines on sustainability. Thus, they did not consider the parameters of sustainable development in their development, mainly due to factors associated with the period of construction and paradigms of the time. This reality only began to change with the Rio 92 Conference, which sought to discuss environmental problems in Brazil. As a reference model of international awareness for the environment, numerous meetings and declarations were highlighted in this chapter. These meetings and declarations demonstrated the need to adopt sustainability parameters in higher education, including within declarations

171

on national legislation in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the International Climate Conferences. Other important events and organizations also sought to develop initiatives in this context, including The Swansea Declaration and the International Sustainable Campus Network. In these cases, we focused on the implementation of sustainability in higher education and in university campus operations. In the midst of the objective of this study, which was to discuss the addition of sustainability policies on university campuses, we pointed out the numerous advances that have occurred in this area. Organizations that work in this sector to facilitate dialogue between universities include the International Sustainable Campus Network. The adoption of sustainability practices in university policies can become a factor of differentiation for these educational institutions. The research indicated that university campuses may develop environmental actions and policies with a view to preserve the environment. When considering the notes of Grindsted (2011), we confirmed that university campuses, together with stakeholders, have efficient tools to discover and propose solutions to environmental problems, as demonstrated by Saadatian et al. (2011). Finally, the importance of sustainability as a competitive factor was emphasized. Sustainability could eventually exert influence on the choice of educational institution, thus making it fundamental to incorporate this tool in the vision, mission, strategic planning, and politics of university campuses. Such an approach would reduce the negative impact of a university’s activities and reconcile teaching and research activities with the preservation of the environment.

References Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16(16):1777–1785 Boks C, Diehl JC (2006) Integration of sustainability in regular courses: experiences in industrial design engineering. J Clean Prod 14(9-11):932–939 Bonn Declaration, World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (2009) UNESCO. 30

C

172 Brazil (2015) Ministério da Educação. Educação Superior – Desenvolvimento sustentável é tema de evento em universidade. http://portal.mec.gov.br/ultimas-noticias/ 212-educacao-superior-1690610854/21138-desenvolvim ento-sustentavel-e-tema-de-evento-em-universidade. Accessed 01 June 2018 Buffa E, De Almeida Pinto G (2016) O território da universidade brasileira: o modelo de c^ampus. Rev Bras Educ 21(67):809–831 Costa EDBO, Rauber P (2009) História da educação: surgimento e tendências atuais da universidade no Brazil. Revista Jurídica UNIGRAN 11(21):241–253 Dubois AM, Silverio AP, Tolentino-Neto LCB (2017) Educate for sustainability: Brazilian Federal Public Administration in Focus. REMEA-Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental 34(4):55–71 Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B (2004) Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organ Sci 15(3):364–369 Grindsted TS (2011) Sustainable universities–from declarations on sustainability in higher education to national law. Environ Econ 2(2):2011 Grindsted TS, Holm T (2012) Thematic development of declarations on Sustainability in Higher Education. Environ Econ 3(1):32 Harring N, Lundholm C, Torbjörnsson T (2017) The effects of higher education in economics, law and political science on perceptions of responsibility and sustainability. In: Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 159–170. https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-47868-5_10 Hidalgo D (2007) Otra Mirada a la Educación para la Sostenibilidad en el Entorno Universitario. Centro Nacional de Educación Ambiental–CENEAM. España. https://www.miteco.gob.es/ca/ceneam/articulos-deopinion/2007_11alba_tcm34-163436.pdf International Sustainable Campus Network – ISCN (2018) Retrieved 03 Mar 2018, from https://www. international-sustainable-campus-network.org/ Kapitulčinová D, AtKisson A, Perdue J, Will M (2018) Towards integrated sustainability in higher education–mapping the use of the accelerator toolset in all dimensions of university practice. J Clean Prod 172:4367–4382 Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, Lozano FJ, Waas T et al (2015) A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. J Clean Prod 108:1–18 Lübeck Declaration: Universitites for Sustainable Development (2009) UNESCO Morales Suárez I, Borroto Cruz R, Fernández Oliva B (2005) Políticas y estrategia para la transformación de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Educ Méd Super 19(1):1–1 Saadatian O, Dola KB, Elias IS, Tahir OM (2011) Identifying strength and weakness of sustainable higher educational assessment approaches. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(3):137–146 SESC SÃO PAULO Conferência Internacional de Educação Ambiental e Sustentabilidade “O Melhor de Ambos os

Carbon Emissions Mundos” (2014) https://www.sescsp.org.br/online/artigo/ 8476_CONFERENCIA+INTERNACIONAL+DE+ED UCACAO+AMBIENTAL+E+SUSTENTABILIDADE +O+MELHOR+DE+AMBOS+OS+MUNDOS. Accessed 01 June 2018 Symposium On Sustainability In University Campuses (SSUC- 2017) https://www.haw-hamburg.de/filead min/user_upload/FakLS/07Forschung/FTZ-ALS/PDF/ Sustainable_Campuses_Brazil_2017.pdf. Accessed 01 June 2018 The Swansea Declaration (1993) Association of Commonwealth Universities` Quinquennial Conference. University of Wales, Swansea United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (1978) Intergovernmental conference on environmental education – organiZed by Unesco in co-operation with UNEP. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2017 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, Taddei J (2006) Sustainable university: what can be the matter?. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11):810–819 Wright S, Greenwood DJ (2017) Recreating universities for the public good: pathways to a better world. Learn Teach 10(1):1–4

Carbon Emissions ▶ Greenhouse Development

Gases

and

Sustainable

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development Carolina Shizue Hoshino Neta1 and Sônia Regina da Cal Seixas2 1 Department of Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Centre for Environmental Studies and Research, NEPAM, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition The Carbon Footprint (CF) can be defined as the measure of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that are directly caused by an

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

activity or accumulated over the life cycle of a product or service. It includes individual activities, populations, governments, companies, organizations, processes, and industrial sectors (Galli 2012)

Introduction Climate change is an emerging stressor, experienced in the long-term through changes in weather patterns and in the short-term through changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events (Connolly-Boutin and Smit 2016). According to Diouf and Gaye (2015), adverse effects of these changes on natural and human systems are becoming increasingly complex and severe, and therefore understanding the level of vulnerability of these systems became relevant and challenging for community’s academic, policies, and development practitioners. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is recognized as the leading international intergovernmental forum for negotiating global responses to climate change (United Nations 2015). From the Paris agreement, signed during the UNFCCC in 2015, 195 countries agreed to strengthen actions regarding climate in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including (a) to keep the average temperature increase Global below 2  C above pre-industrial levels; (b) increase the capacity of adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change, a development of low emission of greenhouse gases, in a way that does not threaten food production; and (c) make financial flows compatible with a trajectory towards a development of low emission of greenhouse gases and resilient to climate change (UNFCCC 2015). The caused imbalance in natural systems due to heating is already being flagged in the form of extreme weather events and climate change (Pandey et al. 2011). This scenario is inevitably related to social inequality, considering the relationship of who contributes to the changes in the climate and who suffers the consequences (Hubacek et al. 2017). According to UNDP (2017), the climate change endangers the lives and livelihoods of poor and marginalized people.

173

To deal with this context, three initial policy measures are required: (1) price for carbon pollution through a system of emissions trading or a carbon tax; (2) reduce emissions; and (3) redirect investments to cleaner options. Other actions such as reviewing the subsidies to fossil fuels and incorporate a regulation regarding the “social cost of carbon” are paths that would lead, indirectly, to carbon pricing (UNDP 2017). Approximately 40 countries and more than 20 cities, States, and provinces make use of carbon pricing (UNDP 2017). The global nature of climate change calls for the broadest possible international cooperation to accelerate the reduction of global emissions of greenhouse gases and adaptation to adverse impacts of climate change (United Nations 2015). The Carbon Footprint (CF) perspective complements the approach adopted by the UNFCCC. The CF uses a consumer-based approach to track the human pressures on the planet regarding total emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and human contribution to climate change (Galli et al. 2012).

Carbon Footprint The carbon footprint measures the total amount of GHG emissions, which are directly caused by an activity or are accumulated throughout the life cycle of a product or service. This includes individual activities, populations, governments, companies, organizations, processes, industries, etc. In any case, all direct emissions (on-site, internal) and indirect (off-site, external, embodied, upstream, and downstream) need to be accounted for (Galli et al. 2012). According to Harkiolakis (2013), the CF is widely defined as the amount of carbon that is emitted during a proceeding or by an organization. It is a term that became popular in the media, conferences, and reports to pressure regarding the increased pollution and its effects on human health. Whereas only what can be measured is manageable, the calculation of the intensity of GHG emissions from different processes, products, and individuals is being applied in various countries to

C

174

express their carbon footprints (Pandey et al. 2011). Therefore, this calculation was developed in response to the need to quantify atmospheric pollution resulting from human activities and the results allow critical assessments and the proposition of mitigating measures (Harkiolakis, 2013). After the quantification of emissions, the most relevant sources can be identified, the increase in efficiency can be addressed, and reduced quotas can be established (Pandey et al. 2011). The CF is expressed in units of mass; there is no conversion to a unit area because any conversion in a unit area would have to be based on a variety of assumptions that would increase uncertainties and errors associated with estimating a CF (Galli et al. 2012). When only CO2 is accounted for, the commonly used unit is tonnes of CO2. If other Ghgs are included, the unit used is tonnes of CO2 and, expressing the mass of CO2 equivalent, calculated by multiplying the actual mass of a gas by the global warming potential factor for each particular gas, making the effects of global warming of different GHG comparable and measurable in the same equation (Galli et al. 2012). The calculation methods are still in the process of improvement and emerging as an essential mechanism of management. The advancement of these methodologies seeks standardization at the international level, able to be employed as a tool to guide the reduction of emissions (Pandey et al. 2011). Alvarez et al. (2016) points out that lack of standardization as one of the weaknesses of the indicator, able to reduce confidence in the information. For the calculation of the carbon footprint of products, some recognized methodologies were developed, such as the ISO/TS 14067 (ISO/TS 2013), the GHG Protocol Product Standard (WRI and WBCSD 2011), the PAS 2050 (BSI 2011), and the Climate Declaration (IEC 2008). These methods provide requirements for dealing with GHG emissions, with the fossil and biogenic carbon, carbon stored in products, land use change, and additional requirements for communication from the CF (Hussain et al. 2017). When applied to a nation, the carbon footprint refers to consumption of goods and services by

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

family, by the Government and other demands for capital investment and commerce. The CF of a nation is the sum of all emissions related to the consumption of the country, including the activities of import and export (Galli et al. 2012). The CF based on consumption increases the understanding about the responsibilities of each country to encourage and facilitate international cooperation between developed and underdeveloped countries, and still use it to educate consumers about GHG emissions generated from their lifestyles and raise awareness about indirect emissions in Governments and corporations (Galli et al. 2012). The benefits of the carbon footprint as an indicator are easy to understand the global interest, the broad applicability, the easy implementation for different strategies, and focus on reducing emissions (Alvarez et al. 2016).

The Importance of the Carbon Footprint for Sustainable Development The growing visibility of development models that are environmentally sustainable and that reduce the carbon footprint leads the emerging and developed countries to speed up the transition to a cleaner development (Maclean et al. 2018). For Hubacek et al. (2017), to focus on mediumsized countries, you lose a lot of interesting information and details about the environmental impacts of different social groups that differ regarding income. There are enormous differences not only of carbon footprints between countries but there are interesting differences within the same country, linked to income distribution. When looking at developing countries, the trend is being observed greater disparities between the carbon footprints of the rich concerning the poor, greater income inequality in these countries. The same analysis between developed countries demonstrates a lower CF in a disparity between social classes. Therefore, according to Hubacek et al. (2017), the CF tends to increase with income and this relationship can be expressed by the fact that the global elite, representing 10% of the world’s

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

population, to be responsible for about 35% of direct and indirect carbon emissions. In this context, the increased income raises the CF and makes mitigation and targets GHG emission reduction more challenging to be reached, given the pace of technological advances and the current level of dependence on fossil fuels. Due to the great inequality between carbon footprints, it is necessary to proceed with a critical discussion about the role of social inequality, which is the result of a strong differentiation of income in society and the pattern of consumption, directly related to the intensive use of carbon (Hubacek et al. 2017). The demand for actions that lead to sustainable development suggests the public acting as a strategic and practical resource on climate change. Therefore, the participation of citizens also became an important issue of sustainability policy, as indicated in the concept of “environmental democracy,” which highlights the importance of access to environmental information and the integration of all parties’ stakeholders in the decisionmaking process (Aichholzer et al. 2012). In this sense, a useful tool for the integration of society in climate policies is electronic media. According to Aichholzer et al. (2012), a functional perspective, this approach has a potential for information sharing, awareness, and mobilization of efforts to collaboration on policy decisions, although a little engine explored. The virtual Carbon calculators are of particular relevance to climate protection strategies, because they inform the CF of individuals, families, or companies. The relevance of these devices is recognized but still requires improvements regarding the accuracy, transparency, significant guidance, feedback, and the possibility of connecting with other users. The internet offers advantages, to make those tools effective systems of information and learning, especially with an approach of citizen participation (Aichholzer et al. 2012). Calculate the price of carbon emissions is only part of what can be done in favor of sustainable development. According to the UNDP report (2017), cities are overgrowing, especially in emerging countries. In this scenario, the blocking of unsustainable patterns can be achieved through

175

establishing energy efficiency standards and a proper land use planning and transport systems. The increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy is crucial (UNDP 2017). One of the goals of sustainable development to be achieved until 2030 (United Nations 2015) is to ensure affordable energy, reliable, modern, and sustainable for all, substantially increasing the share of renewable energy, doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency, by intensifying international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology and expanding and modernizing the infrastructure and technology in developing countries. The UNDP report (2017) also mentions other beneficial actions in the same context as (1) agricultural techniques developed to deal with the climate, because they help the farmer to increase productivity and resilience to the impacts of the climate change while creating carbon sinks and reduces net emissions; (2) the preservation of forests, as it provides the carbon absorption and the stocks on the ground and in the trees; (3) focus on the relationship between environment and poverty is complicated but critical and essential to the marginalized population, because these people often support the environmental impacts, even though we rarely create. Some levers such as education can make the transition to a sustainable society faster and more durable. This requires a set of professionals with different levels and types of training, such as engineers, biologists, architects, anthropologists, technicians, and mechanics. In this case, the school system would need to be reorganized as to primary education and training of the workforce and expand on research and innovations related to sustainability. In the last decade, many schools have promoted education in the molds of sustainable development by integrating environmental issues to school curricula (Maclean et al. 2018).

Higher Education Sector There are two main currents of thought concerning the role of higher education

C

176

institutions in relation to sustainable development. The first highlights the educational issue as a fundamental practice for institutions, incorporating sustainability issues into the curriculum, can add value to the quality of education received by students, promote cultural changes within the organizations, and contribute to the qualification of its graduates, future decision-makers, to include in their professional practices the concern with environmental issues (Tauchen and Brandli 2006; Lozano 2006; Savageau 2013). The second highlights the current position of some institutions in the implementation of environmental management systems in their college campuses, as templates and practical examples of sustainable management for the society (Tauchen and Brandli 2006). According to Morales (2007), higher education is challenged to position themselves and contribute to the process of social and environmental transformation of the planet. Thus, the environmental programs directed to higher education have focused on two central issues: (1) the reduction of energy consumption and waste and at the universities, and (2) on “greening the curriculum” (Roy et al. 2008). Greening the university means to develop sustainable energy plans, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, recycle waste, preserve and save water resources, and decrease CF (USEPA 2016). This is important because the future challenge lies in reducing campus emissions while simultaneously expanding student numbers, extending their range of activities, and remaining commercially competitive (Cronin et al. 2010). The number of Green Universities in a country is an indicator of environmental responsibility and commitment to future generations (Fagnani and Guimarães 2017). In general, performing an ecological footprint analysis is a way for higher education to “practice what they preach,” to monitor sustainability performance and raise awareness among the university’s community (Lambrechts and Liedekerke 2014). The number of students attending universities has grown exponentially since 2000, indicating a trend of increased to 262 million until 2025 (Goddard 2011). Several factors can influence

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

the amount of CO2 emitted from activities in higher education, an example is the mode of teaching. According to the study conducted by Roy et al. (2008), the distance learning involves 87% less energy and 85% lower CO2 emissions than campus-based courses. Part-time campus HE courses reduce energy and CO2 emissions by 65% and 61%, respectively, compared to fulltime campus courses. The lower impacts of parttime and distance learning courses compared to full-time campus courses is mainly due to a reduction in student travel and elimination of much energy consumption of students’ housing, plus economies in campus site utilization. Elearning appears to offer only relatively small energy and emissions reductions (20% and 12%, respectively) compared to mainly print-based distance learning courses, mainly because online learning requires more energy for computing and paper for printing. Higher education institutions bear the ethical responsibility to promote sustainability and environmental awareness of people inside and outside universities (Fagnani and Guimarães 2017). Specifically, the four major functions which universities serve (and from which, all other activities emanate) are in education, research, governance, and enterprise (Robinson et al. 2017). Moving from second-wave (i.e., operationsfocused) to third-wave sustainability in higher education requires serious consideration of these deeper social and cultural dynamics that influence teaching, research, and all aspects of campus life (Henderson et al. 2017). In this perspective, it is important to introduce in the future research possibilities of study, for example, environmental education, human beings, natural resources, sustainability, universities, cities, the climate change, and reducing carbon emissions (Almeida et al. 2018). There have been scope for linking initiatives in universities governance to connect the environment and human, community and academic community life to raise consciousness, also commitment and efficiency for environmental preservation of water, energy, forest, and climate use through planning, and to overcome the limits of these institutions to improve the quality

Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

of life of people with responsible management of whole environmental and administrative resources for environmental social commitment (Almeida et al. 2018). According to Lambrechts and Liedekerke (2014), when using the concept of CF in higher education, one should not get lost in the numbers, and the CF should be used and interpreted for what it is worth, i.e., (1) a static snapshot giving an indication of the university’s impact on the environment at a given moment; (2) a useful framework to further work on key components of ecological impact within campus operations; and (3) an awareness-raising tool to engage staff and students to take initiatives toward integrating sustainability within higher education. The interest and desire to manage indirect GHG emissions exists in the HE sector today, but the tools in order to do this are yet to be put in place. Carbon management will be a cornerstone for institutions aspiring to grow internationally at a time when advocating sustainability and low-carbon production is high on the list of priorities (Lozano 2013).

Cross-References ▶ Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development

References Aichholzer G, Allhutter D, Strauß S (2012) Using online carbon calculators for participation in local climate onitiatives. In: Tambouris E, Macintosh A, Sæbø Ø (eds) Electronic participation. ePart 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7444. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg Almeida PS, Lopes AS, Oliveira BD (2018) Sustainability in university campuses and environmental education policy: complementary governances toward consciousness structure in carbon emissions reductions. Towards green campus operations, 197–204. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-76885-4_13 Alvarez S, Carballo-Penela A, Mateo-Mantecón I, Rubio A (2016) Strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats analysis of carbon footprint indicator and derived recommendations. J Clean Prod 121(2016):238–247. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095 9652616001736. Accessed 24 May 2018

177 BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011, specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, London Connolly-Boutin L, Smit B (2016) Climate change, food security, and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. Reg Environ Change 16:385. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-015-0761-x. Springer Cronin JJ, Smith JS, Gleim MR, Ramirez E, Martinez JD (2010) Green marketing strategies: an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. J Acad Mark Sci 39(1):158–174 Diouf A, Gaye AT (2015) A methodological framework for building an index for vulnerability assessment in Rainfed agriculture. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of climate change adaptation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg Fagnani E, Guimarães JR (2017) Waste management plan for higher education institutions in developing countries: the continuous improvement cycle model. J Clean Prod 147:108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.01.080 Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–1012 Harkiolakis N (2013) Carbon footprint. In: Idowu SO, Capaldi N, Zu L, Gupta AD (eds) Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg Henderson J, Bieler A, McKenzie M (2017) Climate change and the Canadian higher education system: an institutional policy analysis. Can J High Educ 47(1):1–26 Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K et al (2017) Global carbon inequality. Energ Ecol Environ 2:361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-017-0072-9. Springer Hussain M, Naseem R, Taylor A (2017) Carbon footprint as an environmental sustainability indicator for the particleboard produced in Pakistan. Environ Res 155:385–393 IEC (2008) General programme instructions for environmental product declarations. Available at http://www.environdec.com/en/The-EPD-system/Prog rammeInstructions/ ISO/TS (2013) ISO/TS 14067: greenhouse gases-carbon footprint of ProductsRequirements and guidelines for quantification and communication (technical specifications). International Organization for Standardization, Geneve Lambrechts W, Van Liedekerke L (2014) Using ecological footprint analysis in higher education: campus operations, policy development and educational purposes. Ecol Indic 45:402–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ECOLIND.2014.04.043 Lozano R (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Clean Prod 14(9–11):787–796 Lozano R (2013) Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European

C

178 companies. J Clean Prod 51:57–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.039 Maclean R, Jagannathan S, Panth B (2018) Introduction. In: Education and skills for inclusive growth, green jobs and the greening of economies in Asia. Technical and vocational education and training: issues, concerns and prospects, vol 27. Springer, Singapore Morales AGM (2007) O processo de formação em educação ambiental no ensino superior: trajetória dos cursos de especialização. – Revista Eletrônica do Mestrado em Educação Ambiental, vol 18. UFRG, Rio Grande Pandey D, Agrawal M, Pandey JS (2011) Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environ Monit Assess 178:135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y. Springer Robinson OJ, Tewkesbury A, Kemp S, Williams ID (2017) Towards a universal carbon footprint standard: a case study of carbon management at universities. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.02.147 Roy R, Potter S, Yarrow K (2008) Designing low carbon higher education sys-tems: environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(2):116–130 Savageau AE (2013) Lets get personal: making sustainability tangible to students. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(1):15–24 Tauchen J, Brandli LL (2006) A gestão ambiental em instituições de ensino superior: modelo para implantação em campus universitário. Gest Prod 13(3):503–515. ISSN 0104-530X. https://doi.org/10.1 590/S0104-530X2006000300012 The articles used as references for this chapter were searched through the database Springer Link, using the following keywords: “carbon footprint”; “sustainable development” and “sustainability”. The choice of references attained to the following criteria: From 2010 to 2018, English. In addition to those, other productions of distinguished authors in the field of sustainability were consulted. UNDP (2017) Human development report 2016: human development for everyone. United Nations, New York. https://doi.org/10.18356/b6186701-en UNFCCC (2015) The Paris agreement. In: Conference of the Parties Twenty-first session Paris, 30 Nov to 11 Dec 2015. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01. pdf United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/post2015/trans formingourworld/publication. Accessed 23 May 2018 USEPA. Glossary of climate change terms. Retrieved May 28 2016, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ environmental-topics World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2011) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. World resources institute and world business council for sustainable development. Available at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development Skaidr_e Žičkien_e1,3 and Zita Tamašauskien_e2,3 1 Department of Business and Public Management, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania 2 Department of Economics, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania 3 Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania

Definition Carbon neutral means, that processes or products do not cause any carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere or carbon dioxide emissions are compensated. Carbon neutral economy is understood as such where the net greenhouse gas emissions into the biosphere associated with economic activities are zero. The definition of low-carbon economy is similar, but with wider limits as it is defined as economy grounded on low-carbon power sources that have minimal output of greenhouse gas, giving the accent to carbon dioxide emissions.

Introduction Global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is changing our planet and posing devastating consequences for the Earth. Global warming changes the climate and has far-reaching, longlasting consequences. Already now we are facing changes: glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising, extreme weather events become more frequent, lakes turn to be warmer, plants change vegetation zones, animals’ migration patterns, etc. Warming is caused by human activity, especially the increasing dependence on the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) that are used in electricity and heat production, agriculture and forestry, and transportation and generate greenhouse gas emissions. National and international governments and international

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

institutions work to make world development trajectories more sustainable, and it can happen when carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced, removed, or sequestered and carbon neutrality reached. The goal of the world community is to create the global economy with low-carbon emissions.

Carbon Neutrality Concept Carbon is a chemical element and the sixth-most abundant element in the universe. This element was known to prehistoric humans in the form of charcoal (A.L. Lavoisier proposed carbon in 1789 from the Latin carbo, meaning “charcoal”). Coal is a mineral naturally occurring from black carbon-based rocks, formed from prehistoric plant remains and burned as a fuel. Coal is a fossil fuel and is far more plentiful than oil or gas, with around 150 years of coal remaining worldwide. Coal is widely used to generate electricity; it is also an essential fuel for steel and cement production, as well as in other industrial activities, i.e., 41% of global electricity is currently fueled by coal, 70% of steel is produced using coal, 50% of the energy used to produce aluminum goes from coal. Many countries in the world use coal to fuel their growing economies. This is especially obvious for the rapidly urbanizing and industrializing economies of Asia where coal is forecast to be an integral and vital fuel source for economic growth. Coal is traded all over the world, and overall international trade in coal reached 1333.5 Mt. in 2016. According to International Energy Agency, since 2000, global coal trade has increased by 105% (World Coal Association 2017). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of the Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. The main CO2 sources are: fossil fuels, industry, and landuse changes (deforestation and fires). CO2 entering the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and land-use changes is either absorbed by the carbon “sinks,” namely, oceans (~25%) and land (~30%), or retained in the atmosphere (~45%) (Peters et al. 2017). Coal represented 28% of the world’s total primary

179

energy supply (TPES) in 2015, it accounted for 45% of the global CO2 emissions due to its heavy carbon content per unit of energy released, respectively, oil – 32% of TPES and accounted for 34% of the global CO2 emissions, gas – 21% of TPES and accounted for 20% of the global CO2, others (nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar, tide, wind, biofuels and waste) – 19% of TPES. On average, coal is emitted nearly as much as twice compared to gas (International Energy Agency 2017). In recent years, the governments all over the world paid a significant attention to the climate change issues, especially to energy-related environmental problems, driven by the necessity to implement the goals of sustainable development, creating better future for present and future generations. This can be implemented by creating a clean global energy system, which will lead to carbon neutral economy. Carbon neutral economy is understood as such where the net greenhouse gas emissions into the biosphere associated with economic activities are zero. The definition of low-carbon economy is similar, but with wider limits as it is defined as economy grounded on low-carbon power sources that have minimal output of greenhouse gas, giving the accent to carbon dioxide emissions. Other terms to express the same or very similar idea are: low-fossil-fuel economy, decarbonized economy, post-carbon economy, GHG-neutral economy, zero-carbon economy, net zero emissions economy, and low emissions global economy. There are other terms that are used in the same context: carbon-neutral activity, company, city, building, product, energy, etc. It means that processes or products do not cause any carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, or carbon dioxide emissions are compensated. The term “carbon neutral” is rather new, it was coined in the early 1990s but was rather loosely defined; also it was not used when the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 was adopted. Eventually, the term became more commonly used and the term “carbon neutral” was the New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2006. According to Goodier (2010), the term “carbon neutral” is commonly used for something having

C

180

net zero emissions, e.g., an organization or product. As the organization or product will normally have caused some greenhouse gas emissions, it is usually required to use carbon offsets in order to achieve neutrality, which are emissions reductions that have been made elsewhere and which are then sold to the organization that seeks to reduce its impact. Carbon neutral city-state Vatican in Rome is moving to become the first “carbon neutral state” with the installation of solar panels and the planting of a 37 acre forest in Europe, which is hoped to offset up to 80 tones of CO2 a year. The term “climate neutral” reflects the wider inclusion of other greenhouse gases that are regulated by the Kyoto Protocol: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Different gases have diverse global warming implication and their impact can be calculated separately, but for simplicity, the amount of each gas is translated into a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). International standards for demonstrating carbon neutrality have been published and provided the standardization of definition. Specification for the demonstration of carbon neutrality (PAS 2060) defines “carbon neutral” as a condition in which there is no net increase in the global emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as a result of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the subject. PAS2060 requires organizations claiming carbon neutrality to make real reductions in their emissions compared to a baseline and only offset the remaining emissions. Carbon neutrality is also defined as having a net zero carbon footprint. The carbon footprint concept is related to an older idea of ecological footprint. The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed in the PhD dissertation of M. Wackernagel, under W. Rees supervision at the University of British Columbia between 1990 and 1994 (the first academic publication about ecological footprints prepared by W. Rees appeared in 1992). The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are directly or indirectly caused by an activity, or which are accumulated over the life span of a

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

product, person, an organization, or even a city or state. Carbon footprint is a measure by which a company or individual can calculate how much carbon emissions they have produced during a time period. The full carbon footprint of an organization encompasses a wide range of emission sources from direct use of fuels to indirect impacts such as employee travel or emissions from other organizations up and down the supply chain. There are two major reasons for calculating a carbon footprint: (1) to manage the footprint and reduce emissions over time; (2) to report the footprint accurately to a third party. Calculating an organization’s carbon footprint is an effective tool for energy and environmental management, and it is enough to understand and quantify the key emission sources through a basic process (typically gas, electricity, transport), which is relatively quick and straightforward to do. Organizations also increasingly want to calculate their carbon footprint in detail for public disclosure, e.g., for marketing purposes, to fulfill requests from customers or investors, or to determine what quantity of emissions they need to offset for them to become “carbon neutral.” This requires a more robust approach, covering the full range of emissions for which the organization might be responsible (Gooder 2010).

Climate Policy Climate policies in the European Union (EU) have been developing since 1990, introducing various climate policy instruments in the areas of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energies, and energy efficiency; thus, the actions addressing the issue of climate change are relatively recent phenomena. Global temperature increases as a result of industrial activities releasing carbon dioxide were first identified by J. Fourier (France, 1824), J. Tyndale (Britain, 1859), and S. Arrhenius (Sweden, 1896). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in the late 1970s pointed out that human activity, especially carbon dioxide emissions, might lead to serious warming of the atmosphere. Scientific research, observations, and discussions

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

about global warming were intensive during the 1980s, and in 1988, the WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the aim to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The first IPCC assessment report was given in 1990 and was the precondition for the UNFCCC in 1991. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. UNFCCC was signed by 166 nations at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and came into force in 1994. The UNFCCC did not contain any specific national or international targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but Article 2 required parties to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (UNFCCC 1992). After UNFCCC was adopted, the UN Climate Change Conferences have been held every year. They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties to discuss and assess progress solving climate change issues. The first UN Climate Change Conference (COP 1) was held in 1995 in Berlin, Germany. COP 1 agreed on “Activities Implemented Jointly,” i.e., the first joint measures in international climate action. The second Conference of Parties (COP 2) took place in 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland, where the scientific findings on climate change were accepted, the uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility were rejected, parties insisted on “legally binding mid-term targets.” In 1997, Conference of Parties (COP 3) was held in Kyoto, Japan. After intensive negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. It established targets for developed country emissions for 2008–2012 together with Kyoto mechanisms, such as emission trading, clean development

181

mechanism, and joint implementation. Most industrialized countries and some central European economies in transition agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6–8% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, defined as the first emission budget period. A number of countries (notably the US and Australia) subsequently refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement, arguing that developing countries also need to limit their emissions. During COP 4, the parties (Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1998) adopted a 2-year “Plan of Action” to advance efforts and to design mechanisms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol to be completed by 2000. COP 5 meeting in Bonn, Germany (1999), was mainly of technical character without relevant achievements; a similar COP 6 meeting (The Hague, Netherlands, 2000) due to different positions of the parties (United States and EU countries) was suspended without agreement. In 2001, two conferences took place – in Bonn, Germany (COP 6), and Marrakech, Morocco (COP 7). In Bonn, the agreements on major political issues were reached, they included: flexible mechanisms (emission trading, joint implementation); Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); carbon sinks (emission credit would be granted for activities that absorb carbon or store carbon dioxide); compliance; and financing (establishment of funds: climate change fund, a least-developed-country fund to support National Adaptation Programs of Action, a Kyoto Protocol adaptation fund). In Marrakech, the most of the operational details were finalized and the stage to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was set. The completed package of decisions is known as the Marrakech Accords. The date of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) was put forward as a target to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force. During the conference in New Delhi, India (COP 8, 2002), the Delhi Ministerial Declaration that called for efforts by developed countries to transfer technology and minimize the impact of climate change on developing countries was adopted. The COP 8 was marked by Russia’s hesitation to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Protocol could enter into force if it was ratified by 55 countries, including countries responsible for 55% of

C

182

the developed world’s 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. Conference in Milan, Italy (COP 9, 2003), resulted in the parties’ agreement to use the Adaptation Fund established at COP 7 in 2001 primarily in supporting developing countries better adapt to climate change, as well as for capacity-building through technology transfer. COP 10 took place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (2004), and it was the tenth Conference of the Parties. The Buenos Aires Plan of Action was adopted striving to promote developing countries better adapt to climate change. The parties began discussions concerning the post-Kyoto mechanism, i.e., the obligations of emission reduction after the first commitment period. Since 2005, the UN Climate Change Conferences have also served as the “Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol” (CMP). Meeting in Montreal, Canada (2005, COP 11/CMP 1), was the first Meeting of the Parties (CMP 1) to the Kyoto Protocol since their meeting in Kyoto in 1997. The event marked the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol (entered into force on 16 February 2005). The agreement named the Montreal Action Plan was adopted with a goal to extend the validity of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its 2012 expiration date and negotiate deeper reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. The parties in Nairobi, Kenya (COP 12/CMP 2, 2006), adopted a 5-year plan of work to support climate change adaptation by developing countries, agreed on the procedures for the Adaptation Fund and improvements to the projects for Clean Development Mechanism. In Bali, Indonesia (COP 13/CMP 3, 2007), the Bali Action Plan was adopted; it provided the roadmap towards a new international climate change agreement to be concluded by 2009 that will lead to a post-2012 international agreement on climate change. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Longterm Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was established as a new subsidiary body to conduct the negotiations aimed at urgently enhancing the implementation of the Convention up to and beyond 2012. The European Commission in 2007 adopted its first policy document on adapting to climate change “Green Paper – Adapting to Climate

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

Change in Europe: Options for EU Action.” The document is based on the work carried out under the European Climate Change Programme and launches a consultation on the future direction of EU policy as regards Europe’s adaptation to climate change; it states why action must be taken and lays down the relevant guidelines. During the conference in Poznan, Poland (COP 14/CMP 4, 2008), delegates agreed on principles for the financing of a fund to help the poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change and approved a mechanism to incorporate forest protection to combat climate change, but the discussions about the future of the Kyoto Protocol (post-2012) were the central point. The establishment of an ambitious global climate agreement for the period from 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires was the main goal of conference in Copenhagen, Denmark (COP 15/CMP 5, 2009), but the conference did not achieve a long-term action binding agreement. The European Commission in 2009 adopted a White Paper “Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action.” This White Paper sets out a framework to reduce the EU’s vulnerability to the impact of climate change and places a strong focus on mainstreaming adaptation and foresees the development of a comprehensive EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change by 2013. In the same year, the EU adopted a wide-ranging EU climate and energy package. The package aims to implement the 20-20-20 targets endorsed by EU leaders in 2007. The package is a set of binding legislation – by 2020 there should be a 20% reduction of GHG emissions compared with 1990, a 20% share of renewables in EU energy consumption, and energy improvement by 20%. The Cancún Agreements, adopted at the COP 16/CMP 6 in 2010 cover finance, technology, and capacity-building support package to help developing nations adapt to climate change and adopt sustainable paths to low-emission economies. The Cancún Agreements include the Green Climate Fund, the Technology Mechanism, the Cancún Adaptation Framework, and Forest Management Reference Levels. The commitment to the second period of the Kyoto Protocol was not agreed, but it

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

was decided that the base year would be 1990. The conference in Durban, South Africa (COP 17/CMP 7, 2011), resulted in: the agreement to start negotiations on legally binding obligations comprising all countries in 2015 (for the period post 2020); the adoption of the management framework for Green Climate Fund (US$100 billion per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts). The Doha Climate Change Conference (COP 18/CMP 8, Qatar, 2012) submitted a package of documents titled The Doha Climate Gateway: the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol describing the second commitment period from 2012 until 2020 limited in scope to 15% of the global carbon dioxide emissions; language on loss and damage (formalized for the first time in the conference documents). Unfortunately, the progress towards the funding of the Green Climate Fund was not made. The European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) was launched in 2012 by the European Commission and European Environment Agency. The aim of CLIMATEADAPT is to help Europe adapt to the climate change, while adaptation means anticipating the adverse effects of climate change and taking appropriate action to prevent or minimize the damage they can cause. In 2013, the European Commission adopted an EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. The strategy aims to make Europe more climate-resilient and focuses on three key objectives: promoting action by Member States, “climate-proofing” action at EU level, and better informed decision-making. During the conference in Warsaw, Poland (COP 19/CMP 9, 2013), the solutions for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism were adopted. The primary topic of negotiations in Lima, Peru (COP 20/CMP 10, 2014), conference was global climate agreement. The overarching goal of the conference was to reduce GHGs to limit the global temperature increase to 2  C above the current levels. The Paris Agreement governing climate change reduction measures from 2020 was adopted in Paris, France (COP 21/CMP 11, 2015). The agreement entered into force in 2016 when the threshold for adoption was

183

reached when over 55 countries representing at least 55% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ratified it. The main issues in Marrakech, Morocco (COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1-1, 2016) were water scarcity and cleanliness, waterrelated sustainability, as the primary problem in the developing world, together with the need to reduce greenhouse emissions and utilize lowcarbon energy sources. The purpose of the conference in Bonn, Germany (COP 23/CMP 13/CMA 1-2, 2017), was to discuss the details of how the Paris Agreement will work after it enters into force in 2020. “Fiji Momentum for Implementation” drafted the steps to be taken in 2018 to make the Paris Agreement working and launched the Talanoa Dialogue, a process designed to help countries to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions by 2020. The 24th conference of the parties of the UNFCCC (COP 24/CMP 14/CMA 1-3, 2018) is planned to be held in Katowice, Poland.

Methods for Reaching Carbon Neutrality Striving for Sustainable Development According to the International Energy Agency forecast, 12% of carbon dioxide emission reductions by 2050 must come from carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) projects in order to meet the 2  C target scenario (World Coal Association 2017). Different ways exist for seeking carbon neutrality. Two essential ways are singled out: (1) Lowering the CO2 amounts that are released into the atmosphere; (2) Carbon offsetting. The largest part of CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels. Renewable energy (biomass, hydropower, geothermal, wind, and solar) can be used instead of them. Renewable energy sources have enough potential to meet the energy needs; therefore, the demand for fossil fuels is reduced. The possibility to employ only renewable energies is a great challenge for the future. Businesses use different means to lower emissions: saving on lighting, air conditioning, heating, regulating production processes (Lean management), using eco-transport, carbon-free raw materials, etc.

C

184

Company’s possibilities to lower CO2 emissions are limited at specific time period, but a company can participate in the global reduction of residual emissions by participating in carbon compensation procedure as carbon markets provide option to reduce company’s carbon footprints supporting emission reduction projects. Carbon or a greenhouse gas (GHG) offset is a unit of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e), that is, reduced, avoided, or sequestered to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere. Offset credits, measured in tons, are an alternative to direct reductions for meeting GHG targets in a capand-trade system (emission trading system). The cost of meeting the GHG reduction targets of a cap-and-trade program can be reduced by buying offsets in cases where reducing GHG emissions at uncapped (unregulated) facilities or sectors is less costly than at capped sources (Goodward and Kelly 2010). Developing countries have not regulated greenhouse gases so far; thus, in these countries, offsets can be generated not only in the agricultural and forestry sectors but also in the energy, manufacturing, and transportation sectors. Since the climate responds to the total global greenhouse gas burden, the origin of the emissions or reductions does not matter. However, not all offsetting projects take place in developing countries. Five commonly agreed criteria that an offset credit must meet to ensure environmental integrity are (Goodward and Kelly 2010): 1. Real: GHG offsets must represent one ton of CO2e greenhouse gas emissions reduced or sequestered as a result of an activity undertaken for the purpose of reducing emissions. This ensures that total GHG emissions to the atmosphere are lower due to the implementation of the offset project, relative to a businessas-usual baseline scenario. 2. Permanent: Emission reductions or removals are permanent if they are not reversible; this means that the emissions cannot be rereleased into the atmosphere. The issue of permanence applies to projects where emissions are sequestered in ways that could be reversed over time, such as in forests (which can release carbon

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

through fires or decay) and through geological sequestration (where gases could potentially leak unexpectedly). 3. Additional: In order to generate offsets, a project must be a response to the incentives provided by a carbon offset market. Activities that would have happened without such incentives are business-as-usual and do not represent new emission reductions. Since offsets are used to compensate for continued or increased emissions elsewhere, if they are not additional then their use allows a net increase in GHG emissions. 4. Verifiable: Credible offset programs require that emission reductions be monitored and regularly verified by an independent, qualified third party. 5. Enforceable: One credit can only credibly offset one ton of CO2e emissions; as a result, it must be tracked and it must be possible to enforce its ownership and use in order to avoid double counting. There are two primary markets for offsets: the compliance (regulatory) market and the voluntary market. In compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with limits (limits on emissions) on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. This market exists in order to achieve the compliance with obligations set in the Kyoto Protocol and of liable entities under the European Union Emission Trading Scheme set up in 2005 (Piovan 2009). The global market for voluntary offsets does not count towards compliance with mandated emission reductions such as those required by the Kyoto Protocol. This non-regulated “overthe-counter” market is accessible to any person, business, or groups that want to minimize their carbon footprint. This market is dwarfed by the fact that within a vast compliance framework for cutting emissions – the CDM through which companies bound to the Kyoto Protocol can purchase offsets from projects in the developing as well as in developed world. Unlike over-the-counter purchases, CDM offsets (known as “certified emission reductions” or CERs) count towards

Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development

compliance with the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emission reduction targets (Schmidt 2009). Most environmental damage is done by governments and corporations, also on behalf of individuals; herewith, most carbon offsetting is done by governments and corporations too. Under the Kyoto Protocol, governments are allowed to help one another to reduce their collective emissions through CDM. The basic idea is that industrialized nations pay developing nations (or help them in other ways) to make an overall reduction in global emissions on their behalf. Good offsets can give the win-win results. For example, if you offset by investing in a wind-energy project that would not otherwise have been financially viable, you are adding to the overall supply of renewable energy, reducing the amount of fossil fuels consumed in the future, and helping to shift the world into more sustainable path. If your offsetting payment helps to plant trees in a strictly protected wildlife reserve in Africa, it will create new habitat for animals and help arrest declining biodiversity. It might provide employment to local people and it could bring in extra revenue from tourism that will help lift people out of poverty. The main criticism given to carbon offsetting practices is that it avoids dealing with the real problem – the damage that is caused is in the first place, so paying delays the solution to the problem. Another problem is that the benefits of carbon offsetting may be hard to quantify, also carbon offsets attempt to give a monetary value to environmental damage and repair, which is problematic when money has different value for different people (Woodford 2017). In practice, offset projects take different forms, but the most common are renewable energy (wind power, solar power, biomass, or hydro energy) and energy efficiency projects, land and forest conservation programs, methane capture programs, etc.; some give donations to campaigning work with an environmental organization. Many of the carbon offsetting projects also provide additional benefits, such as biodiversity, education, jobs, food security, clean drinking water, and heat, as well as well-being in developing countries. There are some examples of international

185

carbon reduction projects that help achieve sustainable developing goals, as they give social, environmental, and economic effect: Borehole Rehabilitation Project in Uganda (Clean Drinking Water, reductions: 8758 t CO2e per year), PortelPará Deforestation (REDD) (Reduced Deforestation, reductions: 553,273 t CO2e per year), Jiln Zhenlai Mali Wind Farm Project (Wind Power, reductions: 110,000 t CO2e per year), Bantargebang Landfill Gas Management & Power (Land Fill Gas Power Generation, reductions: 708,300 t CO2e per year), and Cai Be Rice Husk Thermal Energy Generation Project (Biomass, reductions: 126,319 t CO2e per year). New technologies for capturing and sequestration of carbon dioxide are under the development. They offer unique solutions integrating knowledge and experience from different fields of science and the use of several diverse technologies. Ten options for negative emission technologies that can slow down climate change are under development: Direct air capture: Sucking carbon dioxide out of the air and either burying it underground or using it in chemical processes to make anything from plastic to fuel. Cloud treatment to increase alkalinity: Adding alkali to clouds or the ocean to enhance the reaction that sees carbon dioxide dissolve in water, removing it from the air. Enhanced weathering: Spreading pulverized rocks onto soils and/or the ocean to ramp up the natural rock weathering process that takes up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and eventually sees it washed into the ocean as bicarbonate. Enhanced ocean productivity: Adding iron or nitrogen to the ocean to increase the rate at which tiny microscopic plants photosynthesize, thus accelerating their take up of atmospheric carbon dioxide. “Blue carbon” habit restoration: Conservation and restoration of degraded costal and marine habits, such as salt marshes, mangroves, and sea grass beds, so they continue to draw carbon dioxide out of the air. Afforesteration and reforestation: Planting trees where there were previously none (afforesteration) or restoring areas where the trees have been cut down or degraded (reforestation).

C

186

Carefulness

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: Farming bioenergy crops, which extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, and then burning them for energy and sequestering the resulting emissions underground. Building with biomass: Using plant-based materials in construction, storing carbon, and preserving it for as long as the building remains standing. Biocar: Burning biomass to create biocar and adding it to soils where it holds on to its carbon for hundreds or thousands of years. Soil carbon sequestration: Using measures, such as modern farming methods, grassland restoration, and creation of wetlands and ponds, to reverse past losses of soil carbon and sequester carbon dioxide (10 options for negative emission technologies 2016).

Cross-References

Schmidt CW (2009) Carbon offsets: growing pains in a growing market. Environ Health Perspect 117: A62–A68 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) New York, United Nations General Assembly Woodford C (2017) Carbon offsets. https://www. explainthatstuff.com/carbon-offsets.html World Coal Association (2017) https://www.worldcoal. org/coal 10 options for negative emission technologies (2016) CarbonBrief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change

Carefulness ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Sustainable Regional Level

▶ Carbon Footprint and Development ▶ Climate Change and Sustainable Development ▶ Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs ▶ Externalities and Sustainability Processes ▶ Global Warming and Sustainable Development

References Goodier C (2010) Carbon footprint. In: Cohen N, Robbins P (eds) Green cities: an A-to-Z guide. Sage Publications, London, pp 49–53 Goodward J, Kelly A (2010) Bottom Line on Offsets. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/publica tion/bottom-line-offsets International Energy Agency (2017) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. https://www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsfromFuelC ombustionHighlights2017.pdf PAS 2060 White Paper http://co2balance.com/media/tech nical-documents/PAS_2060_Technical_Review.pdf Peters GP et al (2017) Towards real time verification of CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang. https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/peter s_et_al_verification_nature_cc_2017.pdf Piovan M (2009) The European Union emission trading scheme. Claremont-UC Undergrad Res Conf Eur Union 2009:109–130

Dzintra Iliško Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia

Definitions Education for sustainable development aims at developing knowledge, skills, and behavior needed for a sustainable development of regions. All citizens are encouraged to be active citizens in resolving regional and global challenges, responding to diversity, and contributing to building a sustainable future (UNESCO 2014b).

Introduction Due to processes of globalization, many Eastern European countries are facing a number of serious socioeconomic issues, like increased unemployment rate, the decline of population, decreasing birth rate, and increased migration processes that may increase in our future years. Education is seen as a powerful tool in dealing with those issues.

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

This entry highlights regional educational challenges while implementing a vision of sustainable development at a regional level as outlined by Agenda 2030. Education for sustainable development views students as critical thinkers who are able to deal with complex issues caused by Anthropocene, by becoming agents of change in their local communities (UNESCO 2014b). The entry emphasizes the need for transdisciplinary perspectives and smart regional governance that requires systems thinking. Every educational issue needs to be tackled via an open, adaptive, and dynamic system perspective with the involvement of multiple stakeholders and encouragement of local initiatives.

Legislative Framework Countries across the world are choosing different ways of dealing with unsustainability issues in their locality. All countries are looking for the best ways and solutions in dealing with poverty, demographic changes, migration processes, and exclusion. The UN’s Agenda Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development points to a need for involvement and mechanisms of coordination among multiple stakeholders to achieve educational targets indicated by global and local agenda (UN 2015). Agenda 2030 contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals and offers a holistic, ambitious vision of inclusive education for all by addressing global and local educational challenges that are relevant for the Baltic countries. Agenda 2030 requires a transformational educational system, more relevant to changing requirements of a market, by tackling migration and remigration processes, demographic challenges, and inequality (UN 2015). Currently, Baltic countries are undergoing reform processes in education toward competency-based education in order to become responsive and relevant to changing demands of a labor market. In response to a growing diversity, the educational system also needs to be responsive to a growing cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity that is vital for societal cohesion and justice for newcomers and return migrants.

187

A commitment of inclusive and lifelong education is also topical for many Eastern European countries in reaching the goal of quality education as a regional challenge, by searching for flexible learning pathways, and by validation of knowledge acquired via non-formal education. The success of Educational Agenda 2030 (UN 2015) requires responsible policies at the regional level, a partnership among countries, cooperation among multiple stakeholders, and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the system while implementing the Agenda. Sustainable Development Goal four (SDG4) places particular attention to inclusive quality education for all, irrespective of sex, age, race, color, language, and religion. Inclusive education requires the transformation of policies to respond to learners’ needs and student diversity. Inclusive education is “the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all. . . and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system” (UNESCO 1994, p. ix). The target 4.7 of the SDG4 places its emphases on the need to promote sustainable lifestyles, human rights, and global education. In a globalized world, building sustainable and inclusive societies is critical for sustainable development of any country. It requires global and intercultural education by taking into account local contexts and educational systems. For many Eastern European countries, this involves a challenge of dealing with the increased diversity in the classroom caused by the migration processes. Agenda 2030 requires us to use innovative approaches in dealing with this diversity while implementing quality education (UN 2015). Schools continue to transmit knowledge within disciplines. Universities make some efforts to pursue interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary learning. Still, transdisciplinary focus offers a broader frame in pushing the boundaries of those approaches and helping students to co-create transdisciplinary knowledge in tackling negative regional issues. To deal with regional challenges and complexities, higher education needs to pursue “integrated, boundary-less, and ever-evolving

C

188

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

approach” (McGregor 2014, p. 5) that helps students to see themselves as active citizens with global awareness, civic courage, and purpose in life that extends beyond themselves. It is obvious that university graduates will deal with regional issues that lie outside boundaries; therefore higher educational curriculum should include transdisciplinary perspectives that help students to understand their own and others’ knowledge in addressing real regional issues. University teachers need to develop this transdisciplinary habit of mind in transcending subject boundaries, creating new knowledge and syntheses, and coping with uncertainty. Dealing with Regional Challenges Via Complex Adaptive and Dynamic Systems One of the starting points in dealing with regional challenges is to recognize the complexity and serious range of regional issues. Regional issues have no single or definite formulation or one right answer. All are collective issues that require collective intelligence, but at the same time, they are specific and regional Benyamin et al (2006). All regional issues are unique and difficult to formulate. The attempt to solve those issues leads to a need for participatory approaches and cooperation among multiple stakeholders, representing diverse expertise, worldviews, and values, as well as choosing efficient strategies of smart governance Mason (2008). It requires collective intelligence, innovation, and the creation of expanded knowledge. This requires systems thinking in order to understand contemporary regional challenges in shaping a more sustainable world. This also required to use bottom-up approaches as the best way of creating participants’ meaning of addressing the challenges of regional issues. This requires a change of mind-set from focusing on problems into the art of questioning and from top-down approaches to grassroots initiatives (Molderez and Ceulemans 2018). This requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders in dealing with sustainability challenges by adding the value dimension to it. Elsawash et al. (2015) suggest multi-actor and multi-scale involvement in solving complex issues by

considering such descriptors of a socioecological system as system resilience, social learning, and risk management. Complexity thinking has been a relatively new concept in relation to education and to seriously challenging regional issues. The term has origins in physics, cybernetics, and systems theory. The term is also used in natural sciences by describing living and societal systems. In educational theory, Davis and Sumara (2014) refer to complexity as a way of thinking and acting. Complexity theory prioritizes adaptive and developmental processes in the classroom. Complexity requires us to view every classroom as a complex adaptive system by identifying different nested layers in learning settings, including learners, culture, and the teacher (Lynne and Freeman 2007). Complexity emerges out of the difficulty to define the issue and to generate efficient solutions. For sustainable solutions to emerge, it is necessary to generate multidisciplinary knowledge and to find some consensus among multiple stakeholders. This requires developing an open and adaptive framework for problem setting, problem exploration, solution evaluation, and decision-making by considering dependencies, expectations, needs, and performances, since these complex and serious regional issues may be perceived by different stakeholders from contrasting perspectives. The open nature of an adaptive system allows the elements to interact in multiple and changing ways that lead to nonlinearity. Stability in combination with variability provides space for growth. Complexity theory places emphases on interpretive strategies and transdisciplinary methodology. It changes our view of the teachers’ role. So the teachers’ role is not limited to a simple management role but rather emerges in the systemic interaction between heterogeneous agents (Marion and Uhl-Bien 2003). The teacher’s role focuses on managing rationality, heterogeneity, interactions, and evolutionary learning and on considering the interplay of individuals’ capacities, resources, and constraints of all actors involved. Teachers practice their agency according to their values, beliefs, and goals within the complex context of teaching (Toom et al. 2015; Hiver and Whitehead 2018).

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

By exercising agency within a complexity system framework, teachers need to overcome disciplinary boundaries and integrate diverse perspectives. In such a framework, all actors involved co-create meaning that is generated by participants’ unique identities, conflicting values, and agendas.

The Challenge of Reorienting Education Toward the Goal of Sustainable Development The main tool in dealing with conflicted regional issues in education is reorienting education toward the goal of sustainable development. The legislation of many countries supports the integration of sustainability science and education in schools and in tertiary education. For example, sustainability studies are integrated into almost all universities of Latvia. Still, the dominant mode of teaching is based on mono-disciplinary and fragmented curricula. There are examples of good practice in regional universities that support the transformation process toward sustainability by fostering international networking and cooperation. These examples include the BBCC (Baltic and Black Sea Circle Consortium for Change in Educational Research), the UNESCO Chair on Sustainability, and the Center of Sustainable Education at Daugavpils University, whose efforts foster transformational processes in education for sustainable regional development. The development of sustainability science at universities can also help to understand diverse regional and global issues related to sustainable development much better (Filho et al. 2018). Transformation in education requires systems thinking and involvement of all staff members and all students. It requires all to see sustainability not as the end state but as a cyclical process that is changing and improving (Williams et al. 2017). Transformation according to Taylor (2008) requires a precise focus on knowing as a dialogical process, processes highlighting a dialogical relationship with oneself, by becoming continuous learners who undertake agency and self-authorship, and processes that develop dialogical relationships with others. This requires

189

pedagogies of reciprocity, mutuality, and openness by engaging students with the strange and unfamiliar issues and believes in a power of hermeneutical consciousness. Currently, many Eastern European countries are undergoing reform processes in education toward a competency-based education. It focuses on developing students’ “knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that are necessary to tackle complex issues in their future careers” (Riekman 2012; Molderez and Ceulemans 2018). Schools and higher education institutions set educational goals for sustainability within the curriculum. Recent research affirms that fostering such competencies as systems thinking, strategic competencies, and interpersonal competencies enables students to engage with sustainability issues not as “business as usual” but encourages them to engage in action for sustainability in their regions and communities (de Hann 2010; Barth et al. 2007). Sustainability issues in the region and local communities are complex and require systems thinking. Arlold and Wide (2015) define systems thinking as “a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behavior, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects” (p. 675). Systems thinking refers to how we relate to the world, how we handle societal challenges. The core of this reform fosters quality education that responds to the demands of a labor market. The emphasis of the reform is on developing learners’ competency in dealing with complex issues of life. The reform processes are aimed at developing students’ motivation for lifelong learning. Therefore, educators are encouraged to rethink what and how subjects are being taught, to foster integration between subjects and students’ autonomy in planning their learning process, setting their aims, and relating course material to real-life situations. Lambrechts et al. (2013) point to the importance of developing such competencies as future thinking, personal commitment, and action taking in the curriculum of tertiary education to develop students to become active agents, capable of bringing sustainable changes to their communities. Systems thinking is among the competencies to be acquired in

C

190

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

understanding complexity issues and to evaluate how students view their relationships with the world. The aim of quality education includes raising the attractiveness of our teaching profession, which presently is relatively low. Sustainable inclusive practice will offer meaningful changes in all levels of education, by increasing voice, choice, and pupils’ ownership of their learning. Competency-based approaches will allow all to reach full potential for every pupil, by designing individualized learning activities and developing twentieth-first-century competencies. Competencybased strategies will provide greater flexibility and the use of such strategies as blended learning, as well as project- and community-based learning. UNECE (2013) developed a holistic approach to competencies that every educator needs to acquire for implementing ESD in their daily routines. GAP suggests developing “interactive, learner-centered learning and action-oriented transformational learning” (UNESCO 2014a).

Inclusive and Quality Education for All Sustainable Development Goal four (SDG4) pays attention to the goal of inclusive and lifelong learning via formal, non-formal, and informal learning channels. Lifelong learning policy in Eastern Europe places priority in reaching those groups of people who have the least access to education, particularly, granting access to education as “a second chance” education. Adult educational systems need to be adopted in unfavorable demographic situations, including aging populations. The issue of inclusive education has developed as a huge field of research since the 1990s how to integrate people with learning difficulties into educational systems (UNESCO 1994; Ainsow et al. 2006). Research and discussions center around such themes as education for all, equal opportunities, inclusive school as a model for inclusive society that accepts diversity, and recognized ambiguity. Disability is discussed as one of the various facets of diversity, among which is ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic aspects of learners. Slikwa (2010) emphasizes a shift from the heterogeneity discourse

to a discourse of heterogeneity where the emphases lie on a diversity of all learners. In this discourse, diversity is seen as a resource and as an opportunity, where progress is measured in terms of removing the barriers for participation of every child (Booth and Ainscow 2011). Inclusive education can be built on promoting values of equality and social justice and respect for a difference Incheon Declaration (2015). Norwich (2014) views education as a principle to adapt the general system to the diversity of learners by taking into account their individuality. Inclusive school policy involves improving school ethos, encouraging peer acceptance, adopting plural value perspective, and removing the bias toward inclusion. Inclusive education allows one to become more fully human. It involves acknowledging, welcoming, and responding to Otherness, including the Other in ourselves. This requires humility in a daily encounter with the Otherness. Teacher needs to practice phronesis, a moral purpose, and awareness of pedagogical choices they make in accommodating different worldviews. Inclusive quality education also focuses on migrants and return migrants, their children, and their opportunity in developing their “voice” as moral and responsible agents and engaging into a dialogue with others. Inclusive education is aimed at increasing learners’ participation and reducing exclusion from curricula, cultures, policies, and practice by responding to the right of every person, particularly, the vulnerable ones to participate in sustainable education. Inclusive education requires the use of inclusive pedagogies that respect multiple means of expression, and engagement. Each inclusive school should include inclusive culture, policies, and practice by removing obstacles of learning, strengthening the pupils’ participation, and developing sustainability competencies for constructing student lives.

Transformative Sustainable Regional Governance In order to manage sustainable regional governance, one needs transdisciplinary knowledge syntheses that can be used to reach the goal of transformation

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

toward sustainability. Transformation process begins with new transdisciplinary knowledge syntheses in a group of multiple stakeholders discussed in an open adaptive framework transformation toward sustainable regional governance implying different forms of learning and knowledge derived from many sources (Bruckmeier 2016). This requires collaborative networking of experts from the field of natural and social sciences in order to create a novel knowledge and many epistemologies among them. This will allow translating global policy at a local regional scale. Education for sustainable development fostered through the channels of formal and nonformal education will provide citizens with the tools to develop values, competencies, and skills needed for sustainable regional development. This allows approaching complex problems with a multi-perspective approach. Transdisciplinary thinking will allow creating innovative knowledge in new and creative ways. On a regional management level of critical importance are a critical mass, strategic goals, long-term action plans, willingness to engage in structural changes, and mainstream research on sustainability to learn regional needs (Leal 2015). Not of the least importance are transdisciplinarity thinking and skills of integration of planning as well as a broader understanding of complexity (Mehlmann et al. 2012). Investing in education and a long-term planning at the regional level will lead to socially responsible governance and a sustainable change. Sustainable leadership at the regional level requires a strong sense of moral purpose that will sustain people in times of overwhelming difficulty. A vision of sustainable regional development will engage people in addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of such regional issues as poverty, consumption, environmental degradation, unemployment, and violation of human rights. This vision of a sustainable regional future requires engaging everyone in changing one’s lifestyle, values, and behavior and acting in a culturally appropriate and locally relevant way (Hargreaves 2006). Sustainable regional governance requires sustainable leadership that involves balancing short-and

191

long-term planning, planning in terms of moral purpose, and orientation to continuous improvement and to building capacity for the involvement of all participants involved. Sustainable governance helps to identify and to challenge unsustainable practices. Sustainable leadership inspires people and leads to sustainable changes. Sustainable leadership requires broad perspectives that consider the significant contribution of all multiple stakeholders. Sustainable leaders open new and exciting perspectives in envisioning sustainable future and achieving sustainable perspectives Sterling (2013). Sustainable leadership involves inspiring people to participate in sustainable regional governance because they want it (Rainey 2013). As Thomas (2016) argues, sustainable leadership acts in an ecosystem which is complex, dynamic, and resilient and where people are essential components. Sustainable leadership recognized the interconnectedness between ecological, social, economic, and political systems represented by different stakeholder groups. Where sustainable leader transforms the state of affairs and inspires people to bring along changes by making the environment a better place to live by enhancing the quality of environment, making interdependencies and interrelations between elements of ecosystem, being flexible to diverse interests and needs, and connecting the situation to a higher transcendental holiness (Thomas 2016). This requires developing out of box thinking for generating ideas for change and creating products for others within harming the environment.

Conclusions Individual examples of good practice are not sufficient for sustainable development of this region. Strategic solutions cannot be found by addressing only one of the factors but rather by taking into account interplay of all those factors. Systems thinking and multiple stakeholder cooperation are necessary for dealing with all these educational and other regional issues. Regional issues need to be approached in the interaction of multiple stakeholders who represent diverse and sometimes conflicting identities in a

C

192

Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level

creative process of co-creation of meaning and innovative solutions for addressing significant and serious regional issues, thus overcoming “business as usual” approach. Transformation toward curricula for sustainability requires the commitment of all actors who work toward an inclusive shared purpose, loaded with positive synergies and conflicting agendas. These actors will use collaborative and process-driven approaches in creating innovative and feasible solutions for complex and multifaceted regional problems. Top-down approaches are not efficient more often where planners fix their policies on the orthodoxies. Achieving sustainable development in postcrisis economies requires the participation of multiple stakeholders by developing sustainable development future-oriented strategies, assessing sustainability, and building networks in dealing with wicked issues. Integration of sustainability in educational agenda of schools and universities requires a longterm, participatory agenda by engaging multiple stakeholders with the regional issues. Universities need to become living laboratories for researching real-world sustainability issues and need to facilitate the transformation of knowledge that can lead to innovations in solving regional issues. Transformation in education toward the aim of sustainable development needs to be based on complex epistemologies that recognize uncertainty and risk (Filho et al. 2018), thus encouraging students to raise their awareness about sustainability challenges in their communities. Implementation of sustainability also depends on the depth of commitment of teachers and whether they are equipped with necessary competencies for implementing those changes.

References Ainsow M, Booth T, Dyson A, Farrell P, Frankham J, Gallannaugh F, Howes A, Smith R (2006) Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge, London Arlold RD, Wide JP (2015) A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Comput Sci 44:669–678. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedire ct.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915002860

Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430 Benyamin BL, Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, Seers A, Orton JD, Schreiber C (2006) Complexity leadership theory: an interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. University of Nebraska: Management Department Faculty Publications, 8. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8 Booth T, Ainscow M (2011) Index of inclusion. Fontana Press, London Bruckmeier K (2016) Global Environmental Governance. Social-Ecological Perspectives. Russia: Pilgrave Davis B, Sumara D (2014) Complexity and education Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Routledge, New York de Hann G (2010) The development of ESD related competencies in supportive institutional frameworks. Int Rev Educ 56(2–3):315–328 Elsawash S, Guillaume JHA, Filatova T, Rook J, Jakeman AJ (2015) A methodology for eliciting, representing, and analyzing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socio-ecological systems: From cognitive maps to agent based models. J Environ Manag 151:500–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemvm an.2014.11.028 Filho WL, Raath S, Lazzarini B, Vargas VR, de Souza L, Anholon R, Quelhas OLG, Haddad R, Klavins M, Orlovic VL (2018) The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. J Clear Prod 199:286–295 Hargreaves A (2006) Sustainable leadership. Yossey-Bass, San Francisco Hiver P, Whitehead GEK (2018) Sites of struggle: classroom practice and the complex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System 79:70–80 Incheon Declaration (2015) The World Education Forum (WEF). Republic of Korea, Incheon Lambrechts W, Mula I, Ceulemans K, Molderez I (2013) The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: an analysis of bachelor programs in management. J Clean Prod 48:65–73 Leal FW (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Leal FW (ed) Transformative approached to sustainable development at Universities. Working Across Disciplines. Springer, Cham, pp 3–12 Lynne C, Freeman LD (2007) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Int J Appl Linguist 17(2):226–239 Marion R, Uhl-Bien M (2003) Complexity theory and Al-Qaeda: examining complex leadership. Emergence 5:56–78 Mason M (2008) What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change? Educ Philos Theory 40(1):35–49

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development McGregor SLT (2014) Transdisciplinary pedagogy in higher education: Transdisciplinary learning, learning cycles and habits of Mind. In: Gibbs P (ed) Transdisciplinary higher education. A theoretical bases revealed in practice. Springer, London, pp 3–17 Mehlmann M, McLaren N, Pometun O (2012) Learning to live sustainably. Glob Environ Resour 14:177–186 Molderez I, Ceulemans K (2018) The power pf art to foster system thinking, one of the key competencies of education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 186:758–770 Norwich B (2014) Recognizing value tensions that underlie problems in inclusive education. Camb J Educ 44(4):495–510 Rainey DL (2013) The pursuit of sustainable leadership: becoming successful strategic leader through principles, perspectives, and professional development. Library of Congress Catalogue, Charlotte Riekman M (2012) Future–oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning. Futures 44:127–135 Slikwa A (2010) From homogeneity to diversity in German education, in educating teachers for diversity- Meeting the challenge. OECD, Paris Sterling S (2013) The sustainable university: challenge and response. The Sustainable University, Progress and Prospects Taylor EW (2008) Transformative learning theory. New directions for adult and continuous education. Special issue: third update on adult learning Theory. 119, 5–15. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/ 15360717/2008/2008/119 Thomas J (2016) Sustainable leadership. Sourcing and multiplying happiness. Partridge Publishing, India Toom A, Pyhalto K, Rust F (2015) Teacher’s professional agency in contradictory times. Teach Teach 21:615–623 UN (2015) Transforming or world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UN: General Assembly. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_ doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E UNECE (2013) Learning for the future. Competences in education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_ Publications/Competences_Publication.pdf UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2014a) Global action programmed on education for sustainable development (2014). UNESCO, Paris. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/gap UNESCO (2014b) Roadmap to implementing the Global Action Program on Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf Williams A, Kennedy S, Phillipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J Clean Prod 14:866–881

193

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Ann Crabbé Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Group Environment and Society, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Definition A circular economy is an economic system that is aimed at using as few materials and resources as possible by maximizing reuse and minimizing value loss. A circular economy is more than “closing the circle” by means of recycling, because it focuses on using minimal resources in the designing phase and modular design aimed at easy disassembling in the end-of-life phase. A circular economy is an economy which is regenerative by design, with the aim to retain as much value as possible of products, parts, and materials. In a circular economy, the use and functionality of a product are more important than ownership.

Circular Economy in a Nutshell A circular economy implies another, fundamentally different organization of the economy. In that sense, one can speak of a new paradigm. In the most fargoing forms of a circular economy, economic growth is no longer based on mass production (making big numbers of products that are low quality or need to be replaced soon because of built-in obsolescence) but on highly qualitative and sustainable products that have a long service life and where the focus is on delivering services instead of products. In short, in a circular economy, quantity makes room for quality. In that sense, it aims at more than optimizing resource efficiency. It also aims at contributing to more sustainable production and consumption. The evolution to a circular economy implies creating a system change or bringing about a transition.

C

194

Principles of a Circular Economy The circular economy is built on these main ideas: (a) a circular economy is regenerative by design, (b) circularity is more than recycling, (c) a circular economy creates value, (d) a circular economy requires collaboration, and (e) circularity should be brought about, also for nontechnical resources. Hereafter, we will elaborate upon these ideas. A Circular Economy Is Regenerative by Design The circular economic system is essentially different from the linear system in which resources are processed in products that are destroyed at the end of their service life: the so-called take-make-dispose model. A circular economy is an economic system where (renewable and nonrenewable) resources are kept as long as possible in closed loops or “cycles,” before they are being disposed of (see Fig. 1). A circular economy can be understood as an economic system that maximizes the reuse of products and resources and minimizes value loss (SERV 2017). The end goal of a circular economy is an

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

economy that in the end is fully regenerative, creates more added value, and decouples economic growth from resource use. In comparison with a linear economy, the circular economy is characterized by less input and use of natural resources, less loss of materials and residues, an increasing share of renewable resources, less emissions, and less waste. Circularity Is More Than Recycling Circular economy is more than recycling. The goal of recycling is “using waste again” without changing the product design or characteristics of the production and consumption phase. In a circular economy, the aim is reducing waste as from the design phase onward and using resources, materials, and products as long as possible at the lowest possible operational cost. This implies creating change within the entire value chain: circular economy concerns the entire cycle of design, production, use and reuse of resources, materials, and products. The difference between reuse in a linear economy and a circular economy lies in the quality of

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 From a linear to a circular economy. (Source: figure translated and slightly adapted from PBL (2017a))

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

195

the reuse (Bocken et al. 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2014).

• Waste disposal (Kraaijenhagen et al. 2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a, b, 2016).

• Within a linear economy, reuse is mainly seen in downcycling practices: a (part of a) product is used for a low-grade purpose which reduces the value of the material and complicates the reuse possibilities of the material in a third life. For example, concrete is shredded and used as road filament. • In a circular economy, reuse is intended to be as high grade as possible. A residual stream should be reused for a function that is equal (functional reuse) or of a higher value (upcycling) than the initial function of the material stream. This ensures that the value of the material is retained or enhanced. For example, concrete can be grinded into grains that are used to create a similar wall as before or even a stronger constructive element.

A Circular Economy Creates Value Within a circular economy, several new opportunities to create value can be found. As a result of circular thinking, circular value can be created in at least four areas (Accenture 2014):

On headlines, circular economy is about the combination of RE-duce, RE-use and RE-cycle. In fact, based on the comparison of the definitions of circular economy used in literature, Kirchherr et al. (2017) found that most scholars describe circular economy by referring to the 3Rs: RE-ducing material needs and waste, RE-using products and product parts, and RE-cycling materials. In a circular economy, value is created by focusing on value retention. By keeping a material streams as pure as possible during the complete value chain, the value of this material is retained. Figure 2 gives a schematic overview of circularity, indicating the importance of: • Rethinking and reducing the need for products. • Redesigning products: ecodesign and design for disassembly. • Optimal reuse of products and redistribution: direct reuse through product reuse or sales • Repair and remanufacturing: repairing and renovating products during use to extend their life span. • Recycling of products and materials: parts of products or materials are recovered from the product to use them again. • Energy recovery from materials and products.

• Raw materials are permanently reused and are not just more efficient, but infinite (e.g., renewable energy). • Liquid markets emerge, in which products are used optimally by the exchange between users (e.g., the sharing economy). • Products are designed to have a long life cycle (e.g., the shift from product to performance or services). • Value chains are linked, so no waste is produced in manufacturing processes (e.g., recycling, new material flows). Value creation in a circular economy is built upon these important ideas: • Firstly, value can be created by designing products smartly. Ideally, products are designed with as less material as possible; this requires research for dematerialization options. Further, producers should choose smarter materials for their products: materials that are, for example, less harmful for the environment, last longer, and consume less energy. Moreover, producers should take care that the components of a product can be easily dismantled so that they can be reused as component, material, or resource (design for disassembly). • Secondly, value can be created by shifting to the service economy. Today, there is a trend that service or functionality of a product is considered more important than the product. In that context, new business models could create other/new value. For example, business models where products are used temporarily and are taken back by the retailer, via lease models, product service systems, and rental services.

C

7. Disposal

6. Recover

Use

2. Redesign

1. Rethink and reduce

3. Reuse

4. Repair and remanufacturing

5. Recycling

5. Waste collection, processing waste and reusing materials.

4. Repair, maintenance and revision of products.

3. Reuse of a product

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Circularity is more than recycling. (Source: figure translated and slightly adapted from PBL (2017b))

7. Waste deposit in landfill or incineration without energy recuperation is prevented as much as possible.

6. Recuperating energy from materials

2. Designing differently, for example by taking into account reuse, repair and recyling before production

1. Using resources sparsely by thinking differently about products and production processes. Is the product the best way to fulfill the need? Can less or other resources be used in production?

196 Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

• Thirdly, in a service economy, producers remain responsible for and keep their role in developing resources and materials during the entire life cycle of a product. That stimulates producers to develop sustainable products with a long service life. The basic idea is that the life span of a product should be prolonged as much as possible. This can be achieved through (1) ensuring that the moment a product is discarded is postponed, for example, by focusing on adherence to one product, need fulfillment, and adaptability of the product and (b) ensuring that there are several successive cycles of direct reuse before the product is repaired, by facilitating product maintenance, sharing, and the interchangeability of products (Bocken et al. 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a). A Circular Economy Requires Collaboration The dilemmas in the current system are too complex to be solved by one player. All actors (businesses, persons, organisms) are part of a network in which the actions of one actor impact other actors (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a). Therefore, cooperation is necessary. Businesses should no longer be focused on personal financial gain alone, but on optimizing the entire system and the entire value chain (Kraaijenhagen et al. 2016). This requires cooperation. By considering the whole system’s interests, risks and strengths of all stakeholders are taken into account in decision-making processes, and a decision follows an integrated approach. Through collaboration, business can enhance their positive impact on all stakeholders involved, society, and the environment. Three types of collaboration can be distinguished: (1) collaboration within an organization, (2) collaboration between organizations, and (3) collaboration with consumers (Kraaijenhagen et al. 2016). Circularity, Also for Nontechnical Materials Besides a technical cycle of RE-duce, RE-use, and RE-cycle, there is also a biological cycle with organic and biological materials such as wood and cotton. After use, these materials can be

197

composted and be used as resource for biological processes (see Fig. 3). The principles of a circular economy are also applicable on other (scarce) resources such as water and space. For water it does not only concern reuse of water but also recuperation of phosphorus from wastewater and energy recuperation from wastewater treatment plants’ slush. The use of space can be oriented toward a more circular economy: industrial zones can be rearranged to accommodate industrial symbiosis, local manufacturing can be situated close to its clients, etc. Buildings themselves will be multifunctional or will evolve with the needs of its residents. This will be made feasible by modular design of buildings or reconversion of buildings (e.g., turning business plants, churches, etc. into residential dwellings). Also the production of energy from renewable sources can be seen as a form of circular economy.

Why Do We Need Another Economic System? It becomes increasingly clear that the linear economy is no longer a tenable model within the limits of our planet. The disadvantages of the linear economy outline the urgency for an alternative model, which can be interpreted as opportunities for the circular economy. The main disadvantages of a linear economy are found in: (a) Increased demand for resources and lack of solutions for the growing resource shortage (b) Increased pollution and pressure on ecosystems (c) The growing demand for responsible products and corporate responsibility Explosive Demand for Resources In the last century, the demand for resources has increased explosively: the world population has used 34 times more materials than before, 27 times more minerals, 12 times more fossil fuels, and 3,6 times more biomass (SER 2016). The demand for resources will continue to increase because of the steep growth of world

C

198

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Increasingly powered by renewable energy

Mining/materials manufacturing

Farming/collection Parts manufacturer

Biological cycles Biochemical feedstock Restoration

Technical cycles

Product manufacturer Recycle

Biosphere Service provider

Refurbish/ remanufacture Reuse/redistribute

Biogas

Maintenance

Cascades Consumer Anaerobic digestion/ composting

User

Collection

Extraction of biochemical feedback2

Collection

Energy recovery Leakage to be minimised

1 Hunting and Hashing

Landfill

2 Can take both post-harvest and post-consumer waste as an input ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION

SOURCE:Ellan MacArthur FoundationAdopted from the Credle to Credle Design Protocol by Braungart & McDonough

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 The butterfly diagram

population: from seven billion people to nine to ten billion people in 2050. The demand for resources will further augment due to the growth of middle-class population in the upcoming economies. Also the application of new technologies in need of specific resources will lead to extra pressure on resources. These evolutions will induce a higher risk of price increase, price fluctuation, and uncertain supply, in particular in regions that are resource dependent from third countries (SERV 2017). Increased Pollution and Pressure on Ecosystems Use of resources incites environmental degradation in the entire chain: starting with mining and after that in transport, processing, production, distribution, use, and end of life or waste. Besides the increased degradation of the environment, we

witness increased pollution and erosion of natural capital, loss in biodiversity, increased risks of resource exhaustion, and climate change. By mining and using resources, energy use and CO2 emission increase. For that reason, the urgence of a transition toward a circular economy is underlined, for example, in the Paris climate agreement (SERV 2017). Increased Demand for Responsible Products and Corporate Responsibility For both politicians and consumers, the awareness of the negative effects of regular linear economy and the demand for accountability of companies is increasing. Not responding to the societal call for a transition from a linear to a circular economy can harm businesses. For example, the ecological footprint of a company can reduce the power of a brand when

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

consumers avoid unsustainable practices. Also, policy makers will give priority to sustainable businesses when the negative effects of the linear economy are noticeable. So, it is in the best interest of businesses to actively rethink their way of working, to evolve from a linear to a circular approach (Accenture 2014).

Advantages of Circular Economy from a Sustainability Perspective The United Nations’ 2030 agenda for sustainable development includes 17 goals for tackling the most pressing social and environmental challenges, not the least of which is “goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” Often, implementing a circular economy is considered to contribute significantly to attaining goal 12. Also, some authors underline the importance of a circular economy in reaching “goal 13: climate action.” A white paper, co-authored by Circle Economy and Ecofys, analyzes the role that the circular economy can play in reaching the Paris climate agreement targets. Current commitments, which emphasize renewables, energy, and resource efficiency, will achieve only 50% of the necessary reductions to keep temperatures under 1,5  C. Their provisional analysis illustrated that if the circular economy is implemented at a systemic level, this remaining gap could be reduced (Circle Economy and Ecofys 2016). Hereafter, some of the benefits of a circular economy for the economy (profit), the environment (planet), and society (people) will be highlighted. Profit The circular economy provides economic benefits: (1) the economy can continue to grow, (2) there are substantial material savings, (3) there are incentives for innovation, (4) a growth in employment is expected (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a), and (5) regional economies can become more resilient thanks to a circular economy.

199

The Economy Can Continue to Grow

The circular economy will allow economic growth, seen both from a macro- and microeconomic perspective. From the macroeconomic perspective, calculations by McKinsey & Company indicate that in a circular economy, the gross domestic product (GDP), and therefore economic growth, increases. This is the expected result of a combination of increased revenue from new circular activities and cheaper production by getting more functionality from materials and other “inputs.” The effect of this difference in input and output leads to higher valuation of labor, thus increasing income and expenditure per household. This results in a higher GDP (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a). Diverse other studies confirm these results and show that – under certain circumstances – the transition toward a circular economy can have a positive impact on both economic growth and the number of jobs (Wijkman and Skånberg 2015; TNO 2013). Of course, the transition process toward a circular economy will create winners and losers, as it brings about structural changes to the economy. The available knowledge on the specific impacts of a circular economy is however very fragmented. Available studies are limited with regard to their perspective and mostly focus on one or a few economic (sub)sectors or clusters. Most studies offer model calculations of the gross number of new employment vacancies, of which the results highly depend of the data used and underlying assumptions. There is still a lot of uncertainty, among others, about the impact of new technologies such as ICT use and robots (SERV 2017). Based on explorative studies, the transition process will result in structural economic changes to the detriment of, among others, mineral extraction, (manufacturing) industry, and the retail sector and to the benefit of sectors oriented toward circularity (SERV 2017). From a microeconomic perspective, the circular economy offers new business chances for entrepreneurs because of new opportunities for more collaboration to create joint value, less resource use and waste, and access to new resources from waste.

C

200

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

Substantial Material Savings

Growth in Employment?

In theory, the circular economy has the potential to lead to material savings of over 70% when compared with raw material extraction in business-asusual (BAU) models. Taking into account the growth of the world population and especially the middle class, the total demand for materials will still increase but at a slower pace than without a circular economy. This leads to a lower overall material need in a circular economy than under BAU, with the necessity to consume less and prevent landfill (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2014). This material saving can result in an annual cost saving of $ 630 billion for the sectors of consumer goods with an average longevity (electronics, bicycles) and material savings of 20% in the sectors of products with a short life span (packaging, food, clothing) which equates to a cost saving of over $ 700 billion (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016). One of the methods for stimulating raw material savings is the pricing of commodities, either by measuring the direct eco-costs of the manufacturer or by getting a complete understanding of the total cost of the impacts of raw materials (PBL 2014).

The suspected growth of the circular job market and the impact on labor requests in other sectors are still uncertain. However, most studies show that, under certain conditions, the transition toward a circular economy can have a positive impact on the number of jobs. A large study by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN, and McKinsey on the effects of the transition to the circular economy on employment concluded that employment will be created through:

Incentives for Innovation

The circular economy brings innovation chances, among others, in product design, in the making industry, in delivering services, and in creating new business models in which the product’s functionality is more important than owning it. New chances for innovation and new business models also arise from changing roles and values of consumers. Replacing the rather passive role in which consumers only buy, use, and dispose products, they will participate in a more emancipated manner to the circular process (cf. sharing economy) (SERV 2017). Consumers also will make the mind switch from ownership to functional use. At the same time, consumers should be willing not to replace a product too soon and instead use products longer, what requires a careful use. The producer’s role inevitably will also change. He remains responsible for the product and has a big interest in developing a sustainable product (Rau and Oberhuber 2017).

• An increase in spending by lower prices • An increase in labor-intensive high-quality recycling and repair practices • An increase in jobs in the logistics sector by locally taking back products • An increase in new businesses through innovation, the service economy, and new business models (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015a). Studies further underling that the circular economy offers opportunities both for highly qualified workers, educated craftsmen, and shortly educated workers. With respect to the last ones, the circular economy seems to offer chances specifically for social economy (SERV 2017). Regional Economies Can Become More Resilient Due to the Circular Economy

A circular economy often is a locally anchored economy. By emphasizing the smart, local choice of resources and emphasizing the role of repair and servicing, proximity to the customer short logistic chains are essential. Industrial symbiosis, in which one factory uses the rest streams of a factory in the surrounding area as resource for its processes, illustrates this. Also the so-called customization in which producers make tailor-made products close to the customer is a trend. By investing in local production and local available materials, regional economies can be made more flexible, making them more resilient for disruptions in the global economies (SERV 2017). Planet Diverse studies confirm the environmental potential of the circular economy and report the

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

expected reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases and in the use of water, land, energy, fertilizers, and pesticides. Because of the fact that about 55–65% of energy use is material related, the transition toward a circular economy is increasingly put forward as a strategy against climate change, particularly because of the big energy impact and CO2 emission of materials (SERV 2016). However, the intuitive feeling that more circularity will lead to less resource use and less environmental pressure is sometimes incorrect. Closing the loop on a global scale goes together with big waste transports, what cannot be labeled as sustainable. Closing the loop on a local scale scores much better in that respect. Further, not all “circular business models” are sustainable. An example is Airbnb, an online network platform that creates financial value for the landlord. There are indications that Airbnb incites people to travel more, which negatively impacts the environment. At the same time, it pressures the regular hotel business and tends to disrupt the local rental market in cities popular with tourists. Furthermore, there are potential “rebound effects” (Zink and Geyer 2017). More efficiency in production and consumption is then compensated or even surpassed by an increase of the production and consumption level (the so-called backfire). Potential reasons for that are unideal substitute products (e.g., products of inferior quality are cheaper and more available; markets in which technological changes succeed one another more rapidly than the “secondhand market” can follow), price and demand effects (increasing volumes when prices drop and incomes increase), and psychological effects (e.g., consumption increases “because it is recycled anyway”) (SERV 2017). People The social effects of the transition toward a circular economy are not much researched, except for the quantitative model calculations on job opportunities (Rizos et al. 2015). It is however clear that the both positive and negative consequences for social cohesion and inclusion should be monitored. The circular

201

economy creates new opportunities for the empowerment of citizens and social cohesion. For example, the sharing economy is supposed to increase social cohesion between and within groups (Koning Boudewijnstichting 2016). The circular economy will also surely create new chances for vulnerable groups, for example, in the social economy sphere (cf. supra). However, the implications for social cohesion and inclusion could be negative as well. The sharing economy could, for example, facilitate discrimination. What if you have nothing to share or what if one does not want to share something with you because you are a woman, black, etc.? Another potential hindrance is that the sharing economy often requires digital skills and access to the Internet (SERV 2017). New business models in the sharing economy provoke broader discussions about the social risks and social challenges with regard to welfare, considering the developments in, for example, the sharing economy. Online platforms benefit from scale. This could lead to “the winner takes it all” as the cost of upscaling is low. This can create problems such as too high prices, exclusion, stock purchase power, and other strategic behavior. Furthermore, the rights and duties in the judicial sphere are often not well taken care of. Many questions are still unanswered regarding waging, taxation, discerning selfemployment activities and contractual labor, market power of large online platforms, consumer rights, or protection of personal information. Individual participants or businesses in the sharing economy are often in a legal and fiscal void. Creating a level playing field with regard to fiscality, statute, and other legal notions is then very important. On top of that, the peer-to-peer model does not always relate well with the existing social security system in many European countries. In that system, formal wage work is the basis for imposing taxes and skimming social contributions (Sels et al. 2017). These challenges require innovative thinking about financing social expenses in the future and sustaining the legitimacy of the social security system.

C

202

Barriers for Installing a Circular Economy Barriers can be found (a) in the current, linear economic system, (b) in the circular business models and supply chain collaboration, (c) in current policy and legislation, (d) in relating to customers and society, and (e) in technology and innovation (Het groene brein 2017). Barriers in the Current, Linear Economic System These barriers include a lock-in in a resourceintensive production model, the absence of true pricing, and opposition by vested interests. The traditional development model is driven by heavy industrial growth and resource-intensive infrastructure. The physical infrastructure of international production, consumption, and trade is highly dependent on fossil fuels and geared to once-through manufacturing models (Preston 2012). For the market to respond effectively, subsidies that encourage excessive use of resources will need to be removed, and all “externalities” should be incorporated into the price of resources and energy. Barriers in the Circular Business Models and Supply Chain Collaboration For businesses to shift to the circular economy, a solid business case is required. The shift also requires a completely new rule book on supply chain collaboration. For the circular economy to be embraced, companies will need to address existing challenges and solidify a better business case. Incorporating circular practices can require multiple companies to adjust their operations. Companies face several hurdles in going down this route. There are potentially large transaction costs and delays in negotiating with partner companies. Barriers in Current Policy and Legislation Current policies and legislation are generally written in and for a linear economy. They may (unintentionally) hinder the transition to a circular economy. According to research, legislation and policies can cause four types of barriers: (1) unclear or fuzzy messages from regulation; (2) multiple, complex, and changing regulations;

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

(3) low pressure from regulation and a lack of control; and (4) regulation limits room for innovation (Stewart et al. 2016). Barriers in Relating to Customers and Society The adoption of circular practices and products by consumers and society at large is not a given. Lack of knowledge, awareness, and enthusiasm is presented as formidable barriers. For example, customers often still like the idea of ownership very much. Ownership is often closely entwined with status and current tastes. Functionality may be subordinate to complete availability of a product. Further, a new product may have preference above a secondhand product. Barriers in Technology and Innovation The circular economy necessitates the development of radical new products, technologies, and materials. At the same time, this development may go too slow and too fast. • Too slow. For the transition to the circular economy, it is critical that new breakthroughs in materials science labs and product design studios rapidly find their way into the mass market. To optimize global supply chains, smart infrastructure and tracking technology will need to spread across the emerging economies and other developing countries. • Too fast. One of the reasons customers desire new products is that they incorporate improved technologies and designs. We cannot ignore or control the technological clock speed that makes older products less attractive.

Role of Higher Education The (transition to a) circular economy has much to gain from good education: people who are taught to think and act in a circular way. A circular economy will change the labor market. A circular economy will feature a large service industry because of the rise in demand for services surrounding reuse and repair of products. It is also vital for product designers to take circular ideas from practice to reality. In order to apply these

Circular Economy and Sustainable Development

principles in practice, education incorporate and teach these principles as well, across specializations (Het groene brein 2017). Benefits for taking circular economy thinking and action further at the university include: • Innovative ways of doing things; new research ideas and collaboration opportunities • Potential financial savings from efficient use of resources • Reduction in emissions and landfill • Employment opportunities and skills development for existing staff and students and the wider community • Opportunity for the university to differentiate itself and set itself as a forward-thinking, exemplar, university (Zero waste Scotland 2015)

Cross-References ▶ Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability and Life Cycle Cost Analysis ▶ Waste Management Evaluations and Sustainability

References Accenture (2014) Circular Advantage: innovative business models and technologies to create value in a world without limits to growth. Available via https://www. accenture.com/t20150523T053139__w__/us-en/_acnme dia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/ Global/PDF/Strategy_6/Accenture-Circular-AdvantageInnovative-Business-Models-Technologies-Value-Grow th.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Bocken NMP, Bakker C, De Pauw I (2015) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Paper presented at the Sustainable Design & Manufacturing Conference, Seville, Spain, 12–14 Apr 2015 Circle Economy and Ecofys (2016) Implementing circular economy globally makes Paris targets achievable. Available via https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/circleeconomy-ecofys-2016-circular-economy-white-paper. pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2014) Towards the circular economy: accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Available via https://www.ellenmacarthur foundation.org/publications/towards-the-circular-econom y-vol-3-accelerating-the-scale-up-across-global-supply-c hains. Accessed 4 Jan 2018

203 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015a) Towards a circular economy: business rationale for an accelerated transitions. Available via https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ publications/towards-a-circular-economy-business-ration ale-for-an-accelerated-transition. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015b) Growth within: a circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. Available via https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/pub lications/growth-within-a-circular-economy-vision-fora-competitive-europe. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) Intelligent assets: unlocking the circular economy potential. Available via https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publica tions/intelligent-assets. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Het groene brein (2017) Kenniskaart circulaire economie. Available via https://kenniskaarten.hetgroenebrein.nl/ en/knowledge-map-circular-economy/the-current-econ omic-system/. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Resources, conservation & recycling conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Koning Boudewijnstichting (2016) De deeleconomie: een opportuniteit voor de allerarmsten? Een verkennende studie. Available via https://www.kbs-frb.be/nl/Activi ties/Publications/2016/20161214DD. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Kraaijenhagen C, Van Oppen C, Bocken N (2016) Circular business – collaborate and circulate. Circular Collaboration, Amersfoort. Available at circularcollaboration.com PBL (2014) Share of raw material costs in total production costs, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Available via http://www.pbl.nl/en/publica tions/share-of-raw-material-costs-in-total-productioncosts. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 PBL (2017a) Wat is een circulaire economie? PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Available via http://themasites.pbl.nl/circulaire-economie/. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 PBL (2017b) Een circulaire economie is meer dan recyclling. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Available via http://www.pbl.nl/ infographic/een-circulaire-economie-is-meer-dan-recy cling. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Preston F (2012) A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. Briefing paper. Available via https://www.cha thamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/ Energy,EnvironmentandDevelopment/bp0312_preston. pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Rau T, Oberhuber S (2017) Material matters: het alternatief voor onze roofbouwmaatschappij. Bertram + de Leeuw uitgevers bv Rizos V, Behrens A, Kafyeke T, Hirschnitz-Garbers M, Ioannou A (2015) The circular economy: barriers and opportunities for SMEs. Centre for European Policy Studies. CEPS working documents. Available via https://www.ceps.eu/publications/circular-economy-barri ers-and-opportunities-smes. Accessed 4 Jan 2018

C

204 Sels L, Vansteenkiste S, Knipprath H (2017) Toekomstverkenningen arbeidsmarkt 2050. Werk rapport 2017 nr. 1. Steunpunt Werk, HIVA - KU Leuven, Leuven SER (2016) Werken aan een circulaire economie: geen tijd te verliezen. Publication Sociaal-economische Raad. Available via https://www.ser.nl/~/media/db_adviezen/2010_ 2019/2016/circulaire-economie.ashx. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 SERV (2016) Advies Wegen en omwegen naar klimaatsucces. Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen, 15 juni 2016. Available via https://www.vlaanderen. be/nl/publicaties/detail/advies-wegen-en-omwegen-naarklimaatsucces. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 SERV (2017) Startnota: De transitie naar een circulaire economie. Hoe deze versnellen en de opportuniteiten benutten? Publication Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen. Available via https://www.serv.be/sites/ default/files/documenten/SERV_20170503_startnota_ circulair_NOT_.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Stewart R, Bey N, Boks C (2016) Exploration of the barriers to implementing different types of sustainability approaches. Procedia CIRP 48:22–27. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 TNO (2013) Kansen voor een circulaire economie in Nederland. Report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. Available via https:// www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2013/06/ 20/tno-rapport-kansen-voor-de-circulaire-economie-innederland. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Wijkman A, Skånberg K (2015) The circular economy and benefits for society. Jobs and climate clear winners in an economy based on renewable energy and resource efficiency. Study commissioned by the Club of Rome. Available via https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/03/The-Circular-Economy-and-Benefitsfor-Society.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Zero Waste Scotland (2015) Circular economy thinking and action at the University of Edinburgh. Available via https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/zws_uoe_circular_ economy_report_-_final_may_2015.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21:593–602

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development Karin Tschiggerl and Milan Topic Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria

Definition Cleaner Production can be defined as an integrated, preventive environmental strategy towards

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

processes, products, and services. The overall aim of the approach is to increase the efficiency and to reduce the damage and risks for humans and the environment (UNEP 1990).

Introduction One of the major recognized challenges facing our world is the one of sustainable development. It becomes obvious that the challenge is not being met (Ballard 2005) as too many sustainability related problems are still unsolved and negative impacts keep increasing (Baumgartner 2011). A key driver for growing numbers in resource use and environmental degradation can be seen in current production and consumption patterns. Industrialized countries used different strategies to respond to environmental challenges over the last decades, which can be related to maturity levels: from passive attitudes to reactive over constructive to proactive environmental strategies (IVAM 2008). Applying specific methods to facilitate the inclusion of environmental practices in different types of businesses, Cleaner Production (CP) represents a proactive approach to reduce environmental deterioration (Silva et al. 2017).

Industrial Action on Sustainable Development There exist various concepts for industrial environmental management (Nilsson 2007) and toward a transition to a green economy (Loiseau et al. 2016) related to different system levels. These concepts build each of the steps of a staircase (Fig. 1), where the lower terms are part of the upper terms and thus build a system of subsets and supersets. The highest term “sustainable development” (SD) includes all lower steps, including waste disposal, pollution control, recycling, waste minimization, pollution prevention, Cleaner Production, and industrial ecology (Hammer 1996; Nilsson 2007). In general the staircase consists of three types of concepts:

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

1. Macro-scale concepts represent relationships between industry, social institutions, the public, and the environment with all its aspects. 2. Microscale concepts refer to activities along the value chains of industrial organizations. 3. Operational concepts address the material flow management and related activities in specific functional areas of a business (Hammer 1996; Nilsson 2007). The different concepts and approaches can be used to support the transition toward sustainability, where ones show greater potential to support sustainable development than others. This can be deduced from the hierarchical structure shown in Fig. 1 and the explanations in the frame of economics theories, distinguishing two different visions of sustainability: weak sustainability and strong sustainability (Dietz and Neumayer 2007; Loiseau et al. 2016). Weak sustainability argues that “anthropogenic capital” and “natural capital” can be substituted while there is no need to change the current economic system radically. In contrast, strong sustainability considers the two forms of capital as complementary, but not unlimitedly interconvertible. From this viewpoint, deep structural changes in human behavior involving long-term and substantial modifications of production and consumption patterns are required (Neumayer 2010). Figure 2 classifies some of the concepts including CP related to the substitution between natural (environmental) and man-made (economic) capital. Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Staircase of concepts in industrial environmental management. (Source: Hammer (1996) and Nilsson (2007))

205

In its scope, CP strategies apply to companies and are therefore concerning a microeconomic scope, with actions on operative levels aiming at environmental sustainability (Kalili 2015). Despite its importance as an effective concept for sustainable industry actions, it is limited in its ability to prevent the shortage of resources and environmental pollution by changing economies and societies systemically and substantially (Loiseau et al. 2016).

The Concept of Cleaner Production Historically, programs related to Cleaner Production started in the 1980s with campaigns from Greenpeace and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) with the aim to transform unsustainable production patterns (Silva et al. 2017). According to Geiser (2001), Cleaner Production can help the industrial sector implementing SD goals as it allows them to define procedures and develop adequate measures to conduct those procedures. Therefore, the CP concept connects the production sector with sustainability and helps industrial decision-makers to evaluate alternative approaches aiming at the reduction of negative environmental and health impacts more effectively. As stated by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Cleaner Production represents a proactive environmental

C

206

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 CP and sustainability visions. (Source: adapted from Loiseau et al. (2016))

strategy that enables the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life. At the same time, ecological impacts and resource intensity can be reduced progressively throughout the life cycle to a level that is at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity (IVAM 2008). Cleaner production can be explained by its three guiding principles, which are precaution, prevention, and integration, and that distinguishes the concept from other environmental strategies (Jackson 2002). Cleaner Production and Its Definitions As a response of the industry to the call for sustainable development as launched in “Our Common Future” (WCED 1987), the concept of Cleaner Production was defined by UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) in 1990, as follows: Cleaner Production is the continuous application of an integrated, preventive environmental strategy towards processes, products and services in order to increase overall efficiency and reduce damage and risks for humans and the environment. Cleaner Production can be applied to the processes used in any industry, to products themselves and to various services provided in society.

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

The concept of Cleaner Production addresses all aspects of transforming inputs to outputs within an organization. Related to production processes, CP is realized by various (single or combined) measures that help in (a) preserving raw materials, water, and energy, (b) eliminating substances that are harmful to the health and the environment, and (c) reducing the quantity and harmfulness of emissions and waste at their source. For products, CP aims to reduce the impacts (environmental, health, safety) of products over their entire life cycle, from raw materials extraction to the end-of-life phase. Related to services, CP involves the consideration of environmental aspects in the design and provision of services (El Kholy 2003). In this definition, CP is specified as a strategy going beyond technical fixes. Further, the approach of CP is to handle the causes rather than the effects of waste and emissions. This meant a paradigm shift against conventional measures to protect the environment which often use so-called “end-of-pipe” technologies to dispose existing waste and emissions. In contrast CP aims at preventive and production-integrated environmental protection by reducing the amount and harmfulness of waste and emissions. Although not clearly stated in the definition, CP has to consider the whole life cycle, including the downstreams and upstreams of processes, products, and services as fields of application (Hens et al. 2018). In 2016 UNEP broadened the definition of CP to include resource efficiency, which is a key element toward sustainable development (UNEP 2016): “Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production continuously applies integrated and preventive strategies to processes, products and services. This increases efficiency and reduces risks to humans and the environment. RECP specifically works to advance – Production Efficiency – through optimization of productive use of natural resources (materials, energy, water) at all stages of the production cycle; – Environmental Management – through minimization of the adverse impacts of industrial production systems on nature and the environment;

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

– Human development – through minimization of risks to people and communities, and support to their development.” With this definition the focus is placed on the development of cleaner technologies that generate less pollution and waste by using resources more efficiently (Loiseau et al. 2016). Cleaner Production Strategies An organization that wants to operate sustainably has to change fundamentally. Therefore, it requires changed objectives through a long-term vision toward sustainability and adequate strategies that implement those goals. With a focus on environmental sustainability, such strategies apply to “increasing eco-efficiency” and “increasing eco-effectiveness.” Cleaner Production represents the most important approach to improve eco-efficiency (Yaacoub and Fresner 2006; Nussbaumer 2007; Tschiggerl and Wolf 2012), which can be defined as the ratio of the economic value of a product/service and its environmental impacts over the entire life cycle (WBCSD 2000). In the context of Cleaner Production, the strategy of increasing eco-efficiency seeks to reduce the consumption of natural resources by using them in a more efficient way – which connects it to the aims of sustainable development (Silva et al. 2017). This is to say that companies will be enabled to improve

207

their operational efficiency of processes, products, and services and generate monetary savings while reducing their resource consumption and emissions by following CP strategies on a voluntary basis. For industry, CP presents thus an attractive economic and environmental “win-win” situation. At the same time, the awareness and the involvement of management and employees regarding their contribution to sustainable development can be raised (Ashton et al. 2017). The range of strategic applications within the CP concept refers generally to changes in applied technologies and manufacturing practices, changes in raw material and resource inputs, product changes, and internal and external recycling programs (Yaacoub and Fresner 2006; Van Hoof and Lyon 2013; Fresner et al. 2014). Figure 3 gives an overview for CP strategies on different levels. According to Fresner et al. (2014), measures are the most effective if they tackle the origin of an inefficiency and if cycles (material and energy) are kept as short as possible. In this sense the highest priority should be given to measures – as well product and process change – to avoid and reduce waste and emissions at their source. Product changes can include the substitution of the production, expanding the life span, changing the materials, or changing the product design. All these activities are summarized under the term “eco-design.” Process changes include the

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Cleaner production strategies. (Source: adapted from Fresner et al. (2014) and Silva et al. (2017))

C

208

careful handling or substitution of raw materials and the changing of the technology. Waste that cannot be avoided by these measures can possibly be recycled in internal cycles. This can be realized by the reuse for the same or another application, including downcycling and partly resource recovery. Not before those strategies can be applied, measure to external recycling or the recirculation to biogenic cycles will be employed. In the following, the CP strategies are explained in detail. Good Housekeeping

Good housekeeping requires a positive attitude at every level of an organization and contributes to sound management principles at a facility. A good housekeeping program can be defined by the terms “clean and orderly,” whereby in general such measures can be implemented simply and easily. Possible activities can refer to facilitated materials and equipment positioning, improved manufacturing and production efficiency, reduced product losses due to dissipation, improvements regarding health and safety aspects arising from poor materials and equipment management, etc. Starting point for good housekeeping is the clear definition of processes and proceedings regarding those practices (Shammas and Wang 2009). Replacing Materials

The substitution of input materials aims at the avoidance and/or reduction of hazardous raw-, auxiliary or operating materials. Further it includes using operating materials with a longer lifetime (Nilsson et al. 2007). This strategy is directly linked to the organization’s procurement, where clear guidelines can help to hinder the use of toxic and complicated material. This requires adequate assessment techniques and the availability of safety data sheets (Fresner et al. 2014). Technological Change

Technological changes include mainly process and equipment modifications aiming at waste reductions in a production setting whereby measures can range from small modifications at low cost to comprehensive process replacements. Technological changes involve altered production

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

processes, equipment, process conditions (i.e., temperatures, flow rates, etc.), or the implementation of automation (UNEP 1996). Internal Recycling

According to the guiding principles of CP, pollutants which cannot be avoided should be reintegrated into the production process of the company (Dias Pimenta et al. 2012). The option of internal recycling refers to on-site recycling or on-site recovery and reuse of wasted materials in the same process or for another useful application within the organization (Jain et al. 2017). External Recycling

External recycling aims at transforming previously discarded wastes into useful materials that can be used outside the organization, whether to be reused or recycled (Jain et al. 2017). This option has no influence on the amounts of materials purchased and requires a well-functioning waste logistics system to collect and distribute the materials (Nilsson et al. 2007; Fresner et al. 2014). Biogenic Cycles

This strategy relates to the removal, detoxification, and compatibility with biogenic cycles. Waste that is inevitable should be kept free of toxins, heavy metals, and carcinogen substances to make the waste streams easy to handle and to avoid potential problems with their disposal. After an adequate separation of waste as a preparation for external recycling, the left amounts to be disposed can be surprisingly low (Fresner et al. 2014). Product Change

The modification of the product characteristics aims at the minimization of the environmental impacts of the product during or after its use (disposal) and during its production. Measures within this strategy include eco-design, where potential environmental impacts in later phases of the lifecycle can be avoided or reduced in the design phase. Other activities are related to the extension of the product life or the intensification of its utilization, as well as environmental-friendly packaging (IVAM 2008).

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

Cleaner Production Assessment Methodologies Basis for the identification and implementation of CP options is an assessment which focuses on the following questions to identify inefficient use of resources and weak management practices (Vietnam Cleaner Production Center 2000): – Where are the wastes and emissions generated? – Why are wastes and emissions generated? – How can wastes and emissions be minimized? Precondition for a successful CP assessment is the interest and commitment of the company’s management to implement the CP concept and thus improving the eco-efficiency, with the overall goal to contribute to a sustainable development (UNIDO 2017a). Literature provides a wide range of documents describing CP assessment methodologies with the same underlying strategies. Table 1 gives an Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Cleaner Production assessment methodologies (Source: adapted from Nilsson et al. 2007) Organization (year) UNEP (1991)

Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (1991)

US EPA (1992)

UNEP (1996)

sba/FHNW (2007)

CP assessment methodology 1. Pre-assessment 2. Material balance 3. Synthesis 1. Planning and organization 2. Assessment 3. Feasibility 4. Implementation 1. Development of pollution prevention program 2. Preliminary assessment 1. Planning and organization 2. Pre-assessment 3. Assessment 4. Evaluation and feasibility study 5. Implementation and Continuation 1. Approach 2. Deployment 3. Assessment and review 4. Results

209

overview of the most common methodologies and the corresponding source of origin. According to the UNEP methodology, which offers the most comprehensive and practicable procedure to apply, the assessment itself is carried out in five consecutive steps, as shown in Fig. 4. In the following, the steps of UNEP’s methodology will be described in detail. Planning and Organization

The first step serves to obtain the commitment of the management, to allocate resources, and to provide detailed plans for the following steps. A good way to gain the management’s commitment is to highlight the benefits of CP by improving the environmental performance while increasing economic performance. This can be done by illustrating best practices from similar companies or through simple in-house projects to catch “low-hanging fruits.” An important factor for the success of CP projects is the establishment of a project team consisting of people from different departments with responsibilities for the various business functions, i.e., production, controlling, facility management, and research and development. It is also recommended to include expert consultants to facilitate team activities, as well as incorporating expert knowledge to specific technical aspects, like energy and resource efficiency, maintenance, environmental accounting, etc. (UNIDO 2017a). A further task within the first step is the development of an environmental policy including the guiding principles for all CP projects. It contains the organization’s vision and mission for continuous environmental improvement and legislative compliance and the objectives describing the realization of the environmental policy. For every objective, various targets can be defined, giving detailed information regarding the responsibilities, measurement, resources, and time schedule for implementing planned activities within the CP project (Nilsson et al. 2007). Pre-assessment

The goal of the pre-assessment is to provide an overview of the organization’s environmental aspects by generating a flowchart including all

C

210

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Cleaner Production assessment methodology. (Source: UNIDO and UNEP (2004))

inputs, outputs, and production processes. The first task is to describe the company’s processes with the type of products and production, organization, and relevant inputs and outputs. A key step for the later assessment and the basis for material and energy balances is the generation of a detailed process flowchart, with particular attention to support processes, such as cleaning, storage, compressed air, maintenance, etc. which are often causing relevant environmental impacts. After defining the processes, a walk-through inspection should take place to identify the sources for waste and emissions on-site, also by directly talking to the operators. The last step of the pre-assessment is to establish a focus for CP actions as due to time and resource constraints, not all opportunities will be implemented at first hand. The focus should be

on processes that generate large quantities of waste and emissions, use or produce hazardous materials, are related to high costs, and show high potential of CP benefits (Hansen et al. 2000). Assessment

The assessment phase serves to collect data and to evaluate the organization’s environmental performance and production efficiency. The collected data should provide information about the quantities of consumed resources and generated waste and emissions. Such data may be available from production data, purchase receipts, accounts, etc. In some cases, direct measurements will be necessary, as well as estimations from operators. To account all the inputs (raw materials, services) and outputs

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

(products, losses, waste, emissions), every process and process unit is described in the form of a material balance. Out of these material balances, data meaningful environmental performance indicators can be developed and used as a controlling instrument (Bosworth et al. 2002; Nilsson et al. 2007). Depending on the knowledge and creativity of the team as well as with the help from external sources, opportunities for CP can be identified. Those opportunities are related to the various strategies for CP actions, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Once a number of CP opportunities has been identified and recorded, they should be sorted and prioritized (Hansen et al. 2000). Evaluation and Feasibility Study

To select suitable options, the sorted CP opportunities should be evaluated regarding their technical, environmental, and financial feasibility. The result of these evaluations has to be combined to select the most promising options. To prioritize the options, methods like a costbenefit analysis or a weighted sum method can be applied. If there exist no-cost or low-cost opportunities, they should be implemented immediately (Vietnam Cleaner Production Center 2000). Implementation and Continuation

The last phase of the CP assessment aims at the implementation of selected options and the continuous monitoring of results. To ensure the implementation of CP activities, an action plan with concrete responsibilities, schedules, and milestones should be worked out. The actual implementation of options may require new equipment, modified procedures, or processes and should therefore be treated like other investment projects. Special attention should be paid for necessary staff trainings. To evaluate the effectiveness of the realized CP options, indicators should be used to assess the performance, i.e., reduction in waste and emissions per unit of production, improved profitability, etc. (Hansen et al. 2000; Bosworth et al. 2002). The continuation of Cleaner Production can be realized in the form of an EMS, as this ensures that

211

CP is integrated into daily management (Vietnam Cleaner Production Center 2000).

Continuous Improvement and Cleaner Production As the steps of a CP assessment follow the proceeding of a PDCA cycle with the phases plan, do, check, and act, it supports the continuous improvement of an organizations environmental performance. In this way, after finishing on assessment, the next should be initiated with the goal to further improve or to continue with another focus area (Vietnam Cleaner Production Center 2000). As a philosophy of continuous improvement, the PDCA methodology induces a stepwise change, which leads to an evolution of the company (Silva et al. 2017). The phases of the PDCA cycle include the following aspects (Gorenflo and Moran 2009): (a) Plan: Identification and prioritization of improvement opportunities; this includes the analysis of the current situation, the determination of problems and their causes, and accentuating possible actions to mitigate problematic aspects. (b) Do: Implementation of the action plan including the documentation and reflection of selected actions. (c) Check: Analysis of results. (d) Action: Development of methods to standardize the improvements and maintaining actions. Table 2 shows the implementation of a CP assessment according to the UNEP methodology and related to the phases of the PDCA cycle. The PDCA cycle is the basis for standards like ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 9001 for quality management systems, ISO 14001 for environmental management systems, OHSAS 18001 for health and safety, and ISO 50001 for energy management systems. In this context, CP can be integrated to complement and support organizations activities toward a sustainable development.

C

212

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Cleaner Production methodology and the PDCA cycle (Source: adapted from Silva et al. 2017) PDCA Plan

Do Check Act

CP assessment methodology according to UNEP Step 1 Commitment from the top management Employee engagement Organizing a CP team Step 2 Presentation of the CP methodology to the team Step 3 Company pre-assessment Data collection Definition of performance indicators Data evaluation Step 4 Identification of options for improvement Step 5 Implementation of changes Evaluation of actions toward the CP/monitoring plan Program continuity

Environmental Management Systems and Cleaner Production Environmental Management Systems (EMS) represent a systematic approach to manage complex environmental components with the goal to achieve higher levels of environmental performance in a cost-effective way (Cheremisinoff and Bendavid-Val 2001). According to ISO (2015), an EMS is “the part of the overall management system that includes organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining the environmental policy.” In this sense, companies can profit from synergies and contributions between CP programs and an EMS. While CP projects are focusing on technical aspects, an EMS sets the framework for management. As illustrated in 4.2, it requires a solid management structure to conduct a CP assessment. At the same time, every EMS needs a technical component when it is implemented (Nilsson et al. 2007). Thus, an EMS can contribute to increase the effectiveness of CP practices, while the conduction of CP can simplify the implementation process of a standardized EMS (Cheremisinoff and Bendavid-Val 2001; UNIDO

2017b). Regardless of which approach is undertaken, CP assessments and environmental management systems are compatible and there exist synergies and contributions between CP and EMS (Bosworth et al. 2002; de Oliveira et al. 2017). ISO 14001 and Cleaner Production

The ISO 14000 series includes voluntary international standards covering tools and systems for environmental management. The first standard of the series, the ISO 14001, provides specifications for environmental management systems and is intended for organizations that seek to manage its environmental responsibilities in a systematic manner (ISO 2015). An EMS based on ISO 14001 consists of five main stages: (1) environmental policy, (2) planning, (3) implementation, (4) evaluation, and (5) review (EPA 2017). Based on the PDCA cycle, the aim of implementing ISO 14001 is to increase the environmental performance. The principal idea is that an organization will review its EMS periodically in order to identify improvement possibilities and the chances for realization thereof. CP concepts harmonize with the goals of ISO 14001 as they require a shift from end-of-pipe solutions to preventive strategies where all phases of processing, service provision, and product life cycles are considered (IVAM 2008). The following Table 3 provides an overview of environmental management based on ISO 14001 and on Cleaner Production. According to Fresner (1998) the environmental effects of an organization can be decreased by introducing an EMS based on Cleaner Production. ISO 14001 is mainly focused on auditing the management system, while CP tools help organizations to be aware of its waste and emissions and to measure them. Using CP as a tool within an environmental management system ensures that the focus is on the relevant environmental aspects, as CP is focused on improvements at material and energy flows.

Conclusion and Outlook Cleaner Production became a fundamental mechanism through which industry can contribute to

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development

213

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development, Table 3 A comparison between EMSs based on ISO 14001 and Cleaner Production (Source: adapted from Cervelini and Souza (2009)) Parameters/ management tools Principles Focus

Object of certification Costs

Coverage

EMS based on ISO 14001 Not defined Systemizing information related to aspects within the production process: use of techniques in general that may minimize and/or treat waste EMS and not environmental performance

EMS based on CP Prevention of pollution Identification of the waste/emission generating source and use of techniques to minimize them No certification intended

Mainly associated to elaboration of procedures and generation of the documentation required by the ISO 14001 standard; use of techniques of minimization and/or treatment of waste and emissions Systemic measures concerning environmental policies, communication with involved parties, and environmental emergency plan

Related to the adoption of measures aiming at minimizing waste and emissions

Vision

Integrated; continuous improvement

Revision and evaluation mechanism Refuse and industrial waste handling Directives Applicability

By means of operational control, auditing, and critical analysis, using mainly indicators of an administrative character It privileges the process and controls associated with end-of-pipe technologies and attendance to legislation Determined by local certification offices Greater in mid to large organizations

sustainable development. Although voluntary CP can enable all types of businesses to improve their operational efficiency and generate monetary savings while reducing resource consumption and pollution generation (Ashton et al. 2017). Bonilla et al. (2010) argue that Cleaner Production helps to build a more sustainable society by a number of benefits: efficient use of raw materials and energy, careful selection of materials, generation of innovative technologies, control of pollutant emission, use of renewable energy sources and control of non-renewable, integrating technology and environment, implementing environmental management systems, and regulatory adjustment. On that account, academic research is engaged in generating further progresses to the approach of CP within a broader systems view. In the long term, Cleaner Production shifts from projects of continuous improvements to the redesign of

Measures aiming at reducing the consumption of energy, supplies, and raw materials and minimization in generating solid waste, liquid effluents, and atmospheric emissions Integrated; continuous and incremental improvement By means of constant analysis of environmental performance indicators Prevention of waste and emissions at their source; limits the use of landfill sites; refusal of indiscriminate incineration Use of international standards All companies, including small and microorganizations

production with the goal to reach zero emission, where all inputs are turned into products and kept in cycles (Nilsson 2007). Regarding future perspectives, CP plays an important role within international economic and environmental policies in meeting the goals of sustainable development. A number of organizations, with UNIDO and UNEP as the leading ones, support the implementation of CP programs in developing countries. In this context, the Global Network for Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECPnet) which is supported by UNIDO and UNEP actively promotes the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with several initiatives and actions. Therefore, the RECPnet committed itself to increase the global impact of its services, i.e., developing, applying, and mainstreaming concepts, methods, practices, and

C

214

technologies for resource efficient and cleaner production (UNIDO 2017c), to achieve the goals and related targets, especially to mention the building of resilient infrastructure and the promotion of inclusive and sustainable industrialization and innovation (SDG 9), ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG 12), and strengthening the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17) as key aspects. Bringezu et al. (2016) conclude that many of the SDGs and targets directly address the management of natural resources, the minimization of waste, and the decoupling of growth from resource consumption. Strategies pursuing at sustainable and resource-efficient production patterns, and as is the core of the Cleaner Production approach, will thus be a prerequisite and synergistic for the implementation of the SDGs.

References Ashton WS, Hurtado-Martin M, Anid NM, Khalili NR, Panero MA, McPherson S (2017) Pathways to cleaner production in the Americas: bridging industryacademia gaps in the transition to sustainability. J Clean Prod 142:432–444 Ballard D (2005) Using learning processes to promote change for sustainable development. Action Res 3(2):135–156 Baumgartner RJ (2011) Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice. J Clean Prod 19:783–786 Bonilla SH, Almeida CMVB, Giannetti BF, Huisingh D (2010) The roles of cleaner production in the sustainable development of modern societies: an introduction to this special issue. J Clean Prod 18:1–5 Bosworth MED, Hummelmose B, Christiansen K (2002) Cleaner production assessment in dairy processing. UNEP DTIE, Paris Bringezu S, Potocnik J, Schandl H, Lu Y, Ramaswami A, Swilling M, Suh S (2016) Multi-scale governance of natural resource use: Challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level. Sustainability 8(8):778 Cervelini FM, Souza MTS (2009) A contribution of the cleaner production program to the ISO 14001 management system: a case study in the metal-mechanic sector. J Oper Supply Chain Manag 2(1):61–76 Cheremisinoff NP, Bendavid-Val A (2001) Green profits: the manager’s handbook for ISO 14001 and pollution prevention. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston

Cleaner Production and Sustainable Development De Oliveira JA, Lopes Silva DA, Guardia M, do Nascimento Gambi L, de Oliveira OJ, Ometto AR (2017) How can cleaner production practices contribute to meet ISO 14001 requirements? Critical analysis from a survey with industrial companies. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19:1761–1774 Dias Pimenta HC, Gouvinhas RP, Evans S (2012) Cleaner production as a corporate sustainable tool: a study of companies from Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil. In: Seliger G (ed) Sustainable manufacturing: shaping global value creation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 23–32 Dietz S, Neumayer E (2007) Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: concepts and measurement. Ecol Econ 61:617–626 El Kholy OA (2003) Cleaner production. In: Tolba MK (ed) Encyclopedia of global environmental change. Wiley, Chichester Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017) Environmental Management Systems (EMS). https://www.epa. gov/ems. Accessed 21 Oct 2017 Fresner J (1998) Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. J Clean Prod 6:171–179 Fresner J, Bürki T, Sittel HH (2014) Ressourcenenffizienz in der Produktion: Kosten senken durch Cleaner Production, 2nd edn. Symposion Publishing, Düsseldorf Geiser K (2001) CP perspectives 2: integrating CP into sustainability strategies. UNEP Ind Environ 24(1–2):33–36 Gorenflo G, Moran JW (2009) The ABCs of PDCA. Accreditation Coalition, Minnesota Hammer B (1996) What is the relationship among Cleaner Production, pollution prevention, waste minimization and ISO 14000? Paper presented at the 1st Asian conference on Cleaner Production in the chemical industry, Taipei, 9–10 December 1996 Hansen P, Christiansen K, Hummelmose B (2000) Cleaner production assessment in meat processing. UNEP DTIE, Paris Hens L, Block C, Cabello-Eras JJ, Sagastume-Gutierez A, Garcia-Lorenzo D, Chamorro C et al (2018) On the evolution of “cleaner production” as a concept and a practice. J Clean Prod 172:3323–3333 International Organization for Standardization ISO (2015) ISO 14001:2015 environmental management systems –requirements with guidance for use. ISO, Geneva IVAM University of Amsterdam (2008) Cleaner Production Manual. https://www2.giz.de/network/eidtoolbox/document/08-Cleaner-Production-Manual. pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2017 Jackson T (2002) Industrial ecology and cleaner production. In: Ayres RU, Ayres LW (eds) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 36–43 Jain KP, Pruyn J, Hopman H (2017) Strategic guidance based on the concept of cleaner production to improve the ship recycling industry. Environ Syst Decis. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9654-5

Climate Change and Sustainable Development Kalili NR (2015) From cleaner production to sustainable development: the role of academia. J Clean Prod 96:30–43 Loiseau E, Saikku L, Antikainen R, Droste N, Hansjürgens B, Pitkänen et al (2016) Green economy and related concepts: an overview. J Clean Prod 139:361–371 Neumayer E (2010) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 3rd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Nilsson L (2007) Introduction: cleaner production. In: Rydén L, MacQueen D (eds) Cleaner production: technologies and tools for resource efficient production. The Baltic University Press, Uppsala, pp 19–25 Nilsson L, Person PO, Rydén L, Darozhka S, Zaliauskiene A (2007) Cleaner production assessment. In: Rydén L, MacQueen D (eds) Cleaner production: technologies and tools for resource efficient production. The Baltic University Press, Uppsala, pp 71–86 Nussbaumer R (2007) Der Beitrag von Innovationsnetzwerken zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung von Unternehmen: Eine Untersuchung auf Basis organisationaler Lern- und Veränderungsprozesse. Dissertation, University of Graz Shammas NK, Wang LK (2009) Waste minimization and cleaner production. In: Wang LK, Shammas NK, Hung Y (eds) Waste treatment in the metal manufacturing, forming, coating, and finishing industries. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–36 Silva AS, Medeiros CF, Kennedy Vieira R (2017) Cleaner production and PDCA cycle: practical application for reducing the cans loss index in a beverage company. J Clean Prod 150:324–338 Tschiggerl K, Wolf P (2012) Innovative CP networks: the case of the ÖKOPROFIT ® network promoting innovative clean production solutions for 20 years. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14(6):1029–1035 United Nations Environment Programme UNEP (1996) Cleaner Production. A training resource package. UNEP/IEO, Paris United Nations Environment Programme UNEP (2016) Resource efficient and cleaner production. http://www.unep.fr/scp/cp/. Accessed 23 Sept 2017 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (2017a) Cleaner production toolkit volume 2: Team, policy, motivation. https://www.unido.org/ resources/publications/safeguarding-environment/ industrial-energy-efficiency/cp-toolkit-english. Accessed 7 Oct 2017 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (2017b) Cleaner production toolkit volume 11: From CP to EMS. https://www.unido.org/resources/pub lications/safeguarding-environment/industrial-energyefficiency/cp-toolkit-english. Accessed 7 Oct 2017 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (2017c) RECPnet The global network for Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production. https:// www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/RECPnetBrochure_1610_0.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2018

215 United Nations Industrial Development Organization, United Nations Environment Programme UNIDO and UNEP (2004) Guidance manual: how to establish and operate cleaner production Centres. UNIDO, UNEP, Vienna Van Hoof B, Lyon TP (2013) Cleaner production in small firms taking part in Mexico’s sustainable supplier program. J Clean Prod 41:270–282 Vietnam Cleaner Production Center (2000) Mini-guide to cleaner production. VCPC, Hanoi World Business Council on Sustainable Development (2000) Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact. WBCSD, Geneva World Commission on Environment and Development WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Yaacoub A, Fresner H (2006) Half is enough: an introduction to cleaner production. Stenum, Beirut

Climate Change and Sustainable Development Bila-Isia Inogwabini Center for Research and Communication in Sustainable Development (CERED), Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, The Jesuit Loyola University of Congo, Kinshasa, Congo Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Introduction Despite being a natural occurrence, climate change is, certainly, one of the phenomena that humanity will continue to face throughout the centuries to come. Its emergence, as a response of nature to human activities, is among historical singular moments that challenge the very ideas people have of their own worldwidely. Dealing with climate change poses not only the question of how nature will respond to its major effects but also what would happen if its effects go beyond projected consequences of these effects economically, socially, and, in many ways, existentially. Saying so equates to stating that climate change is to be viewed as an important impediment to sustainability. This

C

216

essay is a discussion of how climate change will impact the possibilities of sustaining development on earth. Methodologically, this means that the essay will have two major lines of ideas. Firstly, it will present the core ideas of what climate change stands for and, secondly, what these ideas imply for sustainability and sustainable development. The essay does not include heavy scientific data; these are available on the website of the United Nations Commission on Climate Change and can be viewed by any interested party. In this sense, the aim of the essay is to try to convey a simplified and ready-to-use message most of these hard-core scientific data tell us as laypeople. Of course, simplification does not mean lack of technicality, which would be necessary in some contexts of this essay.

Climate Change: Time Scale, History, and Current Issues Climate change is not a new natural phenomenon (Mathez and Smerdon 2018), which is how most people often think of it. Climate change is part of the natural geological history of the world (Uitto et al. 2017; Mathez and Smerdon 2018). It has been appearing mainly in two ways throughout the world’s geological history. There have always been eras of wet, humid, and hot, which were followed by arid, dry, and cold times throughout the world history at a geological time scale. Wet, humid, and hot times are known, in the jargon of the climate change, as deglaciation periods, whereas arid, dry, and cold times are called glaciations (Berger et al. 1993). To clarify why these times bear these names, it is good to know that deglaciations are times when ice crust disappears from most of the surface of the earth because of hot temperatures (Berger et al. 1993). Glaciations, obviously, are the opposite times when the ice increased on the surface of the earth due to the global cooling (Berger et al. 1993). Reading from available records (White 2001; Peters et al. 2010), the Precambrian era (up to 600 Million Years Before Present (MYBP)) had known two hot periods (deglaciations) intercepted by two

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

glaciations (Walker 1990); the Paleozoic era (approximately between 542 and 251 MYBP) witnessed two deglaciations and two glaciations, while a third deglaciation starting at the end of Paleozoic would continue through Mesozoic era (approximately between 252 and 66 MYBP), which remained almost entirely hot. Even the Cenozoic era (between 65 Million Years Before Present and now), which is our own geological era, had seen climatic fluctuations. It began with a hot period through the Pleistocene epoch at which point it began cooling down to make up a glaciation, which would have ended with the end that period when, in early Holocene, current deglaciation began. Pleistocene (between 2.6 million and approximately 12,000 Years Before Present) and Holocene (approximately between 11,700 years ago and now) are epochs that belong the era geologically known as quaternary (Schwartz 1992). As has been noticed above, geological times are of magnitude of million years; so personal memories can hardly, if not simply impossibly, have records of climate change over the recent past. Acknowledging this fact has significant implications on how we perceive climate change. The first implication is that to talk of climate change, one has to think of very long-term and durable modifications of weather conditions. Equally significant is to think of large spatial scales (Xenopoulos et al. 2005; Peters et al. 2010; Mathez and Smerdon 2018), at least regionally. Finally, one should also view things in terms of multiple weather variables being involved in the processes that lead to forecasted and observed changes. Indeed, climate change, as it is actually known, cannot be reduced to local events and to temperature alone. Explanations for the global climate swinging over geological times have several geophysical origins. The first category of these geophysical events includes changes in earth orbital parameters such as earth’s orbital eccentricity, earth obliquity, and terrestrial precession (Spiegel et al. 2010; Campisano 2012). Earth’s orbital eccentricity simply says how much the orbit of earth deviates from a perfect circle, while earth obliquity is a measure of the tilt of the earth’s

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

axis from the plane of its orbit around the sun. This inclination changes over a cycle of approximately 40,000 years, and it is currently about 23.5 . Precession is simply factoring the fact that the orientation of earth’s axis waves cyclically during earth’s rotation about itself. All these geophysical parameters can impact the amount of solar energy received on the surface of earth (Spiegel et al. 2010). The amount of energy received plays a key role in the weather and earth climate. The second group of geophysical events that impacts on climate on earth is made of phenomenon such as volcanism and orogenesis (Ramstein et al. 1997; Whipple and Mead 2006), while the third category is made of cosmic events (Crowley 2000). Volcanism refers to activities of volcanoes; this is particularly when volcanoes outburst magmas out to the space. Magmas contain different materials such as volcanic gases that can be suspended over the space as screen of glass that can prevent solar rays to reach through the surface of earth and capture the rays that should, in normal conditions, be reflected back to the outer space by the earth as in a greenhouse construction (Crowley 2000). Orogenesis is made of global processes affecting shifts in tectonic plates. Shifts in earth tectonic plates can affect the global distribution of water across the earth, which then would have somewhat grandiloquent effects on global weather and climatic patterns. The third category of phenomenon that influences climates on earth, or at least the weather patterns, is made of astrophysical consisting of the emergence of solar faculae and sunspots on the surface of the sun. Solar faculae are made of brighter yet short-lived spots that sometimes appear on the surface of the sun resulting from concentrations of magnetic field lines (Crowley 2000). The contrary of solar faculae are sunspots, temporary darker spots on the sun. Solar faculae increase the amount of energy emitted by the sun, whereas sunspots reduce its temperature; their influence on the climate of earth is rather meager but appears, respectively, in opposite manners. Fourthly, some cosmic events such as possible collisions between earth and asteroids (Barash 2008) and earth going through cosmic dusts constitute events that can significantly impact the

217

climate on earth and, indeed, in other planets. In the recent geological history of earth, it has been discovered that a 10-km-wide meteor colluded with earth about 66 MYBP, which coincided with the end of Cretaceous and the beginning of Paleocene. A mega event such as the one that happens when the earth collides with an asteroid raises soil dusts up to the atmosphere (Barash 2008), which constitute, once more, a screen of greenhouse gases on the earth’s atmosphere preventing the normal fluxes of energy between the sun and the earth (Crowley 2000). Also, when earth and its galaxy go throughcosmic dusts, these latter can also create a similar situation, which would act exactly in the same ways. The above natural causes have been at the origins of climate change throughout the history, as indicated above. With that in mind, the question that is often asked is why humans are being so vocal about climate change now if the phenomena have been cyclical in the world geological history? This question is a major contributor to reasons why climate skeptics around the world doubt about potential effects of the current climate change. Yes, climate change is historically documented, and global warming is of a “common” occurrence throughout geological times, but to understand the current occurrence, its projected potential effects, and why we should care about it, one must scrutinize how the greenhouse gases have been behaving throughout the recent human history (Dryzek et al. 2011). That story is what the graph gathered by experts of the United Nations Commission on Climate Change (Fig. 1) is telling us. Clearly, the graph says that all the greenhouse gases have been fluctuating bellow 300 ppm (or ppb) between Year 0 and 1800 of our era. What should strike the minds is how the concentrations of each of these greenhouse gases have been peaking in the atmosphere since the 1800s. Industrial civilization began in 1800, which gives a strong correlation between industrial activities and the increase of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is to say that the current climate change event is no longer similar to the past climate

C

218 400

Beginning of the industrial era

2000

CH4

350

N2O

300

1800 1600 1400 1200

CH4 (ppb)

CO2

CO2 (ppm), N2O (ppb)

Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Evolution of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

1000 800

250 0

change occurrences; while previously climate change events were caused by natural factors described above, the ongoing climate change incident is principally caused by industrial human activities (Etheridge et al. 1998; Uitto et al. 2017). In this sense, it is far from being irrational to infer that the current climate change is a fact of modern civilization; it is the way humans have been living over the last two centuries. A similar question is often raised about why talk too much of CO2 than of any other greenhouse gas. The answer to it also comes from looking at the physical composition of gases in the earth’s atmosphere; indeed, CO2 has a relatively longer time of residence in the atmosphere and is clearly the most abundant greenhouse gas. Additionally, CO2 is emitted by almost any current human activity (transport, food production, reading, working, etc.) (Dryzek et al. 2011). This means without dramatic changes in ways people live, dealing with climate change will be a very daunting endeavor. Current climate change, it needs to be hammered again, is an issue of the modern civilization, and curbing its effects will demand a major shift in the type of the civilization humans want to live in: it is an interrogation on human desires, redefining what it is that we mean when we think of prosperity and happiness. Beyond these philosophical questions, there are clear links between climate change and sustainable development, which are discussed below.

500

1000 Years

1500

2000

600

Climate Change and Sustainable Development Brundtland Commission (1987) defined sustainable development as a development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Yet, development, per se, is a function of the natural capital, which is constituted of the natural assets (Constanza and Daly 1992). Natural assets supply humans with raw materials that they use for development. The very idea of sustainability means that actions needed for development should be carried out in such a way that the current natural capital is maintained constant or increases over time (Constanza and Daly 1992). This capital is made of biodiversity (aquatic, oceanic, and terrestrial) and elements of physical environment such as soil, water, etc. So, to look at the links between climate change and the sustainability of development, one should be really looking at the interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity and elements of physical environment. While doing so, it is better to avoid broad generalizations, which are often made and render the understanding of what is likely to happen should current predictions happen difficult to grasp. Generalizations are not easier to make because one of the major characteristics of effects of climate change is that they are variable

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

across latitudes and longitudes; they are not to be applied wall-to-wall from one point of earth to another. Despite that requalification, however, there are general trends that can be said to likely hamper sustainability. The paragraphs below discuss some of these general issues while noting particularities of some contexts whenever and wherever necessary. Because they have been described to be directly impacted by climate change and the role they play in development, I will begin with items listed under the generic name of elements of physical environment and then move to biodiversity. Water is, apart from being among major constituents of life on earth, one of the most important natural assets whose participation in the development processes is vital. Water is used in industrial production processes such as cooling, cleaning, mining, quarrying, energy production, construction, etc. According to Förster (2014), European industry alone uses 40% of total water abstractions. In the agricultural production, water is one of the principal entrants without which the whole food production process would collapse. It is in this sense that Chen (2017) says that water is a fundamental input in all economic activity. Yet, all predictions being made suggest that water is one of the natural assets that would be most affected by effects of climate change. Kundzewicz et al. (2008) argued that changes in temperature, evaporation, and precipitation being predicted as outcomes of climate change will affect the distribution of river flows and groundwater recharge over space and time. Mapping out water-related vulnerability hot spots through the use of different climate models, Kundzewicz et al. (2008) presented changes in the annual runoffs and in flood and drought frequencies and intensities. Agreeing with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), they concluded that proportions of total rainfall from heavy precipitation events are very likely to increase over most areas; both the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitations would increase in tropical and high latitude. Subsequently, flood frequency and magnitude would increase in these regions. However, predictions were also that droughts would, logically, increase in

219

frequencies in regions where precipitations are projected to be reduced as a consequence of climate change. It is based on these projected trends that they concluded that impacts of climate change on freshwater resources would be a threat to the pursuit of sustainable development of the affected regions. Indeed, for areas where rainfall regimes are to increase, there is to be expected destructions of social infrastructures such as roads, dams, and public spaces (hospitals, schools, markets, etc.). These infrastructures have both financial and natural costs. If and when they would be destructed, they will need to be rebuilt, which would take further tolls on the natural capital. Drawing still more water to rebuild these infrastructures means taking more water from nature, which decreases the natural capital that is to be maintained, by the very definition of sustainable development, at least equivalent to quantities that are available now. Also, in areas where frequencies of droughts are expected, scarcity of water would mean reduced agricultural productivity. Alternatively, agricultural productivity would need very highly costly water management schemes and infrastructures or simply changes in agricultural long-tailored experience and expertise. Thus, whether water increases or decreases, the costs on sustainable development issimply high enough to lead to the conclusion that effects of climate change on water would be a serious impediment on sustainable development. Effects of climate change on water will have further consequences on soil. Rather than looking at highly theoretical ideas, suffice it here to be said that humidity in soil is one of the determinants of the soil mechanics and constitutes a major element for life under soil (Vestergård et al. 2015). Obviously, with projected increased precipitations in some world’s region, effect of climate change will change the water content of soils and impact on soil productivity. This is equally true of regions where droughts are to be expected. In order to ensure sustainable productivity of soils, it might be appealing to increase the cultivating areas to cope with current increases in human populations. Increasing cultivating land areas means deteriorating more lands. Hence,

C

220

effects of climate change will affect agricultural productivity and change patterns of cultivation across the planet. Soil, it is worth repeating, is one of the major natural sinks of carbon (Lal 2004); its sustainability would not only maintain crop production but also contribute to halting further increases in CO2 emission back to the atmosphere. Hence, soil participates in the carbon cycle and serves to sustain the conditions under which sustainable development activities can thrive. Finally, for development to be sustainable, there is need of modern and renewable energy for all. Water offers such a source of energy in many areas across the world; changes affecting water basins and water flows will hold sustainable development back. Water is so important, and it is not a surprise that many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals can be amenable to water even when water does not explicitly come out in their official statements: (1) end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture; (2) ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all; and (3) ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, which can all be linked to water one way or the other. Apart from water and soil (discussed above), a third physical element that constitutes the natural capital on earth is clean air that most living organisms breathe and live on. Without clean air, the workforce, which is a prerequisite for any work on sustainable development, would not be available. Increases in temperatures that are being projected in some regions of earth will mean releasing some pollutants to the air. This would impact not only humans but also numerous other species, including these on which whole economic systems were built on. Increased heat and other extreme weather events, where they are being projected, particularly in the tropics, would lead people to diseases of different sorts. These changes will impact disease transmission pathways, the dynamics of disease transmission, social settlements, and the ecology of different diseases and may lead to resistance of vectors, etc. All these facts would increase frequencies and expand the distribution of the waterborne

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

diseases; the whole human health system is expected to be challenged. Berry et al. (2010) had even projected increases in mental health cases. Possibilities that new forms of diseases may emerge from newly adapted vectors are not to be excluded. This cohort of new diseases would decrease the potential workforce, human global reflection, which would have an impact on their overall productivity. If sustainability has to be viewed as correlate of human well-being both physically and mentally, impediments on good health such as those described above, including shifts in social and physical environments, will prevent human biological senses to function properly. This will have a much direr effect on sustainable development. Air pollution and health provide a transition from physical environment to biodiversity, a transition from physical elements such as water, soil, and air to aquatic, oceanic, and terrestrial biodiversity. As water, soil, and air will be affected by climate change, so dearly affected will be aquatic, oceanic, and terrestrial biodiversity, as part of ensemble of natural capital. Biodiversity offers many resources that are used to develop the world. Timbers and fishes extracted, respectively, from forests and waters are but the most speaking examples of this statement. A significant percentage of medical products used for human health come from biodiversity. The list would be very long but the above suffices to indicate that sustainable development cannot be separated with biological diversity. Indeed, most of the food humans use to live on is essential one form or the other of biological diversity. An illustration of how the effects of climate change on biodiversity will likely affect sustainable development is provided by its potential effects on fisheries. Fish distribution and circulation as well as macroinvertebrate assemblages throughout rivers and oceans are factors, among others, of the water temperatures (Bêche et al. 2009; Gutierrez-Fonseca et al. 2018). Increased temperatures are likely to shift the distribution of fishes (Bêche and Resh 2007) that are important for fishing industry, which will impact either the fishing efforts or fish offtakes. More importantly, some, if not simply most, aquatic and/or marine

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

life forms are temperature sensitive (GutierrezFonseca et al. 2018). Species of shellfishes and shrimps, for examples, would hardly resist increases in temperatures greater than 2  C; this would likely result deaths of some numbers, diminishing therefore populations of such heat-sensitive species. Decreases in numbers of heat-sensitive species would lead to small and declining population paradigms (Caughley 1994; Perry et al. 2004). Small and declining population paradigms (Caughley 1994; Perry et al. 2004) and modifications in habitats caused by climate change (Keith et al. 2008) ultimately lead to species extinctions. Obviously, extinctions of these species will impact not only aquatic and marine food chains but also sustainable development. Projected effects of increases in temperature, changes in rainfall regimes, and increases in extreme phenomena on biodiversity are diverse and would include physiological effects, phenological changes, shifts in species distributions, and modifications of biological interactions. Projected physiological effects include effects on respiration, photosynthetic effects, somatic growth, tissue composition, and decomposition of the litter. Phenologically, biological cycles are expected to change (either lengthened or shortened), while shifts in species distributions are also expected, particularly if the tropical regions heat up to the point of becoming difficult to support by some species. With shifts in species distributional ranges, it is to be expected that their interactions would also change enormously as they will have to interact with both new environments and new species they encounter in these new niches. In this latter case, new patterns of predation, parasitism, and mutualism are to be seriously envisaged. Overall, these effects would lead to some species disappearing from the earth surface, while others may have to change their compositional structures and communities. Finally, there is also a possibility of total flipping up of species geographical occurrence. The thought examples on aquatic and marine life forms, i.e., shellfishes and shrimps or other heatsensitive species above, provide details as to how some species would simply disappear from the earth surface. An iconic and sad case to

221

illustrate the same effect is the predicted high likelihood of seeing the polar bears disappear should the polar cap entirely melt (Ferguson et al. 2000). There are more benefits than just the material ones that people acquire out of biodiversity. These immaterial benefits include the beauty of nature that humans enjoy for their recreation, spiritual happiness that some draw when they directly experience nature, etc. Increases in temperature, changes in rainfall regimes, and increases in extreme weather phenomena caused by climate change are likely to impact on those nonmaterial benefits as well. For example, increased frequencies of storms and floods cause economic losses, which have greatly increased over the last few years and principally driven by the expanding exposure of assets at risk (Kundzewicz et al. 2013). Storms and floods not only cause economic losses but are also likely to alter the physical environments that provide beautiful sceneries and prevent people for enjoying them. Ecotourism has been praised as one route for some countries to generate financial incomes in sustainable ways. Yet, climate change via storms and floods is likely to impact on natural beautifulness and other recreational attribute nature exhibits in some areas. Inferring effects of climate change on ecotourism cannot be thorough without mentioning that climate change is expected to increase levels of oceans. Increasing water levels at the oceans means losing stretches of beaches (Clark et al. 1998) where ecotourism has been a prevalent economic activity over years. All the above effects of climate change will significantly affect sustainable development. The single most important thing that has to come first here is that biodiversity is not only the species richness but also all the functions that each species, habitats, and other natural services naturally play to maintain life on the earth system in the format that we currently know. That is the very core idea of sustainability: maintaining life on earth. Put it in the version of Constanza and Daly (1992), current natural capital is to be maintained constant or increases over time. Clearly, what is described above is rather

C

222

gloomier in this perspective. At a much more practical level, shifts in fish species’ distributional ranges, for example, will hammer the efforts of poorest communities to live decently. This is because if economic fish species have to migrate to areas that are far away from their current distribution, poorest people will not have means to go elsewhere and fish. This will impact both their health in terms of food and their general livelihoods in terms of generating incomes. Changes in phenology of some staple plants would have similar effects on human livelihoods because men and women of those communities will have to take time to adjust to new phonological times. This will be much more difficult for them especially given the fact that the breadths of the knowledge they possess of these species remain, mostly, empirical. A more extreme case is that of seeing some species going totally extinct. Indeed, some species play major roles in keeping the natural capital in its full functional state. A nice illustration of this statement is that of bees that help pollinate some plants and help produce honey. Honey is part of food, and it also contributes to the economy of many local farmers acrossthe world. The current declining trend of bees across the world is likely to continue with effects of climate change. If bees go extinct, which is not of the range of nightmares, effects of their extinction would strike through the production cycles of many plant species. Examples like shifts in forest covers and species changes abound and were reported in past climate change events (e.g., Schwartz 1991; Schwartz et al. 1986), and interpreting them will all lead to showing that effect of climate change will have direr impacts on more fragile human communities across the earth and particularly those in tropical regions. A last important climate-induced change is forced human climate migrations. Of course, humans as a species are a wide-migrant species; it started its current development from its African cradle to conquer the rest of the world. Viewed from this perspective migrations are as natural to humans as are other life traits of human nature; they would persist even in the absence of climate change. However, there are currently

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

climate-induced forms of migration. Effects of climate change-induced migration factually mirror environmental problems in different parts of the globe. In fact, changes in weather patterns will impact different milieus in different ways, but many of the expected changes include lengthened droughts and increased intensities of rainfalls. These directly link with drops in agricultural productivity. Agriculture is, in many poor countries, the most important livelihood activities (Oba 2014). Reduced probability to have decent livelihood activities and lacking the possibility to rebuild one’s own resilience when stricken by crises, people would have, as suggested by Reuveny (2007), only three options. They could adapt to these problems by staying in place and doing nothing, staying in place and mitigating the problems, and leaving the affected areas. Because conditions in poor countries are not conducive resilience if natural catastrophes result in extreme casualties, staying in place and mitigating the problems is far from being an option that most would choose. Therefore, people have the choice between migrating or staying and either starving to death or perishing by other means or migrating to where conditions to sustain life are still prevailing. This single fact will see climateinduced migrations increase over the coming year. One good example of this is migrants moving from the Sahelian region of Africa and looking for waters in the basins of Lake Chad; the same is true of people moving toward the Congo Basin. This trend is likely to persist, particularly as Gould (1994) suggests, the human population growth being sustained with rates that are higher. These movements could, in turn, lead to insecurity and further environmental instability and degradation (Barnett and Adger 2007) in these regions where people move if appropriate mechanisms of economic, cultural, and social integration are not put in place. All the examples taken above and many other cases that have been described in the existing literature (e.g., Afolayan and Adelekan 1999; Gleditsch et al. 2007) point toward the conclusion that climate change will have negative impacts on sustainability globally and sustainable development particularly. The

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

discussions around mitigation strategies are around how to prevent these gloomy projections from happening. Yet, despite the general global acknowledgment of the potential for climate change to affect most of human activities, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, action lags behind. This is because climate change is not only a scientific exercise but rather more of a political and philosophical issue. Being political and philosophical is not to be taken only negatively; but this situation places the chances of curbing it on the hands of the humanity globally. This is why effects of climate change can also be viewed as an occasion to increase the consciousness of humans and foster innovation. Viewed from this angle, climate change could also offer a stall for the next human leap forward though hopes are very low for that to happen. Even though paces for the expected changes in how humans use the natural capital to happen are still slow, this essay would be short-sighted if efforts being invested by the international community to create a framework through which to discuss and identify means for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change are not accounted for (Nina 2016). The first of these efforts is the very existence of the United Nations Commission on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Both have been able to raise the sense of urgency, which raised the awareness of most of the people across the world. That alone is a major achievement and is, in many ways, a great step toward the preparedness for people to adapt to possible effects of climate change and take measures that would ultimately mitigate them, if possible. The existence of these two important bodies had also brought the world to craft policies that would help, if implemented throughout the world, promote actions to mitigate and adapt to effects of climate change. An international masterpiece to illustrate this has been the signing of the Paris Agreement that, despite its weaknesses, is the best international instrument we presently have with obligations that countries need to fulfil to prevent temperatures

223

raising too high to point of breaking the lifesustaining system on earth. Of course, before the Paris Agreement, numerous other instruments were made and have played a key role in sensitizing people on their responsibilities in the climate change.

References Afolayan AA, Adelekan IO (1999) The role of climatic variations on migration and human health in Africa. Environmentalist 18(4):213–218 Barash MS (2008) Evolution of the Mesozoic oceanic biota: response to abiotic factors. Oceanology 48(4):538–553 Barnett J, Adger WN (2007) Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Polit Geogr 26:639–655 Bêche LA, Resh VH (2007) Short-term climatic trends affect the temporal variability of macroinvertebrates in California ‘Mediterranean’ streams. Freshw Biol 52:2317–2339 Bêche LA, Connors PG, Resh VH, Merenlender AM (2009) Resilience of fishes and invertebrates to prolonged drought in two California streams. Ecography 32(5):778–788 Berger A, Gallée H, Tricot C (1993) Glaciation and deglaciation mechanisms in a coupled two-dimensional climate-ice-sheet model. J Glaciol 39(131):45–49 Berry HL, Bowen K, Kjellstrom T (2010) Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework. Int J Public Health 55:123–132 Campisano JC (2012) Milankovich cycles, paleoclimatic changes and hominin evolution. Nat Educ Knowl 4(3):5 Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63(2):215–244 Chen G (2017) Foreword of Damania R, Desbureaux S, Hyland M, Islam A, Moore S, Rodella AS, Russ J and Zaveri E (2017). Uncharted waters: the new economics of water scarcity and variability. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC (USA) Clark GE, Moser SC, Ratick SJ, Dow K, Meyer WB, Emani S, Jin W, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Schwarz HE (1998) Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA. USA. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 3(1):59–82 Constanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46 Crowley TJ (2000) Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science 289:270–277 Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D (eds) (2011) The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, New York

C

224 Etheridge DM, Steele LP, Francey RJ, Langenfelds RL (1998) Atmospheric methane between 1000 A.D. and present: evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability. J Geophys Res 103:15979–15993 Ferguson SH, MK T, Messier F (2000) Influence of sea ice dynamics on habitat selection by polar bears. Ecology 81:761–772 Förster J (2014) Water use in industry: cooling for electricity production dominates water use in industry. Euro Statistics Explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained Gleditsch NP, Nordås R, Salehyan I (2007) Climate change, migration and conflict. International Peace Academy, New York Gould W (1994) Population growth, environmental stability and migration in Western Kenya. In: Zaba B, Clarke J (eds) Environment and population change, Ordina Editions, Liege (Belgium), pp 247–268 Gutierrez-Fonseca PE, Ramirez A, Pringle CM (2018) Large-scale climatic phenomena drive fluctuations in macroinvertebrate assemblages in lowland tropical streams, Costa Rica: the importance of ENSO events in determining long-term (15y) patterns. PLoS One 13(2):e0191781 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), pp 1–18 Keith DA, Akçakaya RH, Thuiller W, Midgley GF, Pearson RG, Phillips SJ, Regan HM, Araújo MB, Rebelo TG (2008) Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biol Lett 4:560–563 Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, Döll P, Jiménez B, Miller KA, Oki T, Sen Z, Shiklomanov IA (2008) The implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management. Hydrol Sci J 53(1):3–10 Kundzewicz ZW, Kanae S, Seneviratne SI, Handmer J, Nicholls N, Peduzzi P, Mechler R, Bouwer LM, Arnell N, Mach K, Muir-Wood R, Brakenridge GR, Kron W, Benito G, Honda Y, Takahashi K, Sherstyukov B (2013) Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives. Hydrol Sci J 59(1):1–28 Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304(5677):1623–1627 Mathez EA, Smerdon JE (2018) Climate change: the science of global warming and our energy future, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York Nina H (2016) Displacement, development, and climate change: international organizations moving beyond their mandates. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London

Climate Change and Sustainable Development Oba PG (2014) Climate change adaptation in Africa: an historical ecology. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London/New York Perry MZ, Beissinger SR, Newman SH, Burkett EB, Williams TD (2004) Applying the declining population paradigm: diagnosing causes of poor reproduction in the marbled murrelet. Conserv Biol 18(4):1088–1098 Peters SE, Carlson AE, Kelly DC, Gingerich PD (2010) Large-scale glaciation and deglaciation of Antarctica during the late Eocene. Geology 38(8):723–726 Ramstein G, Fluteau F, Basse J, Joussaume S (1997) Effect of origin, plate motion and land-sea distribution on Eurasian climate change over the past 30 million years. Nature 386(4):788–795 Reuveny R (2007) Climate change-induced migration and violent conflict. Polit Geogr 26:656–673 Schwartz D (1991) Les paysages de l’Afrique Centrale pendant le quaternaire. In: Lafranci R, Clist B (eds) Aux origines de l’Afrique Centrale. Centres Culturels Français d’Afrique & Centre International des Civilisations Bantu, Libreville (Gabon), pp 41–45 Schwartz D (1992) Assèchement climatique vers 3000BP et expansion Bantu en Afrique Centrale: quelques réflexions. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 163:353–361 Schwartz D, Mariotti A, Lafranci R, Guillet B (1986) 13C/1C ratios of soil organic matter as indicators of vegetation changes in the Congo. Geoderma 39:97–103 Spiegel DS, Raymond SN, Dressing CD, Scharf CA, Mitchell JL (2010) Generalized Milankovitch cycles and long-term climatic habitability. Astrophys J 721:1308–1318 Uitto JI, Puri J, Van den Berg RD (eds) (2017) Evaluating climate change action for sustainable development. Springer, Cham Vestergård M, Dyrnum K, Michelsen A, Damgaard C, Holmstrup M (2015) Long-term multifactorial climate change impacts on mesofaunal biomass and nitrogen content. Appl Soil Ecol 92:54–63 Walker JCG (1990) Precambrian evolution of the climate system. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 82(3–4):261–289 Whipple KX, Mead BJ (2006) Orogen response to changes in the climatic and tectonic forcing. Earth Planet Sci Lett 243:218–228 White LJT (2001) The African Rain forest: climate and vegetation. In: Weber W, White LJT, Vedder A, Naughton-Treves (eds) African Rain forest: ecology and conservation. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 3–29 Xenopoulos MA, Lodge DM, Alcamo J, Marker M, Schulze K, Van Vuuren DP (2005) Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal. Glob Chang Biol 11:1557–1564

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

Climate Change Education (CCE) ▶ Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development Therese Ferguson School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica

Synonyms Climate change education (CCE)

Definition In this entry, climate change education for sustainable development (CCESD) is defined as a multiand interdisciplinary response to climate change that enhances knowledge and awareness of the basic science, causes, and impacts of climate change; encourages changes in individual and societal behaviors and lifestyles; and increases individuals’ and societies’ adaptation and mitigation capacities.

Introduction “Climate change is not a concern of just one or two nations. It is an issue that affects all humanity, and every living being on this earth . . . We have to take serious action now to protect our environment and find constructive solutions to global warming” voiced Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama to participants of the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the recent conference in Katowice, Poland, in

225

December 2018 (Dharpo 2018). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international United Nations (UN) entity for assessing climate change science, climate change “refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer” (IPCC 2015, p. 120). While there is natural climate variability brought about by natural internal processes within the climate system, the phenomenon and terminology of “climate change” attributes alterations in the atmosphere to human or anthropocentric activities. The human induced nature of climate change is underscored in the UNFCCC, a multilateral environmental agreement on climate change, in which climate change is defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (UN 1992, p. 7). There is widespread agreement that climate change is a real and present phenomenon affecting the global community. The authors of a recent IPCC report have stated that “human influence has become a principal agent of change on the planet, shifting the world out of the relatively stable Holocene period into a new geological era, often termed the Anthropocene” (Allen et al. 2018, p. 53). In an earlier report, the IPCC also articulated that “human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems” (IPCC 2015, p. 2). “Fossil-fuel based material consumption and changing lifestyles” have increased Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of, for instance, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides (Allen et al. 2018, p. 53). As a consequence, climate change impacts include but are not limited to increased floods and droughts, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, loss of agricultural productivity, and risks to human health (IPCC

C

226

2015). Climate change therefore seriously undermines sustainable development globally (Anderson 2012) but also particularly for those nations most vulnerable to its impacts. In addition to some of the effects outlined above, with respect to education in particular, climate change and its associated impacts can disrupt the normal functioning of education systems as floods or storms, for instance, can destroy educational institutions or cause disruptions to school terms or years, as two examples. At the same time, Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development (CCESD) “has a central role to play in helping the general public and especially the next generations understand and relate to the issues, make lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to the changing local conditions” (UNESCO 2010a, p. 5).

Climate Change Education and the Global Agenda Education is indispensable for enhancing individuals’ capacities to address climate change and its impacts. Kagawa and Selby forcefully write “At such a moment of enormous human challenge, formal, non-formal, and informal education have a potentially crucial role to play. In both school age and adult learning communities, learners of all ages can be invited to take up the challenge of understanding and rethinking the world, of shattering assumptions, shibboleths and the taken-for-granted, of deliberating where to go at this critical fork in the road” (2010, p. 5). A number of international agreements, initiatives, and programs of action speak to the importance of education as a mechanism to address climate change. Article Six of the UNFCCC highlights the importance of Education, Training, and Public Awareness, calling on State Parties to undertake a range of actions including, developing and delivering education and public awareness programs on climate change and its impacts, as well as creating educational and awareness materials; developing training programs, and training various personnel; facilitating public access to climate

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

change information; and fostering public participation in addressing climate change (UN 1992). Article Ten of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC similarly calls on State Parties to develop and implement climate change education and training programs, and enhance public awareness of climate change and access to relevant information (UN 1998). More recently, in 2015, the international community adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), expressing a common commitment to achieving the 17 SDGs by 2030. Amongst the SDGs is Goal 13, which calls on nations to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts,” with Target 13.3 speaking to the need to improve education, awareness, and human and institutional capacity on climate change (Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals 2017). Additionally, under Goal Four, which focuses on inclusive and equitable quality education, Target 4.7 speaks to ensuring that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills that align with and facilitate sustainable development through education. This, therefore, also emphasizes the importance of education as a means of addressing climate change since tackling this global issue is an important aspect of pursuing sustainable development by the world’s nations. In Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, it calls on Parties to the UNFCCC to pursue measures “to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognizing the importance of these steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement” (UN 2015). Amongst the international community, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been called upon to drive climate change education and is a lead agency in promoting Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and CCESD. During the 15th COP of the UNFCCC, UNESCO launched its Climate Change Initiative, which includes as one of its four thematic areas, climate change education in the context of ESD and the development of an accompanying CCESD program with three core objectives. These are to strengthen its Member States capacities to deliver CCESD at the

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

primary and second levels, to encourage and enhance innovative approaches to CCESD in schools and to raise climate change awareness through nonformal education (UNESCO 2010a).

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development Education is critical for addressing the global sustainable development challenges facing the world. From 2005 to 2014, the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) propelled global action on ESD and sought to engage stakeholders in two key areas: both the transformation of education and educational systems and the embedding of sustainable development in education (Tilbury 2011). Importantly, during the second half of the DESD, climate change was one of the global sustainable development issues prioritized for focus by the international community (UNESCO 2010b). As one of the critical issues affecting the sustainable development pathways of nations, UNESCO recommends that climate change be integrated into ESD learning content (UNESCO 2014). Additionally, policy makers and other stakeholders working in the area of climate change are encouraged to utilize ESD as an overarching framework to tackle that and similar issues (UNESCO 2014). Mochizuki and Bryan (2015) outline some key organizing principles for ESD with reference to climate change, as follows: • An integrated and interdisciplinary approach to climate change knowledge – in order to ensure an understanding of underlying social, economic, and political causes of climate change and priorities for transformation • Addressing local and global perspectives on climate change – in order to highlight how localized behavior and actions can have impacts at the global level, and to identify solutions at local, national, regional, and global levels • Advancing a climate justice perspective – in order that climate inequities and inequalities are acknowledged and can be advocated for (e.g., it is very often those least responsible

227

for causing climate change and who have the least financial, human, and other resources to address it who are most vulnerable to its devastating impacts.) Further, drawing on the four pillars of learning outlined in the Report of the Delors Commission – Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors et al. 1996) – Mochizuki and Bryan (2015) also offer how CCESD can be tied to these core learning pillars: • Learning to know – CCESD would involve understanding basic climate science, various dimensions and connections with respect to the causes and consequences of climate change, and adaptation and mitigation strategies. • Learning to do – CCESD would encompass the development of relevant skills and action competencies such as critical thinking, problem solving, and systems thinking skills, lifelong learning skills, and the skills to adapt and cope with risks and uncertainties. • Learning to live together and to be – CCESD would introduce individuals to a range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes such as knowledge of global issues, respect for values such as peace, human rights, and justice, and empathy for and openness to varying perspectives. Climate Change Education and Mitigation Climate change education in its narrowest form encompasses climate science and literacy and can, therefore, be seen by some as relegated to scientific subjects. On the contrary, however, CCESD needs to be more broad-based and multidisciplinary to support mitigation and adaptation. Both mitigation and adaptation strategies are critical to addressing the challenges of climate change, and education is essential to both types of strategies. Mitigation refers to human interventions that can reduce the sources of or enhance the sinks of GHGs (IIED n.d.), such as forest conservation. Cordero et al. (2008) emphasize that “an educated citizenry is required to make wise decisions regarding policies and practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the human impact

C

228

on the Earth’s resources” (p. 866). To support climate change mitigation efforts, for instance, education can help humankind learn to change their consumption patterns, use renewable forms of energy, and design and utilize green technologies (Anderson 2012). Climate change education for sustainable development therefore needs to be transformative in nature in order to bring about the cultural, lifestyle, and deeper social, economic, and governance systemic changes that will support mitigation efforts. Institutions of higher learning in particular can contribute to climate change education for mitigation through a range of initiatives. Of course, enhancing awareness and knowledge of climate change is one key means of so doing through formal courses and programs. For instance, TERI University in India has a Master Program on Climate Science and Policy which focuses on mitigation (and adaptation) and other issues surrounding climate change (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). The University’s Master on Public Policy and Sustainable Development also has courses focused on climate and related issues (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). At Nottingham Business School in Nottingham Trent University in the United Kingdom, final year undergraduate students take on the role of consultants to local businesses to help them to reduce their GHG emissions as part of their curriculum (Thomas 2015). Thus, curricula development is important. In addition to dedicated programs and courses, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can also create and/or integrate resources into their teaching and learning for climate change mitigation. Faculty at Harvard Business School prepared a brief on climate change impacts, responses and implications for the business sector as a tool to utilize in class discussions (Henderson et al. 2017). World Climate is an example of a multidisciplinary resource for all levels of education (Sterman et al. 2019). This group role play simulation exercise offers students opportunities to represent various countries and blocs and negotiate an agreement to limit GHG emissions. It does so by drawing on a range of disciplines, including, economics, international relations, and science.

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

In addition to curricula and resource development, through their campus operations, universities can both educate the wider populace and surrounding communities and model behavior, for instance, with respect to the implementation of energy or water conservation measures or sustainable transportation initiatives to lower carbon emissions, design of smart buildings and the utilization of technology to ensure energy efficiency in classrooms and dormitories. Rooney and McMillin (2010) share various initiatives undertaken by the Australian National University in Australia to support sustainability and contribute to climate change mitigation (and adaptation). Some examples include the introduction of the Timely Tredlies departmental bike fleet to the campus to reduce vehicle usage amongst staff and students and, by extension, reduce carbon emissions. A second example includes the HotRot Organic Recycling Project which converts organic waste on the campus into compost, also working to reduce university emissions. By integrating mitigation efforts into their operations and governance structures, universities can be seen as living laboratories and exemplars of change. Climate Change Education and Adaptation Adaptation speaks to making adjustments in natural and human systems in response to the actual or expected impacts of climate change (IIED n.d.), in order to cope with and adjust to associated hazards, risks, or potential possibilities. Education for climate change adaptation therefore focuses on enhancing the ability of individuals, groups and organizations to adapt to climate change (Davidson and Lyth 2012). An important component of CCESD outlined by Anderson (2012) involves working to ensure that there is minimization of disruption to education systems and learners as a result of climate change impacts, for instance, from storms and floods. This means that learning environments must be made safe and climate resilient through the incorporation of disaster prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery strategies (Anderson 2012) in management and operations, and through considerations of building and site design and maintenance of schools and other learning spaces.

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

This incorporates green building design and the use of green technology, for example. McKeown and Hopkins (2010) conceptualize climate change education as involving two important aspects – climate and change. Knowledge of the science of climate change therefore falls within the remit of the first concept. While change involves education for change and includes six principal components, all of which are relevant for climate change adaptation (and mitigation): • Issue analysis – understanding the background and root causes of complex issues in order to formulate solutions and pathways forward • Community and personal decision-making – utilizing knowledge and skills to examine multiple perspectives surrounding issues and crafting personal or communal action plans for change • Political processes – understanding national political processes, such as legislation and executive orders as well as localized, grassroots political movements as a precursor for action • Social justice – involves understanding issues of inequity and pathways to change, including values analysis • Intercultural sensitivity and competence – fostering intercultural sensitivities for an increasingly interdependent global world and, specifically, with reference to climate change, to prepare persons for peaceful, harmonious, and tolerant living in situations where there needs to be coexistence and/or interaction with climate refugees • Behavior change – to foster action at the level of the individual to change habits and actions to support climate change mitigation and adaptation (McKeown and Hopkins 2010) As with mitigation, HEIs can develop programs and courses that expose students to teaching and research on adaptation strategies. The University of Nairobi and Maseno University in Kenya have established a Climate Adaptation Research Institute which focuses on areas such as climate change adaptation technologies (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). Similarly, at AixMarseille Université in France, adaptation is one of

229

the areas given focus (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). As one final example, Cranfield University in the United Kingdom has collaborated with international researchers, agribusinesses, and government to explore adaptation options in relation to agriculture and water in various countries (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). Education also can offer the skills needed to adapt lives, livelihoods, and human and natural systems to climate change. Skills within CCESD would encompass those that are needed to address a complex, multi-faceted phenomena such as climate change; these include, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration skills. Different disciplines also have much to offer climate change education. Hergert et al. (2010) report on an interfaculty one semester course in which students from different disciplines work together to address various questions surrounding climate change adaptation, mitigation, governance, and other issues. These student working groups were supplemented by various course activities including lectures from academics in disciplines such as physics, economics, and the social sciences. While several barriers were encountered in the course, the authors’ efforts clearly underscore the need for a multi and interdisciplinary effort in addressing climate change. Lagos Business School in Nigeria has integrated sustainability and climate change into several of their courses (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). Down (n.d.) and Ferguson and Bramwell-Lalor (2018) share on the integration of ESD and climate change into various teacher education courses at The University of the West Indies in Jamaica, including a postgraduate literature course entitled Literature and Education for Sustainable Development. There is a clear role for the field of education in the development of awareness and knowledge, skills development, and behavior change for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Additionally, educational responses can include the use of local and indigenous knowledge as part of adaptive capacity for climate change. A discipline such as history can offer perspectives on the underlying causes of climate change.

C

230

Science can expose persons to the science of climate change. The humanities can engender affective responses to climate change. Thus, CCESD calls for a response from all disciplines with respect to teaching, research and outreach.

Higher Education Institutions and CCESD While education institutions at all levels have a role to play in climate change education to support mitigation and adaptation efforts, Leal Filho (2010) argues that “it is in the higher education sector that the need to tackle it in a systemic way is particularly acute” (p. 2), highlighting that university students will soon pursue employment in various fields which will have impacts on the environment in general and climate in particular. Thus, climate change education is critical with respect to enhancing awareness and knowledge. Rooney and McMillin (2010) propose that university campuses can move beyond knowledge delivery and research to drive CCESD through outreach and engagement with communities, institutional behavior, and campus design. From the previous examples, it is clear that universities have responded to this role. There is therefore a unique role for HEIs to exhibit leadership in the areas of (i) education and training, (ii) research, (iii) community engagement, and (iv) campus operations (American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) n.d.). To consolidate and summarize some of the key areas: (i) In the areas of education and training, higher education must be at the forefront of curricula development across various and multiple disciplines, including the sciences, social sciences, and the arts and humanities as examples. This multidisciplinary approach is necessary in order to ensure that individuals are able to address the complex social, economic, environmental, and political issues of climate change. Additionally, curricular content, and learning outcomes have to be focused on knowledge and skills development, with complementary learning

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

environments and spaces created to allow students to develop and enact various action competencies. Particular focus also has to be paid to pre- and in-service teachers as they can have a multiplier effect in the classrooms. Higher education professional development programs are therefore critical. (ii) Given that CCESD requires a multidisciplinary approach, research in the various disciplines is necessary. Within the physical and social sciences, for instance, studies are needed, in particular, on localized ecosystems and specific (vulnerable) populations (ACUPCC n.d.). (iii) Campus design, operations, greening efforts, as well as the impacts of campus GHGs also need to be spaces of modeling for the wider society. Campus procurement, transportation, energy, water, and other relevant policies must reflect tenets consistent with ESD and CCESD. Additionally, utilizing the physical infrastructure and plant of the campus as learning environments for both students and communities can enhance knowledge, action competencies, and wider community engagement. (iv) Finally, community engagement is critical in order to ensure that the higher education sector has a widespread impact at local levels through the provision of expertise and resources for action and problem-solving, human capacity for CCESD and sustainability efforts, and collaboration. Community engagement is critical for various reasons. Firstly, it contributes to nonformal CCESD for those individuals who have been out of the formal education system for years or for those who are unable to access formal education. Secondly, it ensures the engagement of various stakeholders apart from students and young persons, such as adults and senior citizens. Thirdly, it supports the action component and competencies that are critical to CCESD. Finally, it contributes to a pooling of knowledge amongst various stakeholders at different levels. As an example of the role that the higher education sector can take, the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) was formed by a

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development

consortium of UN entities in 2012 as one of the activities leading up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20). The Initiative aims to garner commitments from HEIs worldwide to engage in teaching, research, and campus operations and governance in support of sustainability and climate change mitigation and adaptation (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). The ACUPCC is another illustration; this is a network of American HEIs expressing commitment and taking action to address climate change in areas such as those previously mentioned. Activities under the Commitment include the completion of an emissions inventory, establishing a climate action plan, and integrating sustainability into the curriculum. Initiatives such as these align with the recommendations of the second Priority Action Area of the Global Action Programme on ESD, in promoting whole-institution approaches to ESD and related sustainability issues (UNESCO 2014).

Conclusion Climate change has been characterized as a “wicked” problem, one marked by interdependencies, multiple causes, scientific uncertainty, and high complexity (Davidson and Lyth 2012). Education is one of the critical means of addressing such a problem. Climate change education for sustainable development can contribute to both mitigation and adaptation efforts if transformative in nature, interdisciplinary, delivered through both formal and nonformal means and aimed at not only knowledge and skills but the promotion of action competencies. The higher education sector is well placed to take a lead in CCESD through the areas of curricula development and delivery, research, community outreach, and carbon sensitive campus operations.

References Allen MR, Dube OP, Solecki W et al (2018) Framing and context. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Portner HO, Roberts D et al (eds) Global warming of 1.5 C. An

231 IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In Press, pp 49–91. https://www. ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed 4 Feb 2019 American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment [ACUPCC] (n.d.) Higher education’s role in adapting to a changing climate. http:// secondnature.org/wp-content/uploads/Higher_Education_ Role_Adapting_Changing_Climate.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2017 Anderson A (2012) Climate change education for mitigation and adaptation. J Educ Sustain Dev 6:191–206 Cordero EC, Todd AM, Abellera D (2008) Climate change education and the ecological footprint. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89(6):865–872 Davidson J, Lyth A (2012) Education for climate change adaptation – enhancing the contemporary relevance of planning education for a range of wicked problems. J Educ Built Environ 7:63–83 Delors J, Al Mufti I, Amagi I et al (1996) Learning: the treasure within. UNESCO, Paris Dharpo T (2018, December 4) We need serious action now, Dalai Lama to participants of COP24 meeting. Phayul. http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=40999. Accessed 29 Jan 2019 Down L (n.d.) How climate change education is influencing pedagogy for teacher education. https://en.unesco. org/esd-repo/476/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019 Ferguson T, Bramwell-Lalor S (2018) Tertiary-level sustainability and climate change education. Caribb Q 64(1):79–99 Henderson RM, Reinert S, Dekhtyar P, Migdal A (2017) Climate change in 2017: implications for business. http://www.hbs.edu/environment/Documents/Climate_ Change_2017.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019 Hergert R, Barth V, Klenke T (2010) Interdisciplinary and interfaculty approaches in higher education capable of permeating the complexity of climate change. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Universities and climate change: introducing climate change to university programmes. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 107–115 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2015) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Geneva. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED] (n.d.) Glossary of climate change for parliamentarians. http://pubs.iied.org/G03093/. Accessed 23 Feb 2019 Kagawa F, Selby D (2010) Introduction. In: Kagawa F, Selby D (eds) Education and climate change: living and learning in interesting times. Routledge, New York, pp 1–11

C

232 Leal Filho W (2010) Climate change at universities: results of a world survey. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Universities and climate change: introducing climate change to university programmes. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–19 McKeown R, Hopkins C (2010) Rethinking climate change education: everyone wants it, but what is it? Green Teach 89:17–21 Mochizuki Y, Bryan A (2015) Climate change education in the context of education for sustainable development: rationale and principles. J Educ Sustain Dev 9:4–26 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con tent/documents/1579SDGs%20Proposal.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 Rooney M, McMillin J (2010) The campus as a classroom: integrating people, place and performance for communicating climate change. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Universities and climate change: introducing climate change to university programmes. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 117–136 Sterman J, Fiddaman T, Franck T et al (2019) World climate: negotiating a global climate change agreement. https:// mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/simulations/ worldclimate/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 26 Feb 2019 Thomas K (2015, March 19) Business partnership category: winner and runners up. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/ mar/19/business-partnership-category-winner-andrunners-up. Accessed 26 Feb 2019 Tilbury D (2011) Education for sustainable development: an expert review of processes and learning. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/ 191442e.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 United Nations [UN] (1992) United nations framework convention on climate change. http://unfccc.int/files/essen tial_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/appli cation/pdf/conveng.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 United Nations [UN] (1998) Kyoto protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change. http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 United Nations [UN] (2015) Paris agreement. https:// unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/ paris_agreement_english_.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015) Higher education sustainability initiative: climate change action for sustainable development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/212 1HESI%20-%20Climate%20Change%20Action%20for %20SD%20final.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2010a) Climate change education for sustainable development. UNESCO, Paris. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001901/190101e. pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2010b) UNESCO strategy for the second half of the united nations decade of education for sustainable development. http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0021/002154/215466e.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2014) UNESCO roadmap for implementing the global action programme on education for sustainable development. UNESCO, Paris. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf. Accessed 16 Oct 2017

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development John Motloch Education, Sustainability and Transformation, Sterling, VA, USA

This chapter addresses co-design and sustainable development, their interconnected role in the ongoing transition to a sustainable future, and how each is evolving within the nexus of change that includes complexity, co-design, complex system co-management, and sustainable development. To develop a more robust and balanced understanding of this nexus and its interdependencies, readers are invited to read parallel writings including one that views the nexus through the complexity - sustainable development lens (Motloch 2018a) and another that discusses it through the whole-system sustainability lens (Motloch 2018b).

Definition of Co-design Design is a broad term that refers to the processes of envisioning, planning, preparing, and implementing intentional action. An advanced subset of design today is generally referred to as co-design, i.e., design activity that is pursued jointly.

Definition of Sustainable Development Development is a general term that refers to the gradual formation of something. The use of the term herein focuses on the gradual formation of the socio-ecological system to address identified needs. Sustainable development is an approach to development with an intent to sustain into the

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

future. It is usually described from a triple bottom line perspective as development that is environmentally responsible, socially just, and economically viable today and into the future.

Introduction This chapter is informed by a growing understanding of the deep interdependence among design, development, and socio-ecological systems. It is cognizant of the growing concern that decisions made within previous and, in many cases, ongoing design approaches and traditions of development play a major role in the massive change in complex adaptive systems which is currently placing humanity and communities at risk. The chapter recognizes that in the context of massive systemic change in the complex adaptive system that humanity helps create, approaches to design and development have also been changing since the mid-twentieth century. It focuses on the current state of design and development under two inclusive labels, co-design and sustainable development. It discusses co-design and sustainable development as catalysts of change at this crucial time in history that is increasingly being called the turning point in human consciousness from an Anthropocene 1.0 consumptive paradigm to an Anthropocene 2.0 regenerative paradigm (Lawrence 2015).

233

Some thought leaders contend that the maturation of consciousness will occur when global society learns to appreciate the complex system upon which humanity depends and to embrace the power of analogical thinking to optimize wholesystem performance (Callaos 2017). Others focus on an operational shift from mining resources and compromising complex systems to co-managing resources and optimizing system performance and regeneration (Wahl 2017). Still others focus on the shift from top-down structures and hierarchical messaging to integrated structures and network conversation (Armistead 2011). In all cases these different lenses through which people are viewing the maturation of consciousness share a cognitive shift from narrow-window reductive thinking to an appreciation of complexity and systems thinking. Changing Paradigms of Design and Development Co-design and sustainable development are pointin-time expressions of the transformation of consciousness from an Anthropocene 1.0 consumptive paradigm to an Anthropocene 2.0 regenerative one. They can therefore best be understood in relation to changing paradigms, network flows, system interdependence and intersystem services, whole-system benefits of nested supports, and changing boundaries of concern (Fig. 1). Changing Paradigms of Design

Co-design and Sustainable Development at Turning Point of Consciousness Co-design and sustainable development have emerged as part of the massive systemic change occurring at this unique time in human history. The challenge at this crucial time is to move from the spiraling impacts of decisions made within an immature consciousness that seeks to mine resources for human benefit to making decisions within a more mature consciousness that appreciates the need to collaborate in regenerating socioecological systems and sustaining the web of life including humanity (Stokols 2018).

Design paradigms and the methods created to implement the paradigms have been changing rapidly since the mid-twentieth century. Broadbent identified three generations of design methods (1973). First-generation methods are linear, expert-driven, rational, and systematic problem-solving approaches, with expertise residing in the designer. Second-generation methods are dialectic processes with expertise distributed among participants and dialog among participants as primary pathway for decision-making insight. Third-generation methods are participatory processes wherein designers as experts facilitate efforts to address the needs of diverse stakeholders. Motloch (1990) identified and described emerging fourth-generation design methods as

C

234

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Design and development at the turning point

related to innovation-intervention processes of management science (Van Gigch 1984), which are grounded in collaboration among diverse consciousnesses and protection from premature discipline-bounded censure. He saw these methods embracing collective consciousness as primary method for seeing beyond disciplinebound understandings and as pathway for building robust understanding of design complexity, challenges, and potentials. In the intervening 25 years, fourth-generation design methods have evolved. They are now referred to as cooperative design or co-design (Steen et al. 2011), which are inclusive terms that take in diverse approaches including participatory decision processes, co-creation, and open-source design. As inclusive umbrellas, co-design methods enable a broad spectrum of people to contribute to identifying and resolving design challenges. Since these processes embrace collaboration among diverse people, including designers, stakeholders, and others, but do not incorporate the profoundly more expansive and deeply interdependent network flows among human and nonhuman entities through which complex adaptive systems operate, in most cases, co-design methods today remain anthropocentric.

The shift from third-generation participatory design to fourth-generation anthropocentric codesign was driven by the felt need for deeper collaboration among designers, stakeholders, and other people to transcend individually bound thinking and to catalyze collective consciousness. Emerging fifth-generation co-design processes are now being driven by growing concern about profoundly negative socio-ecological system changes including the loss of diversity and deep interconnectivity needed for complex adaptive system functionality. Expanding consciousness of the profoundly negative feedback from decisions made within unsustainable traditions is driving transformation of co-design from its fourth-generation anthropocentric focus to fifth-generation complexity-centric co-design grounded in people operating as appreciative systems, i.e., ones that fully engage the complex system they help create (Jantsch 1975). Complex system co-design (CSCD) has recently been proposed as a seminal fifth-generation design method (Motloch 2017a) that shifts co-design from anthropocentric fourth-generation methods (co-design among designers and other humans) to complexity-centric fifth-generation methods of co-design through network conversation among the full spectrum of human and nonhuman entities

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

that, through highly coordinated physicality and behavior, collaborate in creating and regenerating complex adaptive systems (Swimme and Tucker 2011; Johnson 2001). Complex system co-design embraces biomimicry at all system levels including object-, systems-, and meta-level. It appreciates the highly coordinated behaviors that characterize complex adaptive systems and the immense number of innovation-coadaptation cycles through which complex adaptive systems operate (Motloch 2017a). These complexity-centric co-design methods enable decision-making to be more appreciative and co-design to shift from human-focused and human-serving action to complexity-centric engagement that appreciates all living systems and serves the needs of complex adaptive systems as well as human needs. These five generations of design paradigms (Motloch 2017a) are summarized diagrammatically (Fig. 2) as expert-directed linear processes, expertcentric dialectic methods, user-centric participatory methods, anthropocentric co-design methods, and complexity-centric co-design methods. Firstgeneration methods see the designer as the entity making decisions. Second-generation models embrace dialog to gain insight and inform decisions. Third-generation methods seek deeper participation to align decisions with the expanded consciousness of diverse stakeholders. Fourth-generation co-design methods enable deeper collaboration within a

235

co-design ecosystem that supports the whole-system consciousness needed to move beyond disciplinebound thinking to whole-system consciousness and robust decisions. Fifth-generation co-design embraces complexity-centric methods where co-design shifts from human-directed actions to a deep collaboration with the whole system. It embraces the deeply coadapted physicality and behaviors of complex adaptive systems. Changing Paradigms of Development

The paradigm of sustainable development is also in flux. This flux relates to changing perceptions of what is being sustained and the best metrics to assess performance. As is often the case with transformative terms, it is beginning to appear that some of the earliest perspectives are the deepest and least compromised and co-opted. Perhaps the deepest vision of sustainable development is Howard Odum’s (1994) contention that decisions must sustain the ability to co-adapt with change. By extension this means that development decisions must be able to change at the rate and intensity at which the system of which they are a part changes. As we shall see, current rapid, profound, and escalating system change, due in large part to a long history of unsustainable development, is presently reminding humanity, in a dramatic way, of the value of Odum’s vision of sustainable development.

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Generations of design methodologies

C

236

Unfortunately, after its emergence, the term sustainable development became compromised. By the end of the twentieth century, many people understood the term to mean that the thing being developed – city, building, site, etc. – was the entity being sustained. As we moved into the twenty-first century, increasing awareness of the profoundly negative and escalating impacts of human decisions, including the rapid and profound system change discussed by Ramo (2009) and others, helped humanity realize that to be sustainable, development must sustain the health and productivity of the larger system, now referred to as the complex adaptive system, upon which development, as well as the people it serves, depends. This includes the realization that to be sustainable, development must integrally collaborate in the metabolic processes through which complex adaptive systems work as regenerative systems (Fisk 1989; Lyle 1994). Growing realization of profound, rapid, and increasingly irreversible complex system change is now pushing the vision of sustainability toward a complexity-appreciative view that development must sustain the immense cycles of innovation and coadaptation that characterize complex systems (Swimme and Tucker 2011; Johnson 2001). Massive system degradation is motivating paradigm change to appreciate that development must sustain its viability in emerging conditions and must be fueled with transformative innovations (Wahl 2017) at the rate and intensity of change in the complex system of which the development is part. This brings the paradigm of sustainability forward, in a closed-loop manner, to Odum’s early vision (1994). Within this emerging paradigm, Raworth’s doughnut model of living within safe and just space that satisfies social foundations for all people within planetary regeneration limits (2012) is a good metric for assessing sustainable development within today’s rapidly changing population dynamics and planetary conditions. Design and Development as Network Flows As appreciative entities of complex adaptive systems and as processes for transformative innovation (Wahl 2017), complexity-centric co-design interventions have potential to deeply embed in the network

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

connectivity they help create (Motloch 2017a). Through deep embeddedness, interventions can provision networks for the integrated physicality, behaviors, and flows through which complex systems work. Through deep integration, co-design can also help build the whole-system functionality, sustainability, and transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) that the complex system needs to help sustain and regenerate its health and productivity at all scales from local to global. Co-design as Network Flows

With decisions deeply embedded in system dynamics, complexity-centric co-design will produce developments where resources flow within the life-cycle flows of their complex contextual systems, so people and complex systems can co-thrive. The resulting socio-ecological systems and the co-designed developments they contain will have the transformative resilience needed to absorb changes (Wahl 2017; Motloch 2017a). This is especially valuable in today’s rapidly changing complex systems, where complexitycentric co-design can provide innovations with the transformative robustness needed to be coadapted with emerging complex system conditions and metabolics (Wahl 2017). Complexity-centric co-design can provision transformative innovation at all system levels: object, systems, and meta. At the object-level, it can address local and immediate needs in ways that sustain system diversity and integration and embed the diverse knowledge needed to discover the full range of issues that must be addressed. At the systems-level, complexity-centric co-design can embrace system diversity and integration and facilitate whole-system functionality, resilience, and regeneration. At the meta-level, it can reprovision complex systems with the transformative innovations needed for the emergence of higher levels of diversity, integration, and ability to transform uncertainty into thriving (Motloch 2016). Sustainable Development as Networked Flows

Sustainable developments are beginning to embed the smart systems needed to optimize network flows (of information, energy, water, food, materials, etc.) among intelligent agents within complex

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

adaptive systems (Motloch 2017a). Through twoway networked information flows, these smart developments can enhance whole-system sustainability and build the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to sustain and regenerate networks at all scales from local to global. To address the needs of the whole system rather than just human needs, especially in today’s unsustainably provisioned systems, sustainable developments can have an abundance of transformative innovations at all system levels: object, systems, and meta. At the object-level, sustainable developments can meet local and immediate needs through the design of entities with transformative innovation to be resilient in existing and future conditions. At the systems-level, sustainable developments can be provisioned for whole-system functionality, regeneration, and transformative resilience. At the metalevel, they can facilitate regeneration of local networks at higher levels of complexity and transformative resilience (Motloch 2016). Design and Development as Intersystem Services Within planning and design, there is a growing awareness of the social and economic benefits provided by environmental services, sometimes also referred to as ecological services. While these services are viewed as desirable from the anthropocentric view, this one-way flow of services is parasitic when viewed from the complexity-centric perspective (Motloch 2017b) since it addresses ecological system benefits to social and economic systems but does not equally value services that social and economic systems should likewise be providing to ecological systems and to each other. Co-design for Balanced Intersystem Services

To move beyond this parasitic approach, complexity-centric co-design can address the triple bottom line of sustainability – ecological, social, and economic – as interdependent systems. For example, the Sustainable Communities Institute (SCI) LLC has proposed a triple bottom line intersystem service model that envisions humanity Living in Systems™ by balancing the intersystem services provided by the three interdependent

237

systems of the triple bottom line. This model can serve as a framework for complexity-centric co-design and as a metric for establishing boundaries for sustainable behavior (Motloch 2017b). SCI uses this approach in projects that can help build the complexity knowledge system – including the knowledge generation, knowledge application, knowledge management, and knowledge diffusion needed for co-design solutions with the robustness needed to address simple and wicked problems (SCI 2015; Motloch and Truex 2015). Sustainable Development as Intersystem Service Networks

Closed-loop systems, net-zero system performance, whole-system sustainability, and other key aspects of sustainable developments grow from interdependent physicality and behaviors among the immense number of entities that constitute complex adaptive systems. There is a growing appreciation that to be sustainable, developments must integrate into complex intersystem dynamics and interdependencies at a range of spatial and temporal scales and must function as networks that optimize triple bottom line intersystem services. In this crucial transformation period, pilot projects as best management practices in sustainable development are also urgently needed to help build the knowledge system (knowledge generation, knowledge application, knowledge management, and knowledge diffusion) needed to transform society for a sustainable future. Design and Development as Nested Systems There is a growing awareness of the need to co-design developments as nested ecological, infrastructural, and built-environment support systems that function interactively to help regenerate complex adaptive systems (Motloch 2017a). In these nested systems (Fig. 3), ecological systems are understood to be humanity’s primary support system that provides the clean air we breathe, the water needed to produce food and fiber, and the food that sustains humanity and other living systems. There is also a growing awareness that infrastructural systems as secondary supports, and built environments as tertiary supports, must operate within the planetary limits

C

238

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Nested human support system

of ecological systems and that they must fully participate in regeneration of those systems while enhancing the ability of the primary support system to address human and nonhuman needs (Raworth 2012). There is also a growing appreciation of the added challenge, in this period of rapid socio-ecological system change, to transform existing development and communities into systems that appreciatively co-manage these nested human support systems – ecological, infrastructural, and built environment – to have the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to remain sustainable in the context of rapidly changing complex adaptive systems. Complexity-Centric Co-design as Nested Systems

Complexity-centric co-design appreciates natural systems as primary support systems and the need for infrastructural systems as secondary support systems to collaborate in the continuous and noninterrupted functionality of these primary supports; and for buildings, landscapes, and other objects of sustainable development as tertiary supports to collaborate with infrastructural systems to support full functionality and regeneration of the natural systems upon which we rely. There is an awareness that, at the most basic level, decisions must fully participate in enhancing complex system performance and an appreciation of the need to co-manage and integrate infrastructural systems (energy, water, wastewater, transportation, health, social, communication, etc.) with each other and with the complex system. There is also an understanding of the profound need to co-manage and integrate built-sites and other objects of development to optimize provisioning for human and nonhuman needs within the planetary limits of safe and just space (Raworth 2012).

There is also a deep appreciation that complexity-centric co-design must interconnect these three nested levels of human support systems in ways that optimize the potential of the local energy-water-food nexus (EWF nexus) and that reprovision development to collaborate in the regeneration of energy, water, food, and material flow systems as healthy local networks, where people thrive as integral components of living environments and production systems that harvest from, and return healthy resources to, the complex adaptive system that humanity helps create (Jantsch 1975; Armistead 2011; Motloch 2017a). Rapid and catastrophic change in complex systems is also driving current efforts to reprovision existing infrastructural systems and built environments for the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to be sustainable in emerging complex system conditions (Armistead 2011). This reprovisioning includes an emphasis on local solutions (SCI 2015) and alternative decentralized infrastructures (Tomlinson et al. 2015) or ADIs as small-scale heterogenous systems and processes that interact with each other and function synergistically to sustain full functionality of the whole system, provide redundancy, relieve strain to existing infrastructures of industrial societies, and leapfrog capital-intensive infrastructures in developing countries to provide more capitalefficient infrastructure. Integrating these various initiatives offers the vision of a future where human needs are met, at current levels, within the energy-water-food nexus while also meeting the social foundation needs of all people and operating within the planetary limits of safe and just space (Tomlinson et al. 2015; Motloch 2017a; Raworth 2012).

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

Much of the foundational technology work needed to implement the transformational visions of complexity-centric co-designers is already occurring in the rapid development of interfaces between the diverse entities of small systems that characterize ADIs. Software engineering continues to advance understanding of the roles and properties of interfaces needed to specify interdependencies and interactions among key complex software systems and to rapidly bring these interfaces online. This includes the complex software systems needed to synergistically couple new decentralized infrastructures and existing centralized infrastructures to operate more efficiently and effectively through intelligent interfaces (Tomlinson et al. 2015).

239

systems as key entities in local networks where people thrive. To be resilient in today’s rapid change, sustainable development must also provision infrastructural systems and built environments for the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to align with emerging conditions. This includes transformative innovations as local solutions (SCI 2015) and decentralized infrastructures as small-scale heterogenous systems and processes (Tomlinson et al. 2015) that interact and function synergistically to sustain the whole system. Provisioned accordingly, sustainable development can operate within, and optimize, the local energy-water-food nexus while also meeting the social foundation needs of all people (Motloch 2017a; Raworth 2012).

Sustainable Development as Nested Systems

Sustainable development integrates natural systems as primary support systems, infrastructural systems as secondary supports, and buildings, landscapes, and other objects of sustainable development as tertiary supports to collaborate in sustaining full functionality and regeneration of the natural systems upon which we rely. It provisions these three levels of supports to operate with high levels of interdependence to fully participate in enhancing the performance of each of the levels and the entirety of the socio-ecological system as a complex, co-adaptive, and regenerative system. It also collaborates in co-managing and integrating infrastructural systems (energy, water, wastewater, transportation, health, social, communication, etc.) with each other and with the socio-ecological system. Sustainable development facilitates co-management and integration of built-sites, other objects of development, and infrastructural systems to address human and nonhuman needs within the planetary limits of safe and just space (Raworth 2012). By networking and integrating flows among the three nested levels of supports, sustainable development also empowers emergence of the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to sustain living systems, the development itself, and the complex system of which it is part. Sustainable development also interconnects the nested levels of human support systems to optimize the energy-water-food nexus (EWF nexus) and its potential to regenerate clean and healthy energy, water, food, and material flow

Changing Boundaries of Concern in Design and Development Current accelerating and intensifying negative change in socio-ecological systems is causing people to rethink some assumptions including the way they view the world, what they see as problems of existence (Beck and Cowan 1990), and the boundaries of concern through which they see their actions including co-design and sustainable development. People are beginning to see the changing socio-ecological conditions as feedback from past decisions made within unsustainable design approaches and, in some cases, shallow definitions of development. There is a growing awareness that these changes result from the loss of diversity and deep interconnectivity that socioecological systems need for their full functionality as complex adaptive systems (Motloch 2016). Changing Boundaries of Concern in Co-design

Fifth-generation complexity-centric co-design processes profoundly expand the boundary of concern to include all participants of complex adaptive systems as viewed through a wholesystem consciousness that seeks to optimize full spectrum human and nonhuman network flows. They appreciate the deep interconnections that emerge through the immense numbers of innovation-coadaptation cycles through which genetic- and epigenetic-regulated complex systems sustain their potential and regenerate their physicality, behavior, health, and biocapacity.

C

240

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

Fifth-generation co-design methods also seek to optimize network flows and collaborate in rebuilding the diversity and deep interconnections needed to empower the metabolic processes through which complex systems function. Complexity-centric co-designers seek to collaborate in regenerating the capacity of systems to support life. Seeing through diverse lenses – the sustainability lens, the complex adaptive systems lens, and the humanity as appreciative system lens – they seek to co-design in ways that appreciate whole-system diversity and integration, satisfy human and nonhuman needs, and optimize regeneration of the complex systems upon which sustainable development relies. One of the more effective lenses through which to understand complexity-centric co-design is Raworth’s model for living in a safe and just space (2012), characterized as having a social foundation and a planetary limit. Raworth identified behavior that satisfies the social foundation as providing for core needs of all people including food, water, income, education, resilience, voice, jobs, energy, social equity, gender equality, and health. Based on Rockström et al. (2009), she also identified dimensions that set environmental limits to safe and just human decisions including climate change, freshwater use, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, atmospheric aerosol loading, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, and land use change. Through the lens of Raworth’s safe and just space, one can see the complexity-centric co-design challenge as being the need to envision solutions that help reprovision the complex adaptive system as safe and just space (Motloch 2016) wherein decisions help humanity become an appreciative system (Jantsch 1975) that fully participates in complex system regeneration in ways that address the needs of all people within the regenerative limits of the planetary system.

transformational terms, it is beginning to appear that some of the earliest definitions of sustainability are the deepest, least compromised, and least co-opted. Rapid and catastrophic change in complex systems is expanding the boundaries of concern in sustainable development. Increasingly these boundaries include the understood need to accelerate the ability to quickly learn how to survive in the current period of profound system change resulting from a history of increasingly unsustainable development and simultaneously reprovision planet Earth for a future where humanity can thrive by living appreciatively within complexity. The boundary includes the need for sustainable development to help re-empower biologically complex systems while reprovisioning for emergence as a mature consciousness. They must also help build the library of best management practices and a knowledge system of how sustainable development projects can facilitate learning-by-doing and serve as feedforward-feedback processes for reprovisioning to optimize transformative innovation, transformative resilience, and building the knowledge system for transforming planet Earth into a consciously complex adaptive system. Expanded boundaries of concern in sustainable development also include awareness of the profound need to reprovision existing infrastructural systems and built environments with the transformative resilience (Wahl 2017) needed to be sustainable in emerging complex system conditions (Armistead 2011) and for new sustainable developments to function synergistically as deeply networked local solutions (SCI 2015) and alternative decentralized infrastructures (Tomlinson et al. 2015) that sustain whole-system functionality and provide transformative resilience. Sustainable development must also help build a future where human needs are met within the planetary limits of safe and just space (Raworth 2012).

Changing Boundaries of Concern in Sustainable Development

Conclusions

Like co-design methods, the paradigm of sustainable development is in flux. This flux relates to different perceptions of what is being sustained and changing perceptions of best metrics to assess performance. As is often the case with

Complexity-centric co-design and sustainable development can catalyze interconnectivity, enable maturation of consciousness, and accelerate transition to a sustainable future. At this

Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

unique time in history, with design and development coevolving rapidly within an appreciation of the deep interconnectedness of socio-ecological systems, and the coadapted physicality and behavior through which these systems work, complexity-centric co-design processes can help build deeply interconnected physicality and behavior, serve as BMP sustainable development pilot projects, and advance the knowledge needed to transition to a sustainable future. As integral parts of the nexus of sustainable change, complexity-centric co-design and sustainable development can help catalyze whole-system change to a sustainable future. They can generate, apply, manage, and diffuse knowledge about how to co-design transformative innovations that empower transformative resilience. They can catalyze change at all three system levels. At the objectlevel, they can produce buildings, sites, and builtsites that address local and short-term needs while enhancing system performance. At the systemslevel, they can facilitate continuous and noninterrupted whole-system functionality, transformative resilience, and regeneration. And at the meta-level, they can help provision socioecological systems for the networked flows and transformative innovations needed for local, regional, and global networks to generate higher levels of diversity, integration, and sustainability. Complexity-centric co-design and sustainable development can also play substantive roles in helping humanity build the knowledge system needed for a sustainable future, including knowledge generation, knowledge application, knowledge management, and knowledge diffusion. This knowledge system can, in turn, enhance the ability of complexity-centric co-design to produce sustainable development enhanced by the analogically robust awareness and whole-system consciousness provided by complexity-centric co-design. As discussed above, system complexity and transformative resilience emerge from high levels of interconnectedness. In today’s rapidly changing socio-ecological systems, complexity-centric co-design can help development sustain itself and the complex system upon which it depends. It can provide the diverse transformative innovations needed to interconnect with emerging conditions and function as feedstock for building

241

transformative resilience. This can, in turn, empower development to sustain itself, enable people to thrive, and provision socio-ecological systems for change to a sustainable future. Complexity-centric co-design and sustainable development can also provide the dynamics and physicality needed for sustainable developments to function as ecosystems for the maturation of consciousness needed to transform development into appreciative systems (Jantsch 1975) that partner in provisioning and creating a sustainable future. For complexity-centric co-design processes and sustainable development to realize their catalytic potential requires that co-designers and sustainable development practitioners also ask the key questions that can stimulate the analogically informed networked conversations needed to build the knowledge system for transformation. They must also implement pilot projects that function as learning-forward ecosystems, laboratories, and knowledge centers for complexity-centric co-design and sustainable development. Then they must implement this knowledge system to help local, regional, and global societies transition to a sustainable future.

References Armistead D (2011) Symposium on community social and economic change in the new economy. Ball State University, Muncie Beck DE, Cowan CC (1990) Deep structures: value systems that shake and shape South Africa. Leadership Magazine Broadbent G (1973) Design in architecture. Wiley, Chichester Callaos N Analogical thinking, inter-disciplinary communication, and case studies (participative talk). General Joint Sessions and Workshops of IMCIC 2017 and its Collocated Events, 3/21–24/2017 ~ Orlando, Florida, USA Fisk P Metabolic planning and design (how healthy building could be the forerunner of healthy businesses, healthy cities, and a healthy environment), written 1989. http://www.cmpbs.org/sites/default/files/mp1.9metabolic.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2017 Jantsch E (1975) Design for evolution: self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. George Braziller, New York Johnson S (2001) Emergence: the interconnected lives of ants, brains, cities and software. Scribner, New York Lawrence M (2015) Harmony with nature and harmony among humans in the anthropocene. UN General Assembly Dialogue on Harmony with Nature

C

242 Lyle JT (1994) Regenerative design for sustainable development. Wiley, New York Motloch J (1990) Introduction to landscape design, 1st edition, Wiley, New York Motloch J (2016) Unlocking complexity: big science project and research agenda. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics 11(4):563–572 Motloch J (2017a) Complex system co-design: pathway to becoming an appreciative system. Proceedings of the 8th international multi-conference on complexity, informatics and cybernetics Motloch J (2017b) Big history understanding of complexity, informatics and cybernetics. Proceedings of the 8th international multi-conference on complexity, informatics and cybernetics Motloch J (2018a) Complex systems and sustainability. In: Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. (in publication) Motloch J (2018b) Whole systems approach to sustainability. In: Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. (in publication) Motloch J, Truex S (2015) Living within humanity’s lifesupport system. Procedia Eng 118:412–419 Odum HT (1994) Ecology and general systems: an introduction to systems ecology. U. Press of Colorado, Niwot Ramo JC (2009) The age of the unthinkable: why the new world disorder constantly surprises us and what we can do about it. Little, Brown and Company Pub., New York Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam International Discussion Paper Rockström J et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/ iss2/art32/. Accessed 30 Oct 2017 SCI (Sustainable Communities Institute LLC) (2015) Baltimore urban farmstead initiative, honor award. In: 52nd international making cities livable design competition for excellence in designing for green, healthy cities. http://www.livablecities.org/node/693. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N (2011) Benefits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Des 5(2):53–60 Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the digital age: solving complex problems in a globalized world. Academic Press: An imprint of Elsevier, London Swimme BT, Tucker ME (2011) Journey of the universe. Yale University Press, New Haven Tomlinson B, Nardi B, Patterson DJ, Raturi A, Richardson D, Saphores JD, Stokols D (2015) Toward alternative decentralized infrastructures. DEV is Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium On Computing for Development, pp 33–40, London Van Gigch JP (1984) The metasystems paradigm as a new hierarchical theory of organizations. Annual Meeting of the Society of General Systems Research, New York Wahl DC What exactly are resilience and transformative resilience? https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/whatexactly-are-resilience-and-transformative-resiliencea0783595023f5/5. Accessed 10 July 2017

Co-inquiry

Co-inquiry ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Collaborative Action Research ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Community Learning on Sustainability Tolulase Michael Ishola1,2 and Akinsiku Esther3 1 Department of Agroclimatology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria 2 Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria 3 Department of Business Economics, Lagos State Polytechnic, Lagos, Nigeria

Definition Theorists and educational practitioners highlight the importance of education for sustainable development. The development challenges have resulted from complex environmental and socioeconomic factors. In this context higher education training is discussed as an approach that can support the adoption of sustainability and further contribution to community development. From a strategy approach, the universities can optimize their role as agents of change with regard to sustainability by adopting a “whole-ofuniversity” approach to sustainability. This approach explicitly links research, educational, operational, and outreach activities and engages students and other stakeholders in each. Community members can therefore act as agent of change in

Community Learning on Sustainability

order to incorporate sustainability initiatives in their activities. This will provide many private and public benefits toward achieving sustainable development.

Introduction Over the past decades, the global population grew rapidly especially in the developing and emerging countries, but the social and environmental impact of natural resource extraction remain significant challenges. Various environmental activities ranging from deforestation to greenhouse gas emissions are challenges that might affect a nation in achieving sustainability (Schaltegger et al. 2011; WCED 1987), suggesting the need to preserve the environment and natural resources while addressing the social and environmental issues critical to inclusive and sustainable growth. The developing countries face the obvious life-threatening challenges of desertification, deforestation, and pollution and endure most of the poverty associated with environmental degradation. On the other hand, industrial nations face the life-threatening challenges of toxic chemicals, toxic wastes, and acidification (Schaltegger et al. 2011; WCED 1987). The global climate change is another factor creating more challenges in achieving sustainability. Climate change intensifies the already adverse environmental and socioeconomic conditions of vulnerable communities. Thus, the need to educate people on natural resource preservation while addressing social and environmental issues are critical to inclusive growth and sustainability of any nation. The Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as maintaining the capacity of ecological systems to support social and economic systems and ensuring the long-term productive potential of resources and their environmental functions (Schaltegger et al. 2011). A development is sustainable when it ensures that it meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

243

The concept of sustainability has received much attention since the publication of the Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (Harding 2006). Despite the institutionalization of sustainability principles through legislation and policy around the world, progress in implementing sustainable development actions has been slow (Harding 2006). The consequence of this is that resources are disappearing because of overexploitation and damage resulting from an unsustainable use of these resources. A study by Rothenberger et al. (2006) shows that waste is considered to be one of the most immediate and serious environmental problems confronting urban governments in developing countries. The need to protect the community resources for the benefit of a suitable and sustained environment has become ever more urgent (Zhang and Matsuto 2010). Education about sustainable development is an approach for creating awareness and to use education as a tool to achieve sustainability. This improves the community by providing more knowledge needed to be spread to the various members of the community. Therefore the development of an improved higher educational and improved learning approach that is socially, ecologically, and economically viable to guarantee the principles of sustainability is necessary to achieve the goal of sustainable development in any given community. Institutions of higher education and community members are important stakeholders in implementing a development process and can act as a change agent in addressing the issue of sustainability. Thus the higher education sector can optimize their role as agents of change with regard to sustainability by embarking on transdisciplinary research training which can increase education learning through the engagement of various stakeholders such as students and community members.

Higher Education Training as a Tool to Stimulate Learning in Sustainability Education is a long-term process that results from general instruction in a variety of areas, which has a theoretical emphasis and is geared to knowledge acquisition and synthesis. It results from general

C

244

courses and empirical experiences with interdisciplinary and professional orientation. The role of education training is crucial to the impartation of knowledge for the implementation of sustainable development. Higher education institutions may help to overcome these difficulties by developing new processes of change (Vargas et al. 2019). Higher education learning can be used as a tool to achieve sustainability. On the other hand, education for sustainable development does not only integrate contents such as climate change, poverty, and sustainable consumption into the education curriculum; it also creates interactive, learner-centered teaching and learning settings. Thus in recent years, sustainability and the need for its implementation and documentation in many different development initiatives are taking place around the world. Sustainability approach is worth developing for implementation and learning to integrate the principle. Unfortunately, progressing toward sustainable development remains a key global challenge. According to Vargas et al. (2019), the various interpretations of the concept of sustainable development and the questions it raises about economic growth make its implementation difficult. Furthermore, a study by Harding (2006) pointed out that despite the institutionalization of sustainability principles through legislation and policy around the world, progress in implementing sustainable development actions has been slow. Yet there is increasing recognition that the present development paths around the world are clearly not sustainable into the future and that more educational knowledge is urgently needed to address this unsustainability (Zhang et al. 2017; Harding 2006). In developing countries like Nigeria, municipal solid waste (MSW) management is a great challenge because of the increased population in urban areas. Increasing with the population of the state is not just the waste generated but the cost of handling it, and this underscores the need for more efficient and enduring system of solid waste management. Thus, sustainability of the environment requires filling the educational knowledge gap which is also very important especially in Lagos, Nigeria, where many are still flippant in their treatment of the environment. The environment is key to social

Community Learning on Sustainability

economic living, and it is important that stakeholders pay close attention to it. Therefore, education in waste education will increase stakeholders acting as change agents to rise in championing the cause of sustainable environment by spreading the message in their various communities (https:// lagosstate.gov.ng/waste-management). A sustainable waste management that embraces the three R’s concept of reduce, reuse, and recycle of waste holds the key to conserving the environment as they help to cut down on the amount of waste generated and thrown away. The three R’s concept presupposes that by working on a sustainable lifestyle to reduce waste, it supports a system that conserves natural resources, saves land, and protects the environment. Thus the development and integration of adequate municipal waste education will provide answers to how waste can be sustainably managed. A study by Zhang et al. (2017) reported that higher education universities and government institutes have the greatest potential and necessity for conducting waste management which can promote sustainable waste source separation on higher institutions. Understanding the characteristics of an institution’s solid waste stream is the first step toward enhancing the sustainability of a waste management system (Smyth et al. 2010). Thus, from a practical point of view, adequate higher educational knowledge is seen as a viable approach that is worth developing further for implementing sustainability in the community. However, the implementation of sustainability may fail, not only because of inadequate higher education but also because of low community member involvement. These factors could hinder the great benefits of sustainability to any society. Therefore, community learning through participation can promise the best result in achieving sustainable impact not only at economic and ecological level but also at the sociopolitical level.

Sustainability Education Program and Its Benefits to Community Sustainability Education is a key and, therefore, is crucial for the achievement of sustainable development.

Community Learning on Sustainability

Education can, and must, contribute to a new vision of sustainable global development (UNESCO 2017). Embarking on the path of sustainable development will require a profound transformation of how we think and act. The concept of education for sustainable development is an approach to stimulate approach for developing sustainability competencies. Education research has acknowledged the value of transformation, which offers an opportunity for researching and rethinking how appropriate and successful educational practices may be (Leal Filho et al. 2018). However, despite the role of transformation in higher education and particularly in sustainability learning, there is a need to engage with sustainability-related issues, more individuals to become sustainability changemakers. Investments in university educational research and development (R&D) can therefore turned the educational sector into a dynamic sector with rapid technological change in much of the world, including in achieving sustainability in infrastructure and industrialization. It is more important than ever for developing countries to promote scientific research education and training in different sectors, in order to contribute to sustainable development. The increased availability of education and knowledge-based approaches encourage sustainability learning in the community. However, not all kinds of education support sustainable development. Education that promotes economic growth alone may well also lead to an increase in unsustainable consumption patterns. The now well-established approach of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) empowers learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations. Sustainability education aims at developing competencies that empower individuals to reflect on their own actions, taking into account their current and future social, cultural, economic, and environmental impacts, from a local and a global perspective. The environmental sustainability refers to meeting the resource and service needs of current and future generations without compromising the

245

health of the ecosystems that provide for them (Morelli 2011). It is intended as an articulation of the professional goal of the environmental manager and other environmental professionals. Institutions of higher education are poised to play a significant role in the search for a more sustainable future. Furthermore, individuals should also be empowered to act in complex situations in a sustainable manner, which may require them to strike out in new directions, and to participate in sociopolitical processes, moving their societies toward sustainable development. Mcmillin and Dyball (2009) observed that most universities are tackling sustainability issues in a compartmentalized manner, sustainability education is confined to specific courses, education is often isolated from research, and neither is likely to be linked to sustainable campus operations. On the other hand, Warburton (2003) notes that deep learning is a key strategy by which students extract meaning and understanding from course materials and experiences. Because of the range and interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic issues and the importance of interdisciplinary thinking and holistic insight, deep learning is particularly relevant in the context of education for sustainability. Education needs to play a key role in attitude change. Environmental education and sustainability offer good models to develop curricula that encourage critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, effective decision-making, and conflict resolution. To be successful, sustainability education must help students develop a versatile style of learning that balances operation and comprehension learning – thereby reducing the chance that some students (e.g., from science) are unable to describe the meaning of what they know while others (e.g., from arts) are incapable of deductive reasoning. Educational learning on sustainability aims at developing competencies that empower individuals to reflect on their own actions, taking into account their current and future social, cultural, economic, and environmental impacts, from a local and a global perspective (UNESCO 2017). The development of sustainability and adoption of its principles requires that university education

C

246

begins to stimulate learning in the context of sustainability-oriented innovations. Stakeholders in the community should be made aware of the benefits that exist in integrating environmental and socioeconomic topics into their operations in order to contribute to sustainable development. The university education can play a significant role in search for a more sustainable future by offering courses that are either self-paced or instructor-paced to the students. This approach to learning therefore has an importance, since it can help students not only in their courses, but also in developing them as trained personnel in diverse areas crucial to management and sustainability. On the other hand, Mcmillin and Dyball (2009) report that some sustainability education is confined to specific courses, education is often isolated from research, and neither is likely to be linked to sustainable campus operations. Thus applying sustainability principles to the role of university education requires holistic and integrated approach (Fig. 1). Additionally, an analysis is required that considers the inputs and outputs to the research system, curriculum development, as well as in-campus operation. Sustainable education is relevant to all areas of life, economic, environmental, and socioeconomic processes. To be viable in the future, stakeholders such as students and community individuals require culturally rooted, socioeconomic, and environmental development that reemphasize and innovatively integrate ecology, social, and economic dimensions. Providing for such could empower stakeholder to act in complex situations in a sustainable manner, which may require them to strike out in new directions and to participate in sociopolitical processes, moving their societies Community Learning on Sustainability, Fig. 1 Integrating sustainability into university operations. (Source: Mcmillin and Dyball 2009)

Community Learning on Sustainability

toward sustainable development. Progressing toward sustainable development remains a key global challenge. And yet, the various interpretations of the concept of sustainable development and the questions it raises about economic growth make its implementation difficult. Higher education institutions may help to overcome these difficulties by developing new processes of change. However, to achieve this they need to integrate sustainable development in all their areas of activity (Vargas et al. 2019; Flynn et al. 2018).

Community Education Learning Education in Sustainability In order to enhance the understanding of sustainability and to facilitate the planning and implementation of adaptation strategies, increased deeper consideration of the factors that promote its knowledge particularly at the community level is required. This would further improve understanding of barriers and identify gaps in the state-of-theart knowledge (Shackleton et al. 2015). This benefits the community stakeholders providing knowledge, encouraging systems thinking, and improving the ability to put knowledge into action, accumulating skills for use at some later date. A practical approach with sustainability initiatives builds problem-solving and critical-thinking skills that stimulate community learning in the context of sustainability-oriented innovations. A community program such as community gardening and conversion of municipal waste provides knowledge on how community education and application skill could contribute to community building for sustainability. Furthermore, such programs could also

Community Learning on Sustainability

provide educational resource providing a valuable platform for learning about multiple dimensions of sustainability through community education. According to Corkery (2017), community gardens were widespread and highly successful in augmenting food supplies in developed countries. Community gardens are primarily thought for food production and local amenity providing experiential learning and direct connections between classroom and practical learning. It also provides a valuable platform for nonformal education for sustainability. Furthermore, community gardens are important for the following reasons (among others): • • • • • •

To reclaim public urban spaces To provide environmental education To act as a form of a community enterprise To improve the social and cultural expression To enhance restorative or therapeutic qualities To provide knowledge social/environmental sustainability (Corkery 2017)

Consequently, the benefits of community gardening are little known and not directly applicable to the community gardens project and situate it firmly within the scope of education for sustainability. Despite these circumstances, the role of community gardening in fostering community development remains an important approach to sustainability. Thus, the higher education sectors can embark on programs that engage people and promote community learning that encourages a behavior change for sustainable development. In developing countries where waste management is a challenge, education on recycling is an important approach of sustainable municipal solid waste management (MSWM) (Troschinetz and Mihelcic 2009). Thus community education through participation could offer a comprehensive solid waste management programs that contribute to one of the greatest environmental challenge.

Community Members as a Change Agent in Sustainability A change agent is a specialist who typically recommends adjustments to improve productivity, employee relations, and profit margins. He

247

normally focuses on amending or replacing policies and procedures that may be hindering growth. He acts as a catalyst for change. The approach a change agent takes in helping organizations improve their operations is often considered his main asset and what distinguishes him from a traditional business management consultant. He is customarily expected to present solutions in a manner that inspires and motivates management and staff to change for the greater good of everyone. A change agent generally concentrates on engaging members rather than offering harsh criticisms along with must-do lists of inflexible solutions. Change agent tries to contribute to sustainable development by enabling different forms of learning (van Poeck et al. 2017). Community members can act as a change agent of sustainability. For example, by providing them with specific innovative ideas from professionals in various fields of sustainability develops their knowledge and abilities, to integrate necessary changes in their organizations. Community education provides a platform involving participation in development. A wide range of development agencies, both national and international, have attempted to involve people in some aspect of planning and implementation. Participatory approaches are increasingly being used in sustainability projects, climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability research assessments (Flynn et al. 2018). Community learning can bring about an organizational change. This is the reason why promoting community participation and learning on sustainability can help improve their ability to effect change. Furthermore a community member can bring about a desired change when this individual or a group takes responsibility for changing the existing pattern of behavior of people or the social system. Change agents could also support the implementation of new ideas into actual action. With their involvement, they tend to be more thoughtful as they have to live with the consequences of their actions. The act of providing advice and assistance to the communities will enhance their organization knowledge, perspective, and information to be able to implement sustainability management.

C

248

Promoting Community-Based Learning on Sustainability Learning on the basis of real societal challenges in local contexts requires cooperation with external partners. Education should thus enable access to external educational material by communities and various institutions. Community learning through participation can promise the best result in achieving sustainable learning on the basis of real societal challenges in local contexts. However, for this to become successful, it requires cooperation with different stakeholders and partners (Shackleton et al. 2015). Community-based learning can strengthen the communities’ right to adequate information. For example, in a peer learning approach, it aids in developing a way of sharing, observing, and helping each other in the learning process. Communities who control their resources and participate in local decision-making process have the potential to create changes that go beyond the local community level. Community participation promises the best result in achieving sustainable impact not only at economic and ecological level but also at the sociopolitical level. It can also strengthen the communities’ right to adequate information. The peer learning approach is an example that helps members to develop a way of sharing, observing, and helping each other in a learning process (Shackleton et al. 2015). Additionally open communication and peer learning create spaces for experimental learning and are important elements of developing learning process at community level. Therefore participatory involvement for community stakeholders should be carried out in relation to sustainability. Through exchanges the importance of sustainability can be learnt and facilitate further exchange of knowledge. Furthermore the exchange of experience organized within a participatory process can help community members become very active with initiative, empowerment attaining toward sustainable development.

Community Learning on Sustainability

The Contribution of Community Education to Environmental and Socioeconomic Aspect Sustainability Education is any process or activity that engages people in learning by sharing and developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes and can take place through formal processes, e.g., through the delivery of specific curricula in schools, universities, and/or other training institutions, or through nonformal processes, e.g., recreation, community participation activities, and experiential learning programs (Corkery 2017). In the case of “education for sustainability,” the implication is for a more “holistic” and “integrated” environmental education that leads to the development of a sustainable society. Community education can further contribute to a positive sense of community by developing understandings of different aspects of activities that are relevant to sustainability. Community learning through active participation in sustainable waste management and community gardening could help in the planning and implementation of sustainability. Community members learn methods which involve building a culture of change, one that supports the sustainability and long-term strategy of their contribution to develop their community. Therefore sustainability is the goal of the process. Appropriate management of municipal waste is critical for public health and environmental sustainability. Waste could be a reusable resource if utilized properly. Hence importance must be given to waste management in a sustainable way. By creating awareness in community such as planting a tree to avoid a drastic loss of our biodiversity will contribute to reduce the pressure on the biodiversity. Community learning helps to identify crucial problem which is caused by unsustainable practices both in waste management and other areas in community. The strategy promotes awareness to maintain sustainable environment. By creating educational awareness, a sustainability project contributes to reduce financial cost per year and increase per family income while further improving the environmental, livelihood, and socioeconomic benefit of the community.

Community Learning on Sustainability

Conclusions Theorists and practitioners have highlighted the importance of sustainability in higher education by examining a set of major element of the integrated system of sustainable development. The universities can optimize their role as agents of change with regard to sustainability by adopting a “whole-of-university” approach to sustainability. This approach explicitly links research, educational, operational, and outreach activities and engages students in each. Promoting knowledge on environmental waste management and community gardening are examples by which knowledge can contribute to sustainable rural development and food security particularly for community stakeholders. Furthermore problems associated with environmental mismanagement caused by overexploitation of resources and unsustainable lifestyles could be combated by promoting higher education student as change agent in the community. Promoting higher education student as change agent in sustainability learning would contribute to enhancement and provide solutions that are sustainable to the challenges confronted by the members of the community.

Cross-References ▶ Community Learning on Sustainability ▶ Sustainability ▶ Sustainable Development

References Corkery L (2017) Community gardens as a platform for education for sustainability. Aust J Environ Educ 20(1):69–75 Flynn M, Ford JD, Pearce T, Harper SL (2018) Participatory scenario planning and climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research in the Arctic. Environ Sci Policy 79:45–53. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.012 Harding R (2006) Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination 187:229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04. 082

249 Leal Filho W, Raath S, Lazzarini B et al (2018) The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. J Clean Prod 199:286–295. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.017 Mcmillin J, Dyball R (2009) Developing a whole-ofuniversity approach to educating for sustainability. J Educ Sustain Dev 3:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 097340820900300113 Morelli J (2011) Environmental sustainability: a definition for environmental professionals. J Environ Sustain 1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0002 Rothenberger S, Zurbrügg C, Enayetullah I, Maqsood S (2006) Decentralized composting for cities of low- and middle-income countries. A users’ manual. Dhaka, Bangladesh; Dübendorf, Switzerland: Waste Concern; Eawag Schaltegger S, Burritt R, Petersen H (2011) An introduction to sustainable development and sustainability management. Center for Sustainability Management (CSM) Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lüneburg Shackleton S, Ziervogel G, Sallu S et al (2015) Why is socially-just climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review of barriers identified from empirical cases. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 6:321–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.335 Smyth DP, Fredeen AL, Booth AL (2010) Reducing solid waste in higher education: the first step towards “greening” a university campus. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon rec.2010.02.008 Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR (2009) Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manag 29:915–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2008.04.016 UNESCO (2017) Handbook of education for Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris van Poeck K, Læssøe J, Block T (2017) An exploration of sustainability change agents as facilitators of nonformal learning: mapping a moving and intertwined landscape. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09308-2202 33 Vargas VR, Lawthom R, Prowse A et al (2019) Sustainable development stakeholder networks for organisational change in higher education institutions: a case study from the UK. J Clean Prod 208:470–478. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.10.078 Warburton K (2003) Deep learning and education for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 4:44–56. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676370310455332 WCED (1987) In: Brundtland GH (eds) Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Zhang HJ, Matsuto T (2010) Mass and element balance in food waste composting facilities. Waste Manag. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.029 Zhang H, Liu J, Wen ZG, Chen YX (2017) College students’ municipal solid waste source separation behavior and its influential factors: a case study in Beijing, China. J Clean Prod 164:444–454. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.224

C

250

Community Outreach on Sustainability Issa Ibrahim Berchin1, Stephane Louise Boca Santa2 and José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra1 1 Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil 2 Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Tubarão, Santa Catarina, Brazil

Synonyms University outreach

Definition Community outreach on sustainability can be defined as the HEI’s initiatives to engage with the communities in its surroundings in a mutually beneficial process of sustainable development. Therefore, community outreach on sustainability promotes an inclusive process of planning and development, also assisting members of the community to achieve their personal goals. These initiatives contribute to increase the legitimacy of the HEI in the community while improving quality of life.

Introduction Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a vital role in helping societies to achieve sustainable development through education and innovation (Ramos et al. 2015; Hoover and Harder 2015; Anand et al. 2015). HEIs should aim to promote sustainable development and embrace sustainability concepts in their practices. HEIs are frequently large, employ many people, and educate many more. Campuses often have many buildings and can resemble a small city, using natural resources and generating waste. Since HEIs influence both internal and external communities, they should operate as role models for sustainability.

Community Outreach on Sustainability

The implementation of sustainability in HEIs requires a strong institutional commitment to establish an internal agenda for sustainability (Gómez et al. 2015; Berchin et al. 2018). Therefore, once HEIs state their commitment to sustainability and implement practices for sustainable development, through their management practices, by providing sustainability experiences on campus and by engaging in research and community outreach, they promote local awareness and development (Gómez et al. 2015). In 1990, considering the global environmental degradation and the challenges of sustainable development, the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) issued an action plan recognizing that universities have a key role in promoting education, research, policy development, and knowledge dissemination. The ULSF also indicates the importance of promoting interdisciplinary approaches and involving all stakeholders, engaging the community to find solutions to environmental challenges. This engagement between the university and the communities could promote a sustainable future (ULSF 1990). This plan, known as the Talloires Declaration, contains ten actions that must be addressed and implemented by HEIs to become sustainable. They include raising awareness of environmentally sustainable development, creating an institutional culture of sustainability, promoting environmentally responsible citizenship, seeking environmental literacy for all, practicing institutional ecology, engaging all stakeholders, collaborating for interdisciplinary approaches, increasing the capacity of primary and secondary schools, enhancing the institutional services and outreach nationally and internationally, and maintaining the movement toward a sustainable future (ULSF 1990). Worldwide literature on sustainability in HEIs is increasing rapidly. Subjects include management, environmental impact assessment, green campus and buildings, environmental conservation, water and energy efficiency, waste management, education and teaching, research, collaboration and networks, community outreach, and local development, among others (Berchin et al. 2018). HEIs implement environmental education aiming at educating future leaders and ensuring that economic and social development meets

Community Outreach on Sustainability

sustainability standards (Xiong et al. 2013). During the organization of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20), the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) was created in partnership with several United Nations (UN) agencies. HESI works with approximately 300 universities around the world and is based on four main pillars. These are to teach sustainable development across all disciplines, to stimulate the research and dissemination of knowledge on sustainable development, to develop green campuses and to support local sustainability initiatives, and to engage and share information with international networks (United Nations 2016). Community outreach on sustainability, promoted by universities, contributes for the development of local communities surrounding the university and for the development of students’ capacities. Stimulating students and professors to practice the knowledge learned in class, having real-life experiences while developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills, also contributes to the welfare of local communities. Thus, community outreach programs on sustainability also promote the engagement of stakeholders and bring innovation to the local community, improving their quality of life and enhancing their resilience facing the challenges of sustainable development (Barth et al. 2014; Berchin et al. 2017, 2018; Guerra et al. 2016). Community outreach on sustainability can be defined as the HEI’s initiatives to engage with the communities in its surroundings in a mutually beneficial process of sustainable development. Therefore, community outreach on sustainability promotes an inclusive process of planning and development, also assisting members of the community to achieve their personal goals. These initiatives contribute to increase the legitimacy of the HEI in the community while improving quality of life.

Conceptualizing Community Outreach on Sustainability In order to embed sustainability in higher education, HEIs should rethink their goals and reorient their teaching, research, campus, and community

251

outreach programs (Wals 2014; Lambrechts et al. 2013). A sustainable university can be defined as a HEI that addresses, involves, and promotes sustainability in all their practices and processes while reducing the institution’s environmental footprint (Velazquez et al. 2006). Therefore, they can achieve their mission and goals of promoting quality education through teaching, research and outreach, and supporting and stimulating the societal transition toward sustainable development (Velazquez et al. 2006). The practices of community outreach, the commitment to sustainability in management and planning, waste and energy management, and land use planning, are all considered relevant themes to HEIs’ sustainability (Nejati and Nejati 2013). According to Nejati and Nejati (2013), in order to be sustainable, universities must follow some practices such as conducting regular sustainability audits on campus and support the surrounding communities by encouraging students to participate in volunteer activities in the surrounding community. Other features of sustainability at universities include engagement in community outreach programs that benefit the local environment and social well-being and the creation of green community centers that benefits the local environment. Taking into account the need to preserve natural resources and to manage the environment, both public and private sectors have been striving to implement sustainability into their institutions, and universities are following the same path. Universities, apart from being engaged in research, teaching, and community outreach, also influence opinions, develop critical thinking and awareness, and shape behavior. Therefore, universities must lead the way toward sustainability by being a role model for the local society. Outreach programs influence and contribute to the development of the local communities surrounding HEIs; therefore, considering that there are no clear boundaries between the institution and its surroundings, community outreach programs are necessary to promote sustainable development (Barth et al. 2014). In this regard, community outreach intends to involve students with the communities in the HEIs’ surroundings, stimulating volunteerism, improving learning

C

252

through participative processes, disseminating awareness of local sustainability challenges, and promoting social transformations toward sustainable development (Bedawy 2014; Boyer 1996). Community outreach programs on sustainability have a great potential to influence local sustainable development and to raise awareness in local communities (Stephens et al. 2008). International declarations on education and sustainable development and international literature have called for universities to support and implement community outreach on sustainability (Lozano et al. 2013b; Guerra et al. 2016; Berchin et al. 2018). Thus, outreach programs help students to develop their skills in solving daily challenges while assisting local communities (Bacon et al. 2011). Outreach programs focused on sustainable development help to disseminate awareness by providing environmental education services to local communities (Milutinović and Nikolić 2014). In this regard, HEIs have the potential to engage and influence thousands of people on their campuses and thousands more in their surrounding communities (Waheed et al. 2011). Through community outreach, HEIs offer the means for students to combine theory with practice, to seek new ideas and approaches to meet the challenges of sustainability, all the while promoting local development (Lozano et al. 2013a). Additionally, by “greening” their campuses and opening themselves up to the local community, universities turn themselves into living laboratories for sustainable development (Trencher et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2015; Leminen et al. 2012). An example of how universities can reach the community is what happens in medical schools in the United States. In the United States, doctors and students are sent abroad to contribute to global health and to serve vulnerable populations, but there is a need for this process to be sustainable as well. However, sustainable healthcare requires local and national partnerships. Accordingly, the Honduran Health Alliance (HHA) aims to promote health through education so that the process has a sustainable continuity, in which medical students assist in overseeing the process (Warmack and Carlough 2016).

Community Outreach on Sustainability

Thus, another way to promote sustainability in local communities is by offering courses of short duration and lectures provided by the university, enabling broad community access and inclusiveness. These courses and lectures should be taught by students supervised by professors, so while promoting local awareness and sustainability, it also stimulates oratory skills and teaching techniques (van Weenen 2000). According to Zhao and Zou (2015), a sustainable university must be connected to the local community in its surroundings and not limited to the internal community of the university. The collaboration and partnership with local communities is important for the university, avoiding possible conflicts and ensuring a positive relation that contributes to sustainable development. A satisfied local community can assist the university in promoting sustainability by engaging in the university’s goals and even contributing to the transition to a sustainable university (Zhao and Zou 2015). Community outreach programs focused on sustainable development encourage students to practice the knowledge acquired in classes, stimulating them to think and act creatively for the environment and society, creating experiences and knowledge that will serve them throughout their lives. Thus, university outreach has the potential to promote innovations for sustainable development by transferring knowledge, technologies, and techniques to the local communities and increase the community’s knowledge and awareness about the interventions implemented by the university and the local challenges of sustainability. In this regard, universities assume the role of promoting innovation for sustainable development in their surrounding communities. Finally, Guerra et al. (2016) argue that community outreach on sustainability helps to (1) create engagement between the university and the surrounding local community by directing efforts to address local environmental issues which benefits the local community; (2) develop and promote environmental/sustainability awareness; (3) promote innovations for sustainable development; (4) establish relations, communication, collaboration, and networks with local stakeholders, such as primary and secondary schools, while also helping to build

Community Outreach on Sustainability

lifelong learning processes for sustainability; and (5) enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills by engaging students, professors, and the community in real-life experiences to overcome sustainability challenges (Berchin et al. 2018). HEIs are innovators at the service of society, and they promote the development of critical skills useful in the goal of addressing local sustainability challenges. They educate students to think critically, holistically, and creatively. HEIs have a large and concentrated number of skilled professionals such as professors and researcher who can and do instruct and transform the local society toward sustainable development. Accordingly, HEIs influence and are influenced by the external community. Therefore, they can both open themselves up to the local communities by operating as living laboratories and inviting the community to interact with and benefit from the campuses’ operations. They also extend themselves beyond the campus walls and boundaries, operating in the local communities to promote local development. As a result of this process of community outreach on sustainability, the local population can be supported in their efforts to promote sustainable development.

Cross-References ▶ Higher Education and Sustainability Initiatives ▶ Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education ▶ Sustainability Domains in Higher Education ▶ Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Sustainable Higher Education Systems

References Anand CK, Bisaillon V, Vebster A, Amor B (2015) Integration of sustainable development in higher education – a regional initiative in Quebec (Canada). J Clean Prod 108:916–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.06.134 Bacon CM, Mulvaney D, Ball TB, DuPuis EM, Gliessman SR, Lipschutz RD, Shakouri A (2011) The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and student praxis projects. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2):193–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111118237

253 Barth M, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Richter S, Rieckmann M (2014) Learning to change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable consumption in higher education. J Clean Prod 62:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.006 Bedawy RE (2014) Embedding sustainable development into higher education: a case study from Egypt. Int Rev Manag Bus Res 3(1):465–484 Berchin II, Grando VS, Marcon GA, Corseuil L, Guerra JBSOA (2017) Strategies to promote sustainability in higher education institutions: a case study of a federal institute of higher education in Brazil. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(7):1018–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-06-2016-0102 Berchin II, Sima M, de Lima MA, Biesel S, dos Santos LP, Ferreira RV, Guerra JBSOA, Ceci F (2018) The importance of international conferences on sustainable development as higher education institutions' strategies to promote sustainability: a case study in Brazil. J Clean Prod 171:756–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2017.10.042 Boyer EL (1996) The scholarship of engagement. J Publ Serv Outreach 1:11–20 Evans J, Jones R, Karvonen K, Millard L, Wendler J (2015) Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015. 06.005 Gómez FU, Sáez-Navarrete C, Lioi SR, Marzuca VI (2015) Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 107:475–485. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047 Guerra JBSOA, Garcia J, Lima MA, Barbosa SB, Heerdt ML, Berchin II (2016, In Press). A proposal of a balanced scorecard for an environmental education program at universities. J Clean Prod 1–39. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179 Hoover E, Harder MK (2015) What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 106:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2014.01.081 Lambrechts W, Mulà I, Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Gaeremynck V (2013) The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: an analysis of bachelor programs in management. J Clean Prod 48:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.12.034 Leminen S, Westerlund M, Nyström AG (2012) Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technol Innov Manag Rev 2(9):6–11 Lozano R, Lozano FJ, Mulder K, Huisingh D, Waas T (2013a) Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. J Clean Prod 48:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.03.034 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013b) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing

C

254 the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006 Milutinović S, Nikolić V (2014) Rethinking higher education for sustainable development in Serbia: an assessment of Copernicus charter principles in current higher education practices. J Clean Prod 62:107–113. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.028 Nejati M, Nejati M (2013) Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of university students. J Clean Prod 48:101–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.006 Ramos TB, Caeiro S, Hoof B, Lozano R, Huisingh D, Ceulemans K (2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. J Clean Prod 106:3–10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.110 Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Román M, Graham AC, Scholz RW (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):317–338. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916 Trencher G, Yarime M, McCormick KB, Doll CNH, Kraines SB (2015) Beyond the third mission: exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci Public Policy 41:151–179. https:// doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044 ULSF (1990) The Talloires declaration. Available at http:// ulsf.org/talloires-declaration/. Accessed on 19 Dec 2017 United Nations (2016) Higher education sustainability initiative. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/sdinaction/hesi. Accessed on 19 Dec 2017 van Weenen H (2000) Towards a vision of a sustainable university. Int J Sustain High Educ 1(1):20–34. https:// doi.org/10.1108/1467630010307075 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, Taddei J (2006) Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J Clean Prod 14(9–11):810–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005. 12.008 Waheed B, Khan F, Veitch B, Hawboldt K (2011) Uncertainty-based quantitative assessment of sustainability for higher education institutions. J Clean Prod 19:720–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.013 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007 Warmack T, Carlough M (2016) Important aspects for sustainability through community partnership. Ann Glob Health 82(3):506–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aogh.2016.04.378 Xiong H, Fu D, Duan C, Liu C’E, Yang X, Wang R (2013) Current status of green curriculum in higher education of mainland China. J Clean Prod 61:100–105. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.033 Zhao W, Zou Y (2015) Green university initiatives in China: a case of Tsinghua University. Int J Sustain High Educ https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-02-201416(4):491–506. 0021

Compassionate Thinking

Compassionate Thinking ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

Complex ▶ Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development John Motloch Education, Sustainability and Transformation, Sterling, VA, USA

Three entries in this encyclopedia serve as a trilogy that interconnects co-design, sustainable development, complex systems, and a wholesystems approach to sustainability. This current entry addresses complex systems (using a complex adaptive systems approach) and the relationship of complex systems and sustainable development. A second entry of the trilogy – Co-Design Methods and Sustainable Development – focuses on the ongoing transformations in co-design methods and sustainable development. The third entry – Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability – seeks to help build a fullspectrum, analogical, and whole-systems understanding of sustainability.

Definition of Complex Systems In their most basic sense, systems are networks of entities that interact to produce properties and behaviors beyond those of the individual entities. Complex systems are systems with many components that interact deeply with each other. Complex adaptive systems are a special class of complex systems that emerge as their entities coadapt with each other and with the overall

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

system of which they are a part. Through coadapted behaviors, the diverse entities within the complex adaptive system help the system and its coadapted entities enhance their sustainability and increase their ability to renew, complexify, and build the transformative resilience needed for the coadapted system, humanity and nonhuman parts of the complex adapted system to survive and thrive.

Definition of Sustainable Development Sustainable development is most often defined as development that is environmentally responsible, socially just, and economically viable today and into the future. Yet people do not always agree as to what is being sustained and the best metrics for assessing sustainability. And the definition itself is in flux due to increasing concerns about the profoundly negative and escalating impacts of unsustainable development are driving a new realization that to be sustainable, development must sustain the health and productivity of the complex adaptive system, upon which development as well as the people it serves, depends; and must positively interconnect with the metabolic processes through which complex adaptive systems work as regenerative systems (Fisk 1989; Lyle 1994).

Introduction This section introduces the growing understanding of the relationship of complex systems and sustainable development, with a focus on complex adaptive systems, regenerative systems, and the process through which these systems complexify. It introduces the current and evolving power of the human mind from its immature state of Anthropocene consciousness to its ongoing maturation toward a consciousness where humanity functions as an appreciative system within the complex adaptive system it helps create and upon which it depends.

255

Complexity and Complexification Since Hawking’s 2000 prophesy that the twentyfirst century will be the century of complexity, humanity’s understanding of complexity has been unfolding at an accelerating pace. Christian gave an overview of this understanding in his “history of our world in 18 minutes” TED Talk (2011). About the same time, Swimme and Tucker (2011) referred to an unfolding of complexity including three transformations, with the first two transformations – physical complexification and biological complexification – in their mature stages and continuing to unfold. They described the third transformation, currently in its initial stages, as an immature transformation toward cognitive complexity. Motloch characterized the structure of this cognitive transformation from immaturity to maturity as progressing through three traditions of human engagement in regenerative systems (2016). In the first tradition – living within local limits –people struggled to address their needs within limited local resources. By the second tradition – living unsustainably outside limits – the mind enhanced by technology and science had learned how to mine resources, externalize costs, isolate decision-makers from impacts, and, in the process, simplify complex systems at increasingly alarming rates and scales. Currently, concerns about increasing system simplification and degradation and the growing potential that this creates for system breakdown are fueling an emergence of the third tradition – sustainable growth within complex systems – wherein humanity is learning how to sustainably engage the complex systems it helps create (Jantsch 1975), including how to unlock complexity, reprovision development to collaborate in the regeneration of healthy complex adaptive systems, and implement development in ways that re-empower the complex systems that have been compromised by the unsustainable development of the second tradition into healthy, fully functional, and regenerating ecosystems (Motloch 2016). Anthropocene The Anthropocene, as a proposed epoch, is seen to have started when humanity began to significantly impact planet earth’s complex adaptive systems. This impact grew in recent centuries, and

C

256

accelerated profoundly in the massive growth period of the last half of the twentieth century referred to as the Great Acceleration of knowledge. And the impact has continued to grow during the subsequent Great Recession. Mark Lawrence (2015) sees the present time as a turning point in Anthropocene consciousness and calls for humanity to replace the spiraling impacts of “Anthropocene 1.0” consciousness with a more friendly humane “Anthropocene 2.0” consciousness, where humanity collaborates in renewing and re-empowering complex adaptive systems. Some thought leaders believe that this shift will occur when humanity learns to fully appreciate that the real power of the mind resides in its ability to think analogically. These people have expressed concern that science and digital technology have greatly expanded the ability to think logically, mathematically, and analytically but without an equal expansion of the ability to think analogically. They are raising awareness that to achieve the shift to Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness, humanity will need a major expansion of the mind’s capacity to think analogically (Callaos 2017). Anthropocene 1.0 as Legacy of Unsustainable Development

Whereas in a biologically complex world, genetics and epigenetics functioned to self-regulate systems (Christian 2011; Swimme and Tucker 2011), modern man learned to use symbols, language, and written records that, unlike genetics and epigenetics, gave permanence not only to coadapted innovations but also to those that are not coadapted (Johnson 2001). This loss of selfregulation and humanity’s subsequent failure to implement effective co-regulation processes combined to move complex systems from their previous position of effective self-regulation to a position of growing inability to coadapt in ways that sustain the whole-system regeneration of living systems, resulting in today’s massive and escalating complex adaptive system change beyond the boundaries of system resilience. Unsustainable development empowered at growing scales and intensities by science and technology produced, from 1950 to 2000, what

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

is called the Great Acceleration of human knowledge, productivity, and well-being. This Great Acceleration included rapid and massive growth of the Internet and cyberspace information flow. One unintended consequence of this growth of cyberspace information flow has been empowerment of new boundary-reinforcing discovery processes (Stokols 2018) that can appear to give validity to false information and can promote divergence of the virtual story growing on the Internet from the story that emerges from placebased complex adaptive system feedback. This divergence contributes to what Ramo has called the Age of the Unthinkable (2009), where decisions made for seemingly good reasons are increasingly producing the unthinkable. The inability to adequately predict the result of decisions – accruing from the combination of unsustainable paradigms, failure to effectively co-manage complex systems, and divergence of human and complex system stories – is increasingly producing the unthinkable, which in turn is contributing to the post-2000 collapse referred to as the Great Recession, with its growing failure of humanity to benefit from knowledge advances enabled by the Great Acceleration. And within this Great Recession, the reduced emphasis on analogically balanced thinking and the selfreinforcing nature of the Internet are enabling growing numbers of people to devalue analogical thinking to the point that the diverse cognitive lenses through which analogical thinking produces robust decisions are increasingly being demeaned and/or dismissed as “political correctness.” Profound human impacts to complex adaptive systems are increasingly understood as the legacy of the unsustainable decisions made during the immature Anthropocene phase of consciousness, and are seen to be intensifying and accelerating in the last half of the twentieth century due in part to the massive growth of science and technology during that period. There is also a deep and growing concern about the lack of felt need by decision-makers to integrate decisions with contextual system dynamics; and a realization of the current and profound need to replace the traditional focus on resilience with a commitment to

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

transformative resilience and to implementing the transformative innovations needed as feedstock for transformative resilience (Wahl 2017). There is also a growing appreciation of the need to build and sustain complex adaptive system regeneration, interconnectedness, complexity, and biocapacity (Motloch 2017; ▶ “Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development” entry this encyclopedia). Anthropocene 2.0 and Sustainable Development

Today’s rapid change in the complex adaptive systems upon which humanity relies is motivating people to seek pathways to sustainability and transformative resilience. This search is motivated by an appreciation that sustainability grows from complex inter-system dynamics and interdependences at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Insights gained from the search for pathways to sustainability are building an appreciation that within today’s rapidly changing complex systems, individual elements and networks must coadapt at all scales to build transformative resilience through coadapted realignment of human decisions with complex system conditions and dynamics. There is also a growing awareness that in the current period of profound and accelerating change in complex systems, the need to sustain this alignment itself creates a paradox, as existing elements and networks are often coadapted with previous, rather than emerging, conditions and dynamics. In response, the discourse is beginning to distinguish between resilience that is coadapted and co-aligned with current conditions and dynamics, resilience that is no longer aligned and that can therefore function to constrain needed change, and the urgent and profound need to build a transformative resilience that is coadapted with emerging conditions and dynamics (Wahl 2017). Astrobiologist David Grinspoon refers to the emerging, fundamentally different Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness as the Sapiezoic (or wise) eon (2016). In this wise eon, humanity will be an appreciative and fully integrated participant in complex adaptive systems. To achieve this paradigm shift, Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness must be empowered by a rapid and massive expansion

257

of the ability to think analogically (Callaos 2017); and decisions must provision development in ways that promote the ability to thrive (Armistead 2011). Development must be provisioned with nested human support systems (Motloch 2017) and deep interconnectivity needed to function as panarchies (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Development must also be grounded in complexity-centric co-design processes (Motloch 2017) that produce transformative innovations and that build coadapting networks with high degrees of transformative resilience (Wahl 2017).

Complex Systems This section defines systems, complexity, and complexity science and discusses the robust understanding emerging from the three as interconnected knowledge systems. It looks through diverse lenses and applies analogical thinking to better understand the major challenge presented by the desired shift from Anthropocene 1.0 consciousness to Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness, and the diverse dimensions of this challenge. It explores how sustainable development, design methods, design science, provisioning for development, and implementation of sustainable development are all changing rapidly to realign with the ongoing, profound, and escalating change in complex adaptive systems. Anthropocene 2.0 Consciousness and Complexity Emerging Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness is grounded in a deeper understanding of systems, complexity, and complexity science. This deeper understanding is encouraging an appreciation of the interdependence of humanity and complexity as the foundation for humanity to thrive as an integral part of complex systems and of the power of complexity science to accelerate maturation to Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness. Human Dependence on Complexity

At all scales from local to global, humanity depends on the biologically complex planet earth as the regenerative system that renews the basic

C

258

resources needed for survival, including the clean air that humanity and other living entities breathe, the pure water that life-forms drink, and the productive soils in which living systems grow food and fiber. This entry is grounded in humanity’s interdependence with complex adaptive systems and their characteristics and behaviors, including their innate ability to self-organize and complexify, through immense cycles of innovation and coadaptation as feedback-feedforward loops, in ways that empower these complex adaptive systems to regenerate themselves at higher levels of complexity, productivity, resilience, and sustainability. Complexity Science

The science of complexity has been growing for three quarters of a century as the nexus of system science, cybernetics, and the theories and complexity sciences that have emerged within this new consciousness including dynamic systems theory, complex systems theory, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. Complexity scientist and artist Brian Castellani eloquently diagrammed this growth (2009) which he called the map of the complexity sciences. This map summarizes the 1940–1950s dialogue among systems theory and cybernetics (and artificial intelligence as cybernetics of mind) and the emergence in the late 1960s of dynamic systems and in the early 1970s of complexity science. The map shows continued development of this nexus of complexity sciences through the last third of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first century as six interconnected streams of science and theory development including systems theory, dynamic systems theory, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, agent-based modeling, and complexity science. Anthropocene 2.0 Complexity Challenge By looking through the diverse lenses developed by these complexity sciences over the past three quarters of a century, humanity has been building a better understanding of the major challenge presented by the desired shift from Anthropocene 1.0 to Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness. Diverse interconnected networks have been growing,

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

building the knowledge system, and beginning to implement the knowledge system to address the Anthropocene 2.0 complexity challenge and its diverse dimensions. Challenge to Unlock Complexity

Looking through the big history lens of complexity emerging through immense cycles of innovation and coadaptation focuses attention on the current hydrocarbon lockup of complexity, and the power of complexity science to empower humanity to become an appreciative system. Looking through this big history lens, Motloch called for unlocking complexity as the urgently needed big science project and research agenda for the twenty-first century and spoke to the role of this big science project in building the knowledge system needed to appreciatively engage complex adaptive systems (2016). Networks Addressing Dimensions of the Challenge

Castellani’s map of the complexity sciences (2009) shows the streams of consciousness that have been growing to help build the diverse dimensions of knowledge needed to address the Anthropocene 2.0 complexity challenge. The diverse knowledge networks growing from these seeds include governance networks like the Widening Circle action campaign and Global Citizens’ Movement for a Great Transition (2017) that are producing principles for governance (Forum 2016; Principles 2016). The growing knowledge system also includes social complexity networks and projects like the Network Nation collaborative project that addresses concerns about social fragmentation, partisanship, and chronic governance gridlock; the Next System Project (Democrative Collaborative 2016) as part of Widening Circle 2.0 (2016) and as collaborative backbone on the Network Nation website (2016); and other social complexity networks and projects. Building the Complexity Knowledge System

These and other diverse entities, movements, and projects are helping build the knowledge system needed to address the Anthropocene 2.0

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

complexity challenge by promoting deeper network conversation among the analogically rich mosaic of organizations, each informed by its unique yet interconnected perspective. As examples, the social ecology movement takes a systems perspective to understand and learn forward how to address current complex environmental, social, and economic challenges with a triple thrust of descriptive social ecology, analytic social ecology, and transformative social ecology (Stokols 2018); and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center facilitates the identification of solutions to complex environmental problems by bringing together the science of the natural world and the science of human behavior and decisionmaking (SESYNC 2017). Promoting Emergence of Complexity-Centric Co-design

As stated in the ▶ “Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development” entry of this Encyclopedia, fifth-generation complexity-centric co-design methods are beginning to emerge. These methods are seeking to transform design and to develop complexity-centric co-design methods characterized by deep collaboration among the full range of human and nonhuman intelligences, from ecological to digital. Within this context, recently proposed complexity-centric co-design processes offer new potential for the sciences of complexity, informatics, and cybernetics (Motloch 2017). These initiatives are helping build capacity for humanity to shift from opaque decisions and hierarchical messaging to transparent decisions emerging from network conversation (Armistead 2011). Many of these initiatives also promote transformation of consciousness through the synergy of art and science including integrating the creative processes of innovation with a complexity science understanding of whole-system solutions (SCI 2015). Together these interrelated streams are beginning to address the challenge presented by the desired shift from Anthropocene 1.0 to Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness. They are asking the key questions that are catalyzing the network conversations needed for the emergence of transformative innovation (Wahl 2017). They are also

259

creating new opportunities to bring together transformative innovation and complexity science – including the science of the natural world, the science of human behavior and decision-making, and the science of emergence – to re-empower complexification and to transform co-design from its anthropocentric focus into complexitycentric co-design (Motloch 2017). Sustainable Development in Transition These interrelated streams are growing a deeper understanding of sustainable development and building a sustainable development knowledge system including knowledge generation, knowledge application, knowledge management, and knowledge diffusion. They are helping transform design methods and giving new meaning to the term design science. They are causing humanity to fundamentally rethink the way it has unsustainably provisioned and developed the world as a human-dominated system and to learn how to sustainably reprovision and develop in ways that collaborate with complex adaptive systems to help build transformative resilience with the robustness needed to coadapt with the ongoing massive change in complex adaptive systems. Evolving Understanding of Sustainable Development

The preceding half-century has been characterized by a growing understanding of sustainability. Stokols reviewed major contributions beginning with The Silent Spring and The Limits of Growth Series; and key conferences and reports including the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the UN Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, often referred to as the Brundtland Report. He focused on two key conferences: the UN Conference on Environment and Development, commonly called the Earth Summit, that produced the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and strategies for achieving these goals and the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also called the Rio+20 Conference, and its report entitled Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals SDG (2018).

C

260

Shift from Self-Management to Co-management

In a fully functional biologically complex world, genetics and epigenetics served as a selfregulating system that self-managed the coadaptation of massive numbers of entities and behaviors (Christian 2011; Swimme and Tucker 2011). But modern man gave permanence not only to coadapted innovations but also to ill-adapted ones. Over time, expanding technologies empowered decision-makers to externalize costs and make decisions that degraded systems, without the decision-makers having to personally live within the adverse impacts. This enabled decision-makers to become desensitized to the impacts of their decisions, and less motivated to coadapt in ways that reduced impacts. Then evermore powerful technologies and science enabled humanity to mine resources and degrade complex adaptive systems at increasing rates and scales. And the still immature Anthropocene 1.0 consciousness had developed the intelligence to unsustainably operate outside metabolic processes at increasing rates and scales but had not developed the intelligence needed to predict and avoid the negative and often unintended consequences of unsustainable development decisions. Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness is now in its early stages of developing and embracing the analogically robust knowledge system needed to appreciate complexity and to embrace complexity-centric co-design to facilitate emergence to a sustainable future. In this unique time in history, early Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness is developing the potential to address the challenge to integrate analogical and analytical thinking to not only optimize operation in today’s unsustainably provisioned world but also to simultaneously reprovision the world to become sustainable. An excellent example of design methods that are applying the power of both analytical and analogical thinking to design is the work of the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems that is informed by the qualitative richness of metabolic planning and design methods (Fisk 1989), the quantitative rigor of ecobalance planning and design™, and the analogical robustness of visualizing complex adaptive systems and design strategies through the

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

growing number of interconnected “Lenses for a Maximum Potential Future” developed by the Center (CMPBS 2018). Viewing through different combinations of these lenses provides analogical richness to inform sustainable development conversations through the dialogue among qualitative and quantitative lenses that informs design methods with the robustness needed to appreciatively engage regenerative systems. Design Science and Sustainable Development

This ongoing transformation in management methods is interconnected with an evolving understanding of design science. The term design science was coined by Buckminster Fuller (1957) to refer to the systematic approach to design. In the decade that followed, Gregory used the term to refer to the scientific study of design (1966). In the half-century since then, multiple streams of complexity science and theory, including those above, have been building the knowledge needed to evolve design science into a transformational science for sustainable development. The physical planning and design disciplines and professions have been applying this growing complexity science awareness and knowledge to regional and urban planning, design, and development including work in the areas of regenerative design (Lyle 1994), metabolic-based and ecobalance-based design (CMPBS 2018) and complexity-centric co-design (Motloch 2017). Others have been building the ability to visualize complex systems using qualitative tools like Kumu modeling and to use the models they have generated to help others qualitatively understand complex systems (Kumu 2018). Still others have focused on using systems dynamics modeling tools (Dacko 2010) and other software to quantitatively model and communicate the dynamic behavior of complex adaptive systems in ways that can inform and quantify the performance of more appreciative sustainable development management decisions. Reprovisioning for Sustainable Development

The fundamental challenge of transitioning to a sustainable future is to transform the intention of human engagement from provisioning and

Complex Systems and Sustainable Development

implementing development that maximizes satisfaction of human needs to provisioning and implementing development that optimizes satisfaction of the needs of all living systems, human and nonhuman. The knowledge needed to meet this challenge is being aggregated and diffused through diverse global initiatives. One of the most significant is the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) initiative that, since 1992, has built one of the largest e-book repositories on the web. This e-book functions as a knowledge base of the state of the art of educational, professional, informative, and integrated knowledge about the health, maintenance, and regeneration of living systems on planet Earth. The EOLSS is playing a major role in building the knowledge system needed to reprovision planet earth as a life-support system (UNESCO-EOLSS 2018). These various initiatives are building a deeper understanding of the dynamic nature of complex adaptive systems. They are building understanding that natural and regenerative systems, as dynamic systems, are in an extended period of fundamental change and that to be sustainable, development must change as quickly as the complex adaptive system of which it is a part changes. These initiatives are also building the knowledge needed to reprovision development as a nested human support system (Motloch 2016) and panarchy (Gunderson and Holling 2002) fueled by transformative innovation to build transformative resilience (Wahl 2017). They are building the knowledge system needed to implement these nested support networks at all three system levels including the object level of complexity-centric co-design of buildings, sites, and built sites as appreciative systems; the systems level of co-management of development as sustainable systems; and the meta-level facilitation of transformative resilience and the ability to change as rapidly and intensely as the complex adaptive system is changing (see ▶ “Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development”, this Encyclopedia). These diverse initiatives are collectively building the diverse dimensions of the sustainable development knowledge system, empowering an ethical and just society that provides people with the ability to live in a safe and

261

just space (Raworth 2012), and provisioning development for the socio-ecological complexity needed to apply ecological concepts and life cycle dynamics using complexity-centric models (Motloch 2017) that build the potential for deep collaboration with the whole-system in ways that interconnect development with the deeply interconnected physicality and behavior of complex adaptive systems.

Cross-References ▶ Complex Systems and Sustainable Development ▶ Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development ▶ Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability

References Armistead D (2011) Symposium on community social and economic change in the new economy. Ball State University, Muncie Callaos N (2017) Analogical thinking, inter-disciplinary communication, and case studies (participative talk), general joint sessions and workshops of IMCIC 2017 and its collocated events, Orlando, 21–24 Mar 2017 Castellani B (2009) Complexity map. http://www.artsciencefactory.com/complexity-map_feb09.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2017 Christian D (2011) The history of our world in 18 minutes, video-recorded at TED. www.ted.com/talks/david_ christian_big_history. Accessed 19 Nov 2017 CMPBS (2018) Lenses for a maximum potential future, center for maximum potential building systems. www. cmpbs.org/projects/lenses-maximum-potential-future. Accessed 14 Jan 2018 Dacko M (2010) Systems dynamics in modeling sustainable management of the environment and its resources. Pol J Environ Stud 19(4):699–706 Democracy Collaborative (2016) democracycollaborative. org/. Accessed 2016 Fisk P (1989) Metabolic planning and design (how healthy building could be the forerunner of healthy businesses, healthy cities, and a healthy environment) https://www. cmpbs.org. Accessed 2018 Forum for a New World Governance (2016) www.worldgovernance.org/article152. Accessed 2016 Fuller B (1957) A comprehensive anticipatory design science, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Global Citizens Movement (2017) www.kosmosjournal. org/programs/global-citizens-movement/. Accessed 2016 Gregory SA (1966) The design method. Butterworths

C

262

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

Grinspoon D (2016) Earth in human hands, copyright by David Grinspoon. Grand Central Publishing, Hachette Book Group, New York Gunderson L, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC Hawking S (2000) “Unified theory” is getting closer, Hawking Predicts, Interview in San Jose Mercury News (23 jan 2000) Jantsch E (1975) Design for evolution: self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. George Braziller, New York Johnson S (2001) Emergence: the interconnected lives of ants, brains, cities and software. Scribner, New York Kumu (2018) Data visualization platform for organizing complex information into interactive relationship maps. Kumu.io website, https://www.kumu.io/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Lawrence M (2015) Harmony with nature and harmony among humans in the Anthropocene. UN General Assembly Dialogue on Harmony with Nature Lyle JT (1994) Regenerative design for sustainable development. Wiley, New York Motloch J (2016) Unlocking complexity: big science project and research agenda. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics 11(4):563–572 Motloch J (2017) Complex system co-design: pathway to becoming an appreciative system. In: Proceedings of the 8th international multi-conference on complexity, informatics and cybernetics Network Nation (2016) www.networknation.net. Accessed 2016 Principles of Governance (2016) A guide to developing proposals for world governance. www.world-governan ce.org/article152. Accessed 2016 Ramo JC (2009) The age of the unthinkable: why the new world disorder constantly surprises us and what we can do about it. Little, Brown and Company Publication, New York Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam International Discussion Paper SCI (Sustainable Communities Institute LLC) (2015) Baltimore urban farmstead initiative, honor award. In: 52nd international making cities livable design competition for excellence in designing for green, healthy cities. http://www.livablecities.org/node/693. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 SESYNC (2017) National socio-environmental synthesis center. https://sesync.org. Accessed 28 Dec 2017 Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the digital age: solving complex problems in a globalized world. Academic: An imprint of Elsevier, London Swimme BT, Tucker ME (2011) Journey of the Universe. Yale University Press, New Haven UNESCO-EOLSS (2018) http://www.eolss.net/eolss_ journrep.aspx. Accessed 14 Jan 2018 Wahl DC (2017) What exactly are resilience and transformative resilience? https://medium.com/age-of-awarene

ss/what-exactly-are-resilience-and-transformative-resil ience-a0783595023f5/5. Accessed 10 July 2017 Widening Circle 2.0 (2016) www.wideningcircle.org/Pro gramPhase1/Index.html. Accessed 2016

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development Aaron W. Kadoch and Joy Kcenia O’Neil School of Education, College of Professional Studies, The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA

Definition The definition of Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development is built on the confluence of ways of knowing, being and acting in the world an approach to solve fragmentation of problems. An evolutionary emergence of solutions for solving complex sustainability problems is build from matter, form and processes towards creating interconnections forming a whole living systems pattern.

Introduction The world which brings consciousness into existence becomes the world of that consciousness. -Jean Paul Sartre (Friere 1970, p. 251) What bonus or increment of knowing follows from combining information from two or more sources? (Bateson 1979, p. 67)

In order to present definitions or frameworks for understanding literature on epistemological (systems of knowing), ontological (ways of being), and onto-epistemological (quantum entangled) relationships between living systems and sustainable development, complexity theories provide such methodologies as windows into seeing nonlinear networks of interaction between the various parts of living systems, which exist in both physical and cognitive dimensions (Barad

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

2003). The application of the term complexity, as a vehicle for cognition, is relational, nonlinear, transdisciplinary, and diverse. The term’s meaning, as applied to ecological living systems and sustainable human development, requires grounding in both the physical material properties of complexity and the human cognitive ability to conceptualize it (Doll et al. 2005, pp. 153–163; Lorenz 1995; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). Complexity theory is modulated by the universe as both spatial context and as part of emergent, creative enfolding of new possibilities, as perceived by humans (Davis and Sumara 2008). Furthermore, such complexity sciences are linked to understanding complex adaptive biochemical networks or systems in the social sciences (Mathews et al. 1999, pp. 440; Stacey 1995, pp. 477–495; Capra 2002; Maturana et al. 2016). Many label these hybrid forms of inquiry “new science” (Doll et al. 2005; Davis and Sumara 2008). This further increases the complexity or challenge of finding common linguistic indexing and coding (Chandler 2007; Eco 1986; Von Humboldt 1971). “New science” is the formal attempt to link scientific complexity theory with pedagogical theory and praxis through ideas of adaptive systems theory, interconnectedness, network theory, and inter-relational emergences (Doll et al. 2005). According to Doll et al. (2005), adaptive systems theory, organic growth, and biological models help form understandings of “chaos dynamics” through recurring layers, patterns, and structures, where irregularities are as equally valid as regularities. Randomness provides new levels of meaning for the emergence of “dissipative structures,” which are in fluid and quantum states (Doll et al. 2005, p. 3). This approach reaffirms complexity as it presents challenges and opportunities to finding meaning in ecological literacy, sustainability, learning, and other ends of human development. The living systems view of learning surveys these complexities as foundational processes of evolution, culture, and information. Gregory Bateson describes “the essence of learning . . ..is exploration and change” (Bateson 1979, p. 48). Furthermore, he links learning to an arc or

263

“bridge” of energy to matter, whereby the laws of thermodynamics dictate that “no new order can be created without information” (Bateson 1979, p. 46). Thermodynamics, the “Second Law” of which shows that entropy (disorder and chaos) of an isolated system always increases when two systems interact, where the entropy or chaos in the combined system is greater than the sum of the individual systems (Hawking 1998, p. 106). Yet, no new energy is created, and this relative stability is a consistent property of the universe. This is a foundational principle of complexity theory, since all organisms and the socially constructed institutions that emerge undergo a constant increase in entropy as they evolve and interact all the while exhibiting a stable homeostasis, or inner balance (Capra 2002). Fritjof Capra, in his book, The Hidden Connections, traces the extension of cultural constructs from biological cellular processes, based on metabolic interactions with the environment known as autopoiesis and connected to neural networks through genetic and sensory codes of communication. This is consistent with the work of Harold Morowitz, who writes it is necessary to understand “. . ...the complex network of organic reactions containing intermediates that are catalytic for other reactions . . ...” (Morowitz 1992). Capra follows with, “In this majestic unfolding of life, all living organisms continually respond to environmental influences with structural changes . . ...as their structures increased in complexity, so did their cognitive processes, eventually bringing forth conscious awareness, language, and conceptual thought” (Capra 2002, pp. 66–67). Furthermore, from Maturana and Varela, “the reordering of distinguished entities can, in principle, endlessly give rise to new simple and composite entities and, hence, to new, nonintersecting, phenomenal domains” (Maturana and Varela 1980, p. 22). This entry maintains the following structure: section “The Physics of Complexity,” provides grounding of complexity theory in the physical dimension as explained by historical scientific discoveries of properties of matter found within the universe, all the while, relational to the ways that humans have cognitively attempted to make sense of this dimension. Section “Complexity of Cognition,” discusses learning theory evolution

C

264

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

relationally with physical, biological, and socially constructed sciences. Section “Complexity and Sustainable Development,” traces nonlinear dynamics of living systems together with an understanding of current human ecological practices. In “Conclusion: Complexity and its Meaning for Higher Education,” core ideas from the Philosophy of Science emerge as indexes on the nature of higher education and its function within the complex landscape of living systems and sustainable development.

and technological inability to do so. Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle essentially states that there are technical limits to human’s ability to simultaneously measure co-dependent data, such as position and velocity, and when an attempt to measure a phenomenon is made, there is a disturbance to the conditions within which it exists. Hawking and Mlodinow describe the situation as “. . .given the initial state of a system, nature determines its future state through a process that is fundamentally uncertain” (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010).

The Physics of Complexity

The Space-Time Cognitive Dimension The physically perceived reality is best explained by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which posits a cognitive gap between a four-dimensional space-time and human’s normal perception of three-dimensional space, separated from time (Hawking 1998, pp. 30–33). Furthermore, time, as defined by light energy, changes frequency relative to positionality and proximity to bodies of high mass and is not a constant factor within any system. In order to understand complexity, one has to see time is a relative property, and not as a fixed, absolute, or linear one (Hawking 1998, p. 147). Time is a human construct or ontology that describes movement (velocity) relative to space (distance). For example, light from a distant star is actually very old and has been travelling at the speed of light for millions of years. Thus, time is a product of space, and it is also described as a dimension with an extent and a speed (Bee 1974, p. 15). Change is linked to time as the basis for all living system’s evolutionary processes and states of “being” (Aristotle 1943). Indeed, Darwin himself discusses the way breeders can achieve species modification within a couple generations, while biological time, measured in thousands, or geological time, measured in millions of years, is dependent on other complex and unpredictable factors such as foreign species migrations and environmental changes (Darwin 1958, p. 292). This innate relativity to the construct of time is foundational to complexity theory, since each individual can construct a different sense of what changes occur and for what reason within a given

Albert Einstein developed theories of the universe by setting up physical constructs known as coordinates to quantify observable phenomenon, including direction, distance, and time, and these observable, quantifiable, yet varying states of physical reality presented themselves in increasing states of complexity (Einstein 2004). Einstein realized that the phenomenon of the world could not be explained using traditional mechanics of bodies in space, such as through gravity; however, atomic energy, mass, and the electrodynamics of atomic and subatomic particles provided more accurate pictures of the universe (Einstein 2004; Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, p. 103). Hence, complexity is foundational to the behavior of physical matter as a normal state of the universe through its observable laws and properties as well as how humans construct frameworks for observation. Quantum mechanics challenges deterministic views of science and makes a unified theory tying all physical forces together illusive (Hawking 1998, p. 183). Quantum particle theory, postulated in part by Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, and Paul Dirac, explains that particles have no distinct positions in space. Therefore, there are no definite results to any single observation, only that there are certain probabilities assigned to varying results and there are always multiple possible outcomes (Hawking 1998, p. 58). This is the basis for linguistic and cognitive complexity as the perception of “complexity” emerges from the desire to understand all processes and the physical

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

period. Time runs parallel to the complexities with which a system changes and runs slower the faster one travels (Hawking 1998). In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the Doppler Effect, added yet another dimensional complexity to the properties of space-time. He calculated the wavelengths and speeds of distant light sources, using color spectra, showing that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving, and hence, the universe appears to be expanding (Hawking 1998, pp. 40–41). As such, the cognitive properties of “emergence,” [and becoming] can be described as the recognition that physical “phenomenon is inherently stable. . .but that such stability is illusory” and that complex states of matter describing a perceived universe exist on a continuum between a relatively fixed position at one end of the spectrum and a hyper dynamic one at the other (Davis and Sumara 2008; Light 2008).

Complexity of Cognition To appreciate “complexity,” we must begin to see its manifestations as a human quest for knowledge through organization, modeling, representational theory, and technological human experience. We must be able to see complexity as layers of data, objects, life, and existence woven, stacked, dissolved, and reconstituted in unpredictable ways through representational imagery and language (Gombrich 1963). Gregory Bateson (1979) links complexity theory in learning with forms of expansion and entropy, as valid explanations of the complex universe through notions of cognition. He describes the translation with additional dimensionality and human relevance, by combining “six criteria of the mind”: partitions, time, energy, cause and effect, coded messaging, and “logical type [ology]” (Bateson 1979, p. 212). Similarly, Bohm’s Levels of Knowing progresses from a metaphysical and cosmological domain as the primary source of systemic learning to human paradigms, beliefs, norms, ideas, and actions (Sterling 2011, p. 21; Bohm 1992). Aristotle provided four such “causes” as to “why” an object “exists”: the material cause (compounded matter), the formal cause (the structure or pattern),

265

the agency cause (maker), and the final cause (purpose or end) (Aristotle 1943, p. 16). The caveat to complexity in Aristotle’s processes of observation is that each of these components of explanation for “being” is derived from or caused by something else and Aristotle was aware of the limited extent to which one could trace a chain of derivatives (Aristotle 1943, p. 16). Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle has thus a philosophical equivalent; complexity reveals unlimited opportunities for both new knowledge and new forms of expression while remaining physically and cognitively bound. The field of environmental behavior and the study of the relationship between human reactions to and meaning derived from the environment expose a basic perceptual structure of complexity. It appears that such relationships are both sensorial and associational (Rapaport 1990, p. 19; Colquhoun 1967). Furthermore, in trying to understand such patterns through anthropological and sociocultural transformations, deeper complexities are revealed (Ruskin 1913). These include rates of change, persistence, varying states of equilibrium with environments, diverse methodologies of observation, issues of time or historical continuity, “emic” or “etic” perspective, and degrees of magnitude or scale. As a result, problems of boundaries of study, or levels of abstraction manifest, and the formation of meaning or relativity become the essence of complexity (Bee 1974, pp. 7–26, 217). Specifically in the pursuit of research, “rigor [accuracy] is diminished as the level of abstraction becomes higher, and as the time depth becomes greater, for there are analytical and temporal points [in data]. . ...that are either irrelevant or impossible to obtain” (Bee 1974, p. 217). The environment becomes the contextual framework for the cognitive perception of complexity through human representation, organization, and manifestation in material form, i.e., our use of matter (Barad 2003; Venturi 2002). Complexity in Learning Theory Complexity theory in education is linked to concepts of constructivism and phenomenological perspectives of information gathering (Light 2008). Constructivist learning theory is explained

C

266

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

by phenomenological complexity, where learning takes place implicitly, with approximately 80% being subconsciously transmitted through everyday experiences of the situationally grounded environment as well as through the senses and other physical phenomenon (Davis et al. 2000; Davis and Sumar 2000). The paradox to complexity is that there is a simplicity in the universal understanding of the unknown, which is different than the perception of a complicated world, in which humans attempt to categorize knowledge into a “multitude of components” (Davis and Sumara 1997, p. 117). Behaviorism, often seen as a dominant framework for human learning, runs counterintuitively to complexity theories rooted in physical phenomenon and living systems (Asimov 1963). It fosters the rational explanation of the world, as being linear or mechanistic, and thus more static and that there is a Cartesian separation between mind and matter (Capra and Luisi 2016). The individual mind is seen as a dominant organ for information processing, separate from the body or past experiences (Light 2008, pp. 22–23; Davis et al. 2000). By contrast, constructivism, both socially and psychologically manifest, is a relational process between personal, cognitive, and exploratory learning (Mcinerney and Mcinerney 1998). The common element between all forms of constructivist theory is the alignment to “Neo-Darwinian,” ongoing, adaptive processes, whereby individuals and groups form complex, multifaceted, “situations of learning” and where creativity shapes “evolving landscape(s) of activity” (Light 2008, p. 27; Davis and Sumara 2003, p. 125; Varela 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991). John Dewey and Paulo Freire see this complex form of learning as a language that is absorbed through engagement and participation (Freire 1970; Light 2008). Aristotle gave the further explanation within an educational context as a valid and practical notion stating; “It is right that philosophy should be called the knowledge of truth, for the object of theoretical knowledge is truth, whereas of practical knowledge, it is action” (Aristotle 1943, p. 11). Since evolutionary adaptation and change are in part a response to environmental factors, understanding the built environment, as an extension of

human development, is more than an anthropological exercise (Mumford 1961). It is based on the perspective that information, language, communication, and learning are imbedded in the environment and are factors in the complex layering of objective or subjective meaning within a spatial-experiential context (Alexander 1977; Hanson 2017). Education or cognition can thus be viewed as an extension of biological processes in terms of functional information transference in contextual, ontological, epistemological, phenomenological, and environmental states (Rees 2010). This array of relational learning increases in complexity, still further, as we see this process unfold at varying cellular, neural, individual, societal, and species-oriented scales (Bateson 1979; Sterling 2011; Barad 2003).

Complexity and Sustainable Development If complexity is fundamentally considered a physical phenomenon of the universe, as well as a cognitive uncertainty, one can therefore see finding sustainable solutions to global problems of environmental and social degradation an imposing challenge (Gruenewald 2004; Unesco 2017). In this context, complexity surfaces as our inability to form clear models of day-to-day ecological systems. Developing a Systems View of Life is required for humans to see “chaos” in nonlinear dynamic networks called “non-linear/ dynamical systems theory” (Capra and Luisi 2016, p. 98). With this understanding of “chaos theory,” our biological systems can be put into context with sustainable cohabitation. Earth Systems Models (ESMs) are an attempt to begin to model and simulate physical, chemical, and biological climatic processes and are considered the most complex within interacting atmospheric, land, oceanic, and ice systems’ databases (Bonan and Doney 2018). Nonlinear dynamics force these models to look not only at physical processes but also to include societally relevant quantities and impacts, such as habitat loss, water availability, wildfire risks, air quality, crop, fishery and timber yields, etc. (Bonan and Doney

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

2018). The model becomes even more complex when correlating causes from human development such as energy production and agriculture. Finding a common language across all sectors is an essential task in enabling such models to help us learn and adapt to changing environmental conditions. What becomes evident by the data within these models is that a common framework of research, across time-space dynamics, is the biggest challenge to finding climatic mitigation strategies, especially within a context of education (Gruenewald 2004). Complexity in Action: A Global Food Security Dilemma The global food network is an example of a complex system entangling human actions and natural processes. China, like all, large, industrialized nations, is a major stakeholder in the global network due to its growing population and currently faces the common dilemma of planning for its own future food security within a sustainable context. Defining sustainability from various stakeholder positions reveals the nature of the challenge. China is increasing its demand for high quality food through increased urbanization, wealth, and overall population growth, coupled with shrinking areas of arable land (Lu et al. 2015). Water shortage, the overapplication of mineral fertilizers, and pesticides are triggering the immediate need to reframe the food system integral within a more complex soilair-water-energy-health nexus. Researchers find that the core challenge is the cognitive domain of collating available information on ecosystem services across multiple traditional disciplinary boundaries and scaling between global, national, and local variables (Lu et al. 2015). China is seeing the ESM model promotes the need to integrate natural science data within a socioeconomic framework and the development of an appropriate “science to policy interface” between scientists, farmers, politicians, and end users within a common data-oriented language (Lu et al. 2015). The larger networks, like those found in China, extend out and across the globe, spurring new formations in unpredictable ways, including alternative community organized food

267

networks, despite neoliberal developmental norms. What emerges is a new form of social capital as a vital living systems mechanism for forming resilient and sustainable interconnections or links. Social Capital as a Biological Response Mechanism Social capital is a concept linked to the notion of the commons or ways that communities of people form relations of trust, reciprocity of exchange, and connectedness through networks and groups (Pretty 2003). Given accurate knowledge about local resources, and a complete picture of social, institutional, and economic conditions, communities can work together to manage natural resources collectively and sustainably through social cohesion based on principles of bonding, bridging, and linking (Pretty 2003; Uphoff 2003; Janicke and Weidner 1997). These formations of positive connection for mutual survival and benefit are extensions of our biological selves and as seen as a complex immune system linking humans to the environment chemically (Hawken 2007). The field of chemistry provides the description, whereby an ion or molecule in one or more groups is linked to another atom by coordinate bonds. This biochemical perspective of chemical bonding in the creation of more complex forms of life consists of epigenetic matter. As these bonded structures grow, their properties change and adapt to environmental cues. At the point that inanimate matter makes the mysterious prebiotic leap into a living cell, these processes become dynamic and, thus, more complex (Cronin and Walker 2016). Capra describes these human genetic structures as being consistent, yet constantly in a state of flux, which operate under nonlinear dynamics within networked systems (Capra 2002, p. 30; Capra and Luisi 2016). Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan describe, in the Microcosmos, “a planetary web of life expanded and complexified into forms of ever increasing diversity” and is a fundamental concept of the complete organism theory of the earth, known as the Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock and Margulis 1974; Capra 2002, p. 30).

C

268

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

Technology and Sustainable Development Trends The complex link between animate and inanimate matter should also be understood as a component of thinking. The anthropic principle, in essence, is the philosophic notion that the universe exists or behaves in a way that is, at once, limited to our own knowledge, and sensory perceptions, but also extends to the limits of such. “Only in a world of increasing complexity could the question [how is it that the universe is so friendly to biology?] be asked” (Kurzweil 2005, p. 359). In a contemporary world, properties of matter are linked to the quantifiable physical property of speed and velocity of pulses of light or bits of data, which begins to contextualize the issues of information-age complexities in a digital environment, which defines much of our cultural content (Lukasik 2011; Bauerlain 2011). Additionally, Moore’s law shows how computing power increases exponentially over time, through human development practices, spurring technologies such as quantum computing. Here we begin to see the link between the physical and cognitive dimensions not only reaffirmed but merging within the complex living system. Ray Kurzweil, the futurist and primary theorist behind the theory of “singularity,” describes the condition thus: “information – based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern recognition powers, problem solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself” (Kurzweil 2006). He believes we are in the early stages of this transition to a “singularity” where there is a complex “merger of our biological thinking and existences with our technologies. . ...” (Kurzweil 2006). This option of an evolutionary path is possible within a quantum framework of the universe and within the way complex living systems interact physically and biochemically and in response to human developments with technology. The current field of synthetic biology and the function of cell therapy through genetic circuitry are examples of how we are learning to modify our own “nature” through genetic editing of DNA, modulating RNA, and engineering biological sensors to read biomarkers and manipulate human functions

(Kitada et al. 2018). This shows how the human biological system is becoming increasingly intertwined with the cognitive function, which senses the environment and through the linking of technological matter, forms new evolutionary paths.

Conclusion: Complexity and Its Meaning for Higher Education Agreement of the use of individual definitions to the terms living systems, sustainable development, and complexity theory or the transdisciplinary relationships between them are nonexistent (Davis and Sumara 2008; Jickling and Sterling 2016; Jickling and Wals 2008). However, it is the very cognitive limitation of making sense of the infinite expansion of the universe, and the mysterious processes of evolutionary change, that forms the essence of complexity theory, which feeds the human desire to consciously make order out of chaos through education and life’s management (Mason 2008; Curlee 2010; Wheatley 1993). Deconstructing and reconstructing information and the learning mechanisms that follow are at the heart of cognitive human intellectual inquiry, our genetic makeup, and indeed all living systems (Bateson 1979; Capra 2002). Furthermore, within higher education, contemporary sustainability or environmental education is built on this premise of infinite possibility, transforming itself from a mechanistic mode of thinking to a dynamic systems way of being (Jickling and Sterling 2016). In looking at present environmental or sustainable conditions (including social justice concerns) in the Anthropocene, which is of great concern for educators including developing both a higher capacity for human “ecological literacy” (Orr 1992) and transformational learning for sustainable societies, (Sterling 2011), we can look at sustainable human development as evolutionary processes and “ongoing series of cultural transformations. . ...” (Jamison 2001, p. 45; Young 1990). One can see these transformations as extensions of scientific theories, technological instruments, social roles, organizations, and institutions for making and communicating

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

knowledge (Jamison 1989; Polanyi 1958; Duranti 2009; Van Patten 1991). Human evolution in the Anthropocene therefore shapes future concepts of sustainable systems rehabilitation through relational physical and social intricacies. Higher education is a complex adaptive system existing in multiple quantum states of “reality,” and tracing complexity within this context is likened to Ariadne’s thread, the ability for Theseus to navigate the labyrinth and kill the Minotaur and then, using the thread, find his way back out. Consilience, the unity of knowledge, as explained by biologist Edward Wilson, is likened to the mythical event, where a string allows one to connect a pathway through a maze of disciplines, from social science, humanities, the arts, physics, biology, and chemistry and then back again to the self (Wilson 1998, p. 67). While it is easier to move backwards than forwards, in the quest for consilience, one is always led back to the laws of physics, but the opposite journey from the world of physics, deep into the mind, or even the soul, is extremely problematic as well as necessary (Wilson 1998, p. 66; Mathews et al. 1999). The philosophic realm as it entangles with the scientific is an ancient struggle. Plato’s dialogic Phaedo conjures his master, Socrates, upon his final moments of life, with a summation of complexity as a cognitive conundrum, writing, “if while in company with the body, the soul can not have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow- either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or if at all, after death” (Plato 1937, p. 55). Aristotle’s Metaphysics sums up the paradox of complexity well. While he was at once a believer in universal truths, in particular of a divine “design,” he accepted the philosophical need or quest for scientific and phenomenological yet observable truths while balancing this with the reality that there is a limit to the extent of human understanding (Aristotle 1943, pp. 10–11). Indeed, the mysteries of science continually point toward an unknown creative essence (Meyer 2009). The study of truth is partly hard and partly easy. A proof of this is the fact that no one man is able to grasp it adequately. Yet they do not all entirely fail.

269

Each says something about the nature of the world. . .. . .but the fact that we can have some notion of it as a whole, but not of the particular part that we want, shows it is difficult. (Aristotle 1943, p. 11)

Lucretius, a Greek poet from the first century BC, describes the same version of knowledge as a form of impressions from one’s senses and experiences in the environment. He was first and foremost an Atomist, believing that all things, including thought and memory are linked to matter. As such, atoms form images in what he describes in an almost quantum state: “An image may pass from mirror to mirror, so that five likenesses, or six, are made. For all that lie concealed, far back inside. . .though deep removed down angled paths, will be brought out by routes complex and shifting” (Lucretius 1977, p. 90). Complexity is thus a combination of human perceptions which is an emergent result of three levels of description: the properties of physics, living systems, and the nonlinear processes of consciousness and cognition (Capra 2002, pp. 40–41; Varela 1999). Karen Barad illuminates further metaphysics of complexity theory on the basis of that which is known, may be completely immaterial, and she questions human’s ability to ascertain any sort of reality in a Platonic denial of truth through bodily experience, yet she believes in the possibility of entangled materializing knowledge relationships, which have their basis in the physical and psychological universe (Barad 2003; Heron 1992). Learning is also “performative” in its active connection to being and thinking as Barad and O’Neil describe as a combined “onto-epistemic” entangled state (Barad 2003; O’Neil 2015). Gregory Bateson describes this complexity in a series of “Metalogues” where he forms a dialectic or narrative on the human constructs of an ecological mind (Bateson 1972). Tracking these processes becomes a quantum task requiring greater computing and relational abilities, beyond human conception (Gharibyan and Penna 2013). One of the best examples of complexity at work and reflective of the current idealistic goals of higher education, as well as human’s constant quest to understand complex information, is the computing success of Alan

C

270

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development

Turing and the creation of a machine that could decipher German codes during World War II. Turing’s work had a singular theme: to understand the extent possible and the limitation of mechanistic explanations of nature, which included the study of Morphogenesis – the way natural bodies transform in shape, using mathematical computation (Cooper and Van Leeuwen 2013, pp. 7, 773). Mathematical inquiry is the result of human attempts to quantify abstractions of matter observed in real space. Since complexity has quantum states, and properties, theoretical mathematicians describe it as having “logical depth,” where a computation is “extremely unlikely to arise from any probabilistic algorithm in a small number of steps” (Selman 1990, p. 183). Outcomes of complexity can be thus causal or deductive. Quantum theory is the contemporary approach to understanding the universe through abstract probabilities, based on theoretical abstractions and with the environment as a context for testing and learning. As such these probabilities, rather than give us a predictive determinism of our future or past, open the possibility for multiple futures and pasts (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010 pp. 70–72). A more organic model can be seen through the geometric, yet nonlinear behavior patterning of Benoit Mandelbrot’s work (Doll et al. 2005, pp. 153–156). As was shown by Tien-Yien Li and James York (1975), “chaos” results from exponential patterns of changes in energy, as inputs into a system occur, thus leading to “unpredictability” even when starting from a deterministic beginning or having a mechanistic end goal (Li and York 1975, pp. 985–992).

Final Remarks Sarah Smitherman helps make the link between the physical universe with the challenges of contemporary educational discourse to overcome Newtonian linearity and the overall separation between mind and body, “nature,” and humanity (Doll et al. 2005, pp. 153–156). Information emerges as a creative process and thus relates to evolutionary thought processes as well as varying modes of adaptation. Higher education can

position itself to be both action and science oriented, as well as philosophically grounded. Given the state of complexity with regard to living systems and sustainable development, “truth” becomes relational, nonlinear, expansive, evolving, physical, and cognitive. What this means for educational and cognitive complexity is that the objects and subjects of inquiry are diverse and disparate. They may range from consciousness, personal understanding, and meaning to cultures and subcultures (Waldrop 1992). Furthermore, the languages, called discourses, used to discuss transdisciplinary activities may follow various sets of “rules,” with no single methodology taking primacy of meaning or “truth,” and changes as well as conflicts of discourse appear different in evolutionary time, etc. (Davis and Sumara 2008). This is the essence of relativity as the physical realm frames the cognitive.

References Alexander C (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction/Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, with Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, Shlomo Angel. Oxford University Press, New York Aristotle (1943) On man in the universe (Introduction by Louise Ropes Loomis, Translation of Metaphysics, by John Henry MacMahon). Walter J. Black, Roslyn Asimov I (1963) The genetic code. Orion Press, New York Barad K (2003) Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28(3):801–831 Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind; collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chandler Pub. Co, San Francisco Bateson G (1979) Mind and nature: a necessary Unity. E.P. Dutton, New York Bauerlain M (2011) The digital divide: arguments for and against Facebook, Google, texting, and the age of social networking. Penguin Group, London Bee RL (1974) Patterns and processes; an introduction to anthropological strategies for the study of sociocultural change. Free Press, New York Bohm D (1992) Thought as a system. Routledge, London Bonan G, Doney S (2018) Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: the challenge to predict life in earth system models. Science 359(6375):533 Capra F (2002) The hidden connections. Anchor Books, New York

Complexity Theory Living Systems and Sustainable Development Capra F, Luisi P (2016) The systems view of life: a unifying vision. Cambridge University Press, New York Chandler D (2007) Semiotics: the basics. Routledge, New York Colquhoun A (1967) Typology and design method. Arena J Archit Assoc (June). Republished in Jencks C, Baird G (1969) Meaning in architecture. George Braziller, New York, pp 11–14 Cooper SB, Leeuwen JVL (2013) Alan Turing: his work and impact. Elsevier, Waltham Cronin L, Walker S (2016) Origin of life. Beyond Prebiotic Chem Sci (New York, NY) 352(6290):1174–1175 Curlee W (2010) Complexity theory and project management. Wiley, Chichester Darwin C (1958) The origin of species. Penguin Books, Ontario Davis B, Sumara D (1997) Cognition, Complexity, and Teacher Education. Harvard Educational Review 67(1): 105–125 Davis B, Sumara D (2000) Curriculum forms: On the assumed shapes of knowing and knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32(6):821–845 Davis B, Sumara D (2003) Why Aren’t They Getting This? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education 14(2):123–140 Davis B, Sumara D (2008) Complexity as a theory of education. Transl Curric Inq 5(2):33–44 Davis B, Sumara D, Luce Kapler R (2000) Engaging Minds: Learning and Teaching in a Complex World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Doll WE, Fleener MJ, St. Julien J (2005) In: Doll WE et al (eds) Chaos, complexity, curriculum and culture: a conversation. P. Lang, New York Duranti A (2009) Linguistic anthropology: a reader. WileyBlackwell, Oxford, UK Eco U (1986) Semiotics and the philosophy of language. First Midland book ed., Advances in semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington Einstein A (2004) Relativity: the special and the general theory (trans: Lawson RW; introduced by Roger Penrose). Folio Society, London Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (trans: Bergman Ramos M). Herder and Herder, New York Gharibyan H, Penna R (2013) Are entangled particles connected by wormholes? Support for the ER=EPR conjecture from entropy inequalities. Phys Rev D 89(2014):066001 Gombrich EH (1963) Meditations on a hobby horse and other essays on art. Phaidon Press, London Gruenewald D (2004) A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education: toward the socioecological challenge of the earth charter. Curric Inq 34(1):71–107. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2004.00281.x Hanson R (2017) Mass communication. Sage, London Hawken P (2007) Blessed unrest. Viking Penguin, London Hawking S (1998) A brief history of time/Stephen Hawking, Updated and expanded tenth anniversary edition. ed. Bantam Books, New York Hawking S, Mlodinow L (2010) The grand design. Bantam Books, New York

271

Heron J (1992) Feeling and personhood: psychology in another key. Sage, London Jamison A (2001) The making of green knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Janicke M, Weidner H (1997) National environmental policies- a comparative study of capacity building. Springer Verlag, Berlin Jickling B, Sterling S (2016) Post-sustainability and environmental education. Palgrave studies in education and the environment series. Springer, Cham Jickling B, Wals AEJ (2008) Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development. J Curric Stud 40(1):1–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00220270701684667 Kitada T, DiAndreth B, Teague B, Weiss R (2018) Programming gene and engineered cell therapies with synthetic biology. Science (New York, NY) 359(6376):651 Kurzweil R (2006) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin, New York Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York Li T, York J (1975) Period three implies chaos. Am Math Mon 82:985–992 Light R (2008) Complex learning theory – its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: implications for physical education. J Teach Phys Educ 27(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.27.1.21 Lorenz E (1995) The essence of chaos. University of Washington Press, Seattle Lovelock JE, Margulis L (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus Ser A Stockh: Int Meteorol Inst 26(1–2):2–10 Lu Y, Jenkins A, Ferrier RC, Bailey M, Gordon IJ, Song S, . . . Zhang Z (2015) Addressing China’s grand challenge of achieving food security while ensuring environmental sustainability. Sci Adv 1(1). 2015 Lucretius T (1977) The nature of things (trans: Copley FO). W.W. Norton & Company, Toronto Lukasik SJ (2011) Why the Arpanet was built. Ann Hist Comput, IEEE 33(3):4–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MAHC.2010.11 Mason M (2008) Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Special Issue of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden Mathews KM, White MC, Long RG (1999) Why study the complexity sciences in the social sciences? Hum Relat 52(4):439–462 Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. With a Preface to “Autopoiesis” by Sir Stafford Beer. Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol 42 Maturana RH, Dávila Yáñez X, Ramírez Muñoz S (2016) Cultural-biology: systemic consequences of our evolutionary natural drift as molecular autopoietic systems. Found Sci 21(4):631–678 Mcinerney DM, Mcinerney V (1998) The goals of schooling in culturally diverse classrooms. Clearing House: J Educ Strateg, Issues Ideas 71(6):363–366 Meyer SC (2009) Signature in the cell. Harper Collins, New York

C

272 Morowitz H (1992) Beginnings of cellular life: Metabolism recapitulates biogenesis (Bio-origins series). Yale University Press, New Haven Mumford L (1961) The city in history: its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, York O’Neil JK (2015) “Cooking to learn” while “learning to cook”: (be)coming and (re)membering sustainability (doctoral dissertation). ProQuest LLC. (UMI Number 3705566) Orr D (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press, Albany Plato (1937) The Apology, Phaedo, and Crito of Plato (trans: Jowett B). P.F. Collier & Son Corporation, New York Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge; towards a postcritical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science (Washington) 302(5652):1912–1914 Prigogine I, Stengers I (1984) Order out of chaos: man’s new dialogue with nature. Review. The Globe and Mail (Index-only), p E17. July 28 Rapaport A (1990) The meaning of the built environment. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Rees W (2010) Whats blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustain: Sci Pract Pol 6(2):13–13 Ruskin J (1913) The seven lamps of architecture. J.M. Dent, London/New York Selman AL (1990) Complexity theory retrospective: in honor of juris Hartmanis on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Structure in complexity theory conference. Springer, New York Stacey RD (1995) The science of complexity: an alternate perspective for strategic change. Strateg Manag J 16:477–495 Sterling S (2011) Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. Teaching and learning in higher education. Issue 5 Unesco (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ Uphoff N (2003) Higher yields with fewer external inputs? The system of rice intensification and potential contributions to agricultural sustainability. Int J Agric Sustain 1(1):38–50 Van Patten JJ (1991) The socio-cultural foundations of education and the evolution of education policies in the United States. Edwin Mellen Press, New York Varela F (1999) Present–time consciousness. J Conscious Stud 6(2–3):111–140 Venturi R (2002) Complexity and contradiction in architecture. Museum of Modern Art in association with the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, New York (Distributed in the United States and Canada by D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers)

Composting and Sustainable Development Von Humboldt W (1971) Linguistic variability and intellectual development (trans: Buck GC, Raven FA). University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Waldrop M (1992) Complexity: the emerging science on the edge of order and chaos. Simon and Schuster, New York Wheatley M (1993) Chaos and complexity; what can science teach us. (Keynote Address) OD Practitioner Wilson EO (1998) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Alfred A Knopf, New York Young M (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Composting and Sustainable Development Tolulase Michael Ishola1,2 and Esther Temilola Ishola3 1 Department of Agroclimatology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria 2 Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria 3 Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria

Definition In the face of increasing global population especially in the developing and emerging countries, the need for an innovative solid waste management that can contribute to the urban development is very urgent. In this regard, composting is an important approach to process biodegradable wastes by transforming potential organic waste fractions into a useful product such as compost. To enhance a wider spread of this organic waste management approach to reach the community, an adequate educational knowledge is needed in a participative manner in order to better understand and increase the use of compost. Composting can offer an endless possibility in organic waste management. Thus, higher education knowledge is important in order to understand some key barriers to using compost, so that the lessons learnt could help to stimulate learning in the use of composting to achieve a sustainable organic waste management.

Composting and Sustainable Development

Introduction Over the past decades, the global population grew rapidly especially in the developing and emerging countries. This increase in global population and consumption practices might have some effects on the environment. One of this is the generation of large volume of waste. Urban solid waste management is considered to be one of the most immediate and serious environmental problems confronting urban governments in developing countries (Rothenberger et al. 2006). Therefore, the need for a waste management initiative that can contribute to the urban development has become ever more urgent. Composting is an important element of sustainable waste management as it offers a way of processing biodegradable waste fractions. Composting, as sustainable transformation of potential organic wastes, tunes up with sustainable waste management must be optimized and encouraged. However, the benefit of composts are little known due to an inadequate awareness, knowledge on how, how much, when to use and not are not widely pursued by the many educational institutions and researchers. Therefore, identifying the challenges and advantages of compost production in the education sector will improve awareness for its use and benefits in waste management and sustainability of agricultural soils. By aiming at sustainability, stakeholders in the universities and other tertiary institutions can begin to and continuously integrate environmental, social, and economic topics into waste management. To do so, they can promote educational programs that involve changing organic waste, recycling into news products such as composts and other products and services that will improve, protect, and provide a suitable environment. Learning on sustainable oriented organic waste recycled product, e.g., compost based on sustainable materials, offers a range of business opportunities such as unlocking new markets in organic waste recycling, green economy, climate finance. By focusing on composting for sustainability, the learning approach aims at integrating ecologically, economically social viable management

273

approach that guarantees the principles of sustainability. The Brundtland Commission recognizes that a development is sustainable, when it ensures that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It also considers sustainable development as a process with the goal of accomplishing a state of sustainability which would be achieved. Therefore, sustainability implies maintaining the capacity of ecological systems to support social and economic systems and ensuring the long-term productive potential of resources (such as compost) and their environmental functions (Schaltegger et al. 2011). A sustainable waste management such as the conversion of organic or biodegradable waste into compost (composting) for use in agriculture provides answers to how waste can be sustainably managed (Barthod et al. 2018). Compost is therefore a valuable agricultural input which can improve the condition of soil and reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. It can offer great benefits to society and the environment. However, it is often considered to be dirty and it can lack an immediate benefit to the people. Compost is produced for the following reasons (among others): • To improve soil structure, create a better plant root environment • To supply significant quantities of organic matter • To improve drainage of soil and reduce erosion • To improve moisture holding capacity of soils • To improve and stabilize soil pH • To supply a variety of nutrients • To supply soil with beneficial microorganisms (Alexander 2003) Consequently, the benefits of compost are little known or appreciated, and when compost is made from organic waste, it is often stigmatized. Despite these circumstances, producing compost remains an important waste management approach. The act of using compost, a natural fertilizer agent, is a great way to add nutrients and restore a healthy ecosystem to the soil.

C

274

Composting can play an important role in reducing environmental threats linked with improper organic waste management in rural and periurban situations. Thus, higher education sectors (e.g., universities) can embark on transdisciplinary research to jointly solve waste problems which can increase community learning in the context of sustainable waste management especially through improved knowledge of composting.

Compost Production and Its Benefits to Sustainable Agricultural Education Compost is the product of controlled biological decomposition of organic matter into a humuslike, odorless product with soil conditioning properties and varying nutrient value. On the other hand, manure is referred to as animal waste such as cow dung, chicken droppings which are often relatively rich in plant nutrients (Rouse et al. 2008). Compost is produced from organic solid waste and is, hence, an environmentally friendly and high-quality product. The process of composting can be approached in different ways: the solid waste management approach, wherein composting is a way of treating organic waste within the solid waste management system. Compost is therefore seen as a by-product. Secondly, the marketing approach, wherein composting is a way of producing a valuable product that can be sold. The marketing approach focuses on producing and selling a high quality product. In contrast to the solid waste management approach, it is driven more by customers demand than material supply. On the other hand, the social approach wherein benefits are derived from compost and eagerly maintained as a result of compost producing better results. These could ultimately produce development satisfactory product such as compost for customers. Thus, integrating different approach to compost production can promote learning on sustainability in the university programs. A successful composting approach will usually result in all solid waste management objectives being met.

Composting and Sustainable Development

By building on insights from the knowledge based composting, stakeholders such as students have the ability to apply the knowledge in a way that can promote the context of sustainability. Thus, production of compost can be used to raise awareness on sustainable waste management practice. Composting programs in universities can open-up new opportunities for organic farming, school gardening, farmer field school, and waste recycling programs. For example, the school garden an integral part of education in some primary schools is a place where pupils learn to grow vegetables and their own food. Organic growing is starting in the school gardens, and organic methods and skills are being developed that can be used elsewhere (Lieblein et al. 2008). The development of programs targeted on educating students on organic agriculture can increase acceptance and promote the use of compost in organic agriculture program. An organic agriculture project in university education avoids the use of synthetic products as is the case with conservation agriculture. According to IFOAM (2008), organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity, and cycles adapted to local conditions rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality for all involved. Demands for organic produce have increased globally and nationally. Nigeria can benefit fully from the economic, social, and cultural opportunities offered by organic agriculture due to the diverse climate and vegetation that enables year round production of many different crops while protecting the environment and growing quality healthy food. Compost is one of the selected nutrient-rich soil amendments capable of improving depleted or disturbed soil environments, and this is why adding compost to soil is so important for maintaining soil health and productivity. It also makes compost which is high in organic matter, an important soil amendment for sustainable organic agriculture.

Composting and Sustainable Development

According to UNCTAD (2006), organic agriculture production system is a sustainable and environmentally friendly production which offers African and other developing countries a wide range of economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits. The Nigerian Organic Agricultural Network (NOAN) is sensitizing the Nigerian government and stakeholders to enact policies on Organic Agriculture while Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) is facilitating the establishment of the National Organic Standards. NOAN is actively involved in education, advocacy sensitization, public awareness, research, standards, and certification and trainings (http:// noannigeria.net/NOAN). Using Compost as an Approach for Organic Waste Management The need to increase soil organic matter is an important reason for recycling organic waste in view of returning the nutrients to the soil. Composting plays an important role in organic farming practices as well as in improving soil fertility. Among other benefits, the use of compost can improve access to food in rural communities with higher yields of vegetables and fruit obtained from a more fertile soil. Onwosi et al. (2017) concluded that relevant strategies are required to improve and optimize composting process for the benefits of the rural communities. The waste generated across large part of the developing countries in recent decades mainly organic provided an impetus to develop sustainable organic waste management practice for the growing population. Compost is of particular interest for its benefits as soil amendment, organic farming, and soil quality improvement. In addition, the production of compost is a sustainable strategy to transform organic wastes into organic amendments, valuable as potting media or soil conditioner. However, there are still some environmental impact in composting operations which depends on the types of waste and whether the composting process is an enclosed or open system. Environmental factors such as noise, dust, odor, emissions of greenhouse gases, visual impacts are common to

275

all waste management facilities including some composting facilities. The negative aspects of composting processes are emissions of greenhouse gases, odorous molecules, and final product potentially containing toxic compounds (Barthod et al. 2018). The same applies in the contribution of compost to carbon footprint. Ortiz-Rodríguez et al. (2016) also concluded that composting of organic cocoa pod husks contributed an approximately 34.00E+00 g methane and 2.55E+00 g nitrous oxide emissions per kilogram of cocoa grain produced. The production of methane gas an environmental threat from compost is likely to increase global warming depending on the adopted management system. Compost production system is also difficult to sustain and scale in low and middle income countries where best practices, capital markets, and supportive policy models are still developing. Despite some of the negative impact associated with compost production, the weight of research evidence supports that in the presence of appropriate management, it can be effectively managed. As a soil amendment, it is generally not a product with a ready-made market; however, worldwide experience indicates it is possible to develop one. An appropriate composting type of technique is identified as important for a good compost production (Harper et al. 2004). The major factors such as temperature, pH, carbon nitrogen (C/N) ratio, moisture, particle size are also relevant in composting. A widening C:N ratio can greatly affect the composting process and productivity. Therefore, identification and selection of a right composting method in small-, middle-, and largescale plants is important for improved waste management and producing quality compost. Participatory Composting of Waste and Benefits for a Sustainable Agricultural Education

Promoting training in composting in a participatory, interdisciplinary manner among stakeholders can offer innovative knowledge and skills to the stakeholders. This act will develop information, education communication strategies to also sensitize the general public on the value and practices of composting.

C

276

In Nigeria, so much organic wastes are generated that can be converted into organic inputs such as compost. This way the problem of unsustainable inputs used for composting could be tackled while compost could be used for organic farming. Compost from waste (farm or house) is considered as an important amendment to the soil. The integration of composting into solid waste management system at composting holds a great potential for sustainable waste management practice in Nigeria. Composting should be encouraged in the context of waste recycling of organic materials and understanding the importance of our soil food system, not simply to reduce waste. This would improve participation and understanding the importance of soil organic matter in building a sustainable food production system for our communities (Fig. 1). Student’s participation in composting provides opportunities for field experiential learning in organized courses, development of composting plants, and farms for research demonstration and extension projects. Training on sustainability and study aspect of composting, sorting, and recycling in a participatory manner with involvement of the stakeholders such as nongovernmental organization, government ministries, and research institutes could increase the knowledge capacity of student. These also serve as a solution to educate and transfer knowledge and sphere of influence of sustainable waste management through composting. Furthermore, composting programs can help to develop diverse experiential educational projects and additional knowledge on sustainability.

Composting and Sustainable Development

Composting and its Benefits for Sustainable Development The concept of sustainable development has the potential to do more than simply reconcile the interest of environment and development; it can help us to address major economic, environmental, social, and political issues of our time. Compost used in organic agriculture, with low external input developed partly to improve the agroecosystem’s sustainability, has evolved over time to include economic, environmental, and social consideration. A sustainable community may be defined as one which does not erode the natural capital (air, water, land, renewable, and nonrenewable resources) of the earth, and whose structure and function result in a harmonious relationship with the local, regional, and global ecosystems. Compost contains important plant nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus), though usually not as much as animal manure or chemical fertilizers. It can also contain a range of beneficial minerals and is rich in humus and beneficial microorganisms that can aid plant growth. Therefore, amending soil with compost replaces humus thus increasing the capacity of soil to absorb and retain nutrients, water, and reducing the need for chemical fertilizer. Indeed, where the land is carefully managed, with soil structure maintained by compost, an array of nutrients supplied through the application of manure or chemical fertilizers are rendered unnecessary. This is one of the underlying principles of organic farming, as increasingly practiced by farmers around the world.

Composting and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 (a) Community members gathering organic materials for composting. (b) A compost produced from organic waste materials. (Source: NOAN)

Composting and Sustainable Development

Organic farming uses scientific knowledge to improve traditional practices. It is knowledgebased approach requiring understanding of agroecological processes. However, inadequate access to the knowledge is a major constraint for its development. Composting organic waste can also contribute to promoting a healthy food production system. For instance, promoting source separation of organic waste will help to increase the quality of the resulting compost. Composting is important for developing healthy communities and it must be done in a manner that does not affect the health of others or the environment. For some, composting has a negative connotation due to odor. Although odor is inherent in the production of compost, yet 99% of the odor potential can be managed. For composting to be part of our sustainable system for healthy communities, it must include maintaining the quality of our air and our environment. Since poverty reduction and environmental sustainability are two of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), therefore managing waste through composting contributes to the achievement of these goals. Appropriate collective learning mechanisms need to be put in place, with students and community innovators providing examples and leadership. The main beneficiaries of compost production would be poor people in urban areas, as existing and potential employees of the compost projects. In some cases, the poor may also own and run their own enterprises as recyclers of organic waste and small scale agricultural farm. As waste is already a major source of livelihoods for the urban poor, this is a sound strategy for bringing sustainable benefits to this group (Harper et al. 2004). This way, a composting system will provides many benefits towards achieving sustainability such as replacing expensive fertilizer, increasing the quantity of produce sold, and diverting organic wastes from landfills. The Contribution of Compost to Environmental Sustainability Composting is an important element of sustainable solid waste management as it offers a way

277

of processing the biodegradable waste fraction. Converting waste into compost eliminates pollution of the air, water, and soil. Waste is a reusable resource, and it is a resource if utilized properly. Hence, importance must be given to waste management. Composting reduces the amount of waste to be transported and disposed of, thus also reducing negative effects to the environment. Converting organic waste into compost eliminates pollution of the air, water, and soil. Appropriate management of municipal waste is critical for public health and environmental protection. The so-called waste is a reusable resource and national asset. It is a resource if utilized properly. Hence, importance must be given to waste management in a sustainable way. Adopting organic principles in environmental waste management program will ensure sustainable environment and quality food production that is environmentally safe and friendly than the conventional method. Compost can be made from urban organic waste. Urban waste consists of many elements including inert materials (sand and soil from street sweepings), recyclable material (such as metal, plastic, paper, and glass), hazardous substances (toxic chemicals and healthcare waste) and in rare instances human waste. However, in many low-income countries, as much as 60–70% of household waste is biodegradable, including table peelings, waste food, and garden waste. Vegetable markets and the food processing industry also produce large quantities of organic waste. Therefore, developing different environmental waste management and composting programs could be used in combating different environmental problems and climate change. Using compost and natural fertilizer agents is a great way to add nutrients and restore a healthy ecosystem to the soil. All these practices will ensure a sustainable waste free environment. The Contribution of Compost to Social Aspect of Sustainability Social sustainability links sustainability to the broader social principles of futurity, equity, and participation, especially involvement of public citizens in development process. Social sustainability set out to ensure that development does not negatively

C

278

influence tangible cultural heritage. It seeks to preserve the environment through economic growth and the alleviation of poverty. Through composting, public participation from stakeholder and local authorities wanting to invest in or operate organic waste composting plants results in an urban option for sustainable waste management. A composting business can consider consumer interests by delivering a high quality and safe product. It has the potential to improve and transform waste management in low-income countries, thus benefiting society as a whole. Through composting, low income countries can achieve economic benefits and form networks providing knowledge which could also enhance the creation of sustainable livelihoods a valuable social contribution. Urban waste composting may be initiated as a social, a business, or a public service venture. A composting business can satisfy a wide range of needs, and the initial motivation is unimportant. Furthermore, it can create jobs at a very low capital cost, therefore becoming a very attractive enterprise in places with high unemployment. Contribution of Compost to Economic Sustainability Economic sustainability relates to a community’s potential to reach qualitatively a new level of socio-economic, demographic, and technological output which in the long run reinforces the foundations of the community system (Basiago 1999). Economic sustainability of development expands development’s concern with monetary capital to consider natural, social, and human capital. Economic sustainability attempts to ensure that production system satisfy present consumption levels without compromising future needs. It seeks to ensure that our planet’s scarce resources (capital and human) can be continually utilized and sustained in satisfying the insatiable human wants of today and the future. The products from recycled organic waste can help in generating income from their sales. This income generated suggests economic viability of composting. Revenue can be generated from the sales of compost and composting plants can sell products as eco-compost. A cost-benefit analysis showed that the composting system

Composting and Sustainable Development

could generate a profit of $13,200 a year by selling vegetables grown with compost to the student cafeteria at Kean and to local communities (Mu et al. 2017). Composting provides an opportunity to create decent dignified livelihood opportunities. The waste industry also provides jobs and employment to many. The use of compost can promote higher plant growth and productivity. It can also reduce mineral fertilizer use, reducing crop production cost and indirectly increasing income. A composting industry can also provide jobs and employment for many unemployed people. However, marketing is an extremely important part of any sustainable composting project.

Conclusions Economic, social, and environmental sustainability form elements of the integrated system of sustainable development (Basiago 1999). They cannot be pursued in isolation for sustainable development to flourish. A composting system provides many benefits towards achieving sustainability such as replacing fertilizer use, increasing the quantity of produce sold, and diverting organic wastes from landfills. Compost can offer an endless possibility in order to achieve sustainability in organic waste management. It can improve the livelihoods of middle income earners, protect the environment, and enhance nutrient retaining properties of soil. Composting educational programs and training concerned with maintaining soil health, natural resource, or with development of a more sustainable agriculture are highly needed and of great importance in our university education. However, some key barriers to using compost need to be documented so that the lesson learnt can be used to improve other sustainability initiatives. These barriers may be concerned with the lack of awareness and inadequate information on compost. Adequate education and knowledge sharing in a participative manner can greatly assist in increasing the benefit of compost. Composting should always be formulated within a wider sustainable adaptation strategy that takes into consideration cultural, political, and economic contexts, and by so doing, it would be seen as part of a

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development

279

broader development planning. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of composting to crop productivity and waste management can help us to generate knowledge which would improve our learning and practices in order to achieve sustainable development.

Rouse J, Rothenberger S, Zurbrügg C (2008) Marketing Compost – A Guide for Compost Producers in Low and Middle-Income Countries. Eawag, Duebendorf, Switzerland, ISBN 978-3-906484-46-4 Schaltegger S, Burritt R, Petersen H (2011) An introduction to sustainable development and sustainability management. Center for Sustainability Management (CSM) Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lüneburg United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2006) Overview of the Current State of Organic Agriculture in Kenya, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania and the Opportunities for Regional Harmonization United Nations New York and Geneva

References Alexander R (2003) The practical guide to compost marketing and sales Ron Alexander Associates USA Inc. Apex, N.C.; Composting Association Barthod J, Rumpel C, Dignac M-F (2018) Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38(2):17. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13593-018-0491-9 Basiago AD (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 19:145–161. Retrieved from https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/ 0972/fulltext.pdf Harper M, Pervez A, Rouse J, Drescher S, Zurbrugg C (2004) Sustainable composting. Case studies and guidelines for developing countries. (M. Ali, Ed) Retrieved from https://wedc-knowledge.Iboro.ac.uk/ details.html?id=14598 IFOAM (2008) Principles and practise of Organic Agriculture International Federation of Organic Agriculture General Assembly in Vignola, Italy Lieblein G, Breland TA, Salomonsson L, Sriskandarajah N, Francis C (2008) Educating tomorrow’s agents of change for sustainable food systems: Nordic Agroecology MSc Program. J Hunger Environ Nutr 3(2):309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/193202408022 44355 Mu D, Horowitz N, Casey M, Jones K (2017) Environmental and economic analysis of an in-vessel food waste composting system at Kean University in the U.S. Waste Manag 59:476–486. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.WASMAN.2016.10.026 Onwosi CO, Igbokwe VC, Odimba JN, Eke IE, Nwankwoala MO, Iroh IN, Ezeogu LI (2017) Composting technology in waste stabilization: on the methods, challenges and future prospects. J Environ Manag 190:140–157. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.12.051 Ortiz-Rodríguez OO, Villamizar-Gallardo RA, NaranjoMerino CA, García-Caceres RG, Castañeda-galvís MT (2016) Carbon footprint of the colombian cocoa production. Engenharia Agrícola 36(2):260–270. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v36n2p 260-270/2016 Rothenberger S, Zurbrügg C, Enayetullah I, Maqsood S (2006) Decentralised composting for cities of low- and middle-income countries. A users’ manual. Dhaka, Bangladesh; Dübendorf, Switzerland: Waste Concern; Eawag

Computer-Based Learning ▶ E-Learning and Sustainable Development ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development

Connectivity ▶ Sustainable Mobility

Conscientiousness ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development Kathleen Kevany Faculty of Agriculture, Rural Research, Department of Business and Social Sciences, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada

Definition To consume consciously is a process of deliberation to purposefully and thoughtfully consume what is beneficial and necessary and not consume

C

280

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development

unconsciously things that are unhelpful or harmful. Conscious consumption also is a philosophy and growing social movement that encourages citizens to become aware of the impact of their consumption practices on their own health and well-being and to consider the social, economic, environmental, and communal implications. This movement pays attention to the effects of media and advertising on citizen-consumer behavior. Conscious consumption may form part of government strategies used to promote ways to address the growing crises of climate change and noncommunicable diseases. Sustainability requires a focus on principles of equity, inclusion, and distribution and the longterm state of the environment (Hopwood et al. 2015). Sustaining species and ecosystems must be done in ways that allow them to go on renewing themselves indefinitely (IUCN 1980; Anand and Sen 2000). Development involves improving the state of one’s quality of living, learning, and ways of interacting with individuals and systems. Higher levels of development have co-related with higher levels of consumption of environmental, social, natural, and economic capital.

developed world should view sustainable development as an opportunity, not a disaster. “Far from being a burden, sustainable development is an exceptional opportunity – economically, to build markets and create jobs; socially, to bring people in from the margins; and politically, to give every man and woman a voice, and a choice, in deciding their own future” (2002). Some of the discourse on the roles of “citizen-consumer” implies political, economic, and social power consumers wield through “voting with your dollar” (Johnston 2008). Consumption, in itself, may not raise concerns; issues arise when eco-systems are being threatened and social stability is being undermined. Additional planets – equivalent to two Earths by 2030 – have been calculated as required to sustain the present growth and consumption patterns of humanity (WWF 2016). Such levels of unconscious consumption are unsustainable and unconscionable as the more privileged disproportionately consume the Earth’s resources and contaminate its ecosystems. When over-consumption or overindulgence is contrasted with widespread deprivation this reveals structural violence (Galtung 1969). Even while referencing writing from nearly fifty years ago, the integrity and gravity of the messages still hold sway today.

Introduction Consumerism is a philosophy and practice that suggests it is valuable and good to consume. The justifications may be political, social, and personal. These may include consuming for necessity, for pleasure, as one has “earned the right” or to show support for a brand or business one supports, as examples. Consumerism may challenge citizen-consumers to satisfy competing ideologies of individual self-interest juxtaposed with collective responsibilities for shared economic, political, social, and ecological benefit (Johnston 2008). Consuming also has been used as a political act to propel the economy, as a way to be a good citizen and overcome economic depressions. The United Nations too promotes the importance of developing market systems for the production and consumption of goods. A former Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan said the

Drivers of Unconscious Consumption Human practices of seeking fulfillment and pleasure in material things and relying on validation and affirmation from others to feel worthy or significant drive much of the patterns of consumption. When people seek significance outside and individually struggle this generates a pattern of being unfulfilled. Wren-Lewis called this, “a collective nightmare of separate individuals struggling in an alien universe for survival, satisfaction, significance” (Wren-Lewis n.d., p. 3). Fox cites Eckhardt’s explanation of the contrast between compulsive and compassionate value systems. “Concerning consciousness, Eckhardt maintains that compulsive personalities and societies will consider it their vocation to remain uncritical and to make the conscious unconscious,

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development

281

especially as regards inequality in the world” (Fox 1994, p. 33). As well, pervasive notions of competition and self-aggrandizement can drive a disdain for self-regulation and control and fuel instead the drive to consume as much as desired. Such drives can become insatiable. Yet some have grown up with the philosophy to fix things, and to take care of one’s possessions and not to waste. Others have resented these requirements. One young presenter at a recent conference said, “I wanted just once to be wasteful. Waste meant affluence. Because I believed that throwing things away meant there’d always be more” (personal communication). Not surprisingly, beliefs like success and affluence are things to strive after and wasting freely become drivers and measures of success. Operating beliefs that ‘consuming offers deep satisfaction’ and ‘competition is good and necessary’ enable people to pursue self-interests over addressing the needs of others. This allure of consumption encourages people to allocate precious resources not to demonstrate compassion but for personal pleasure and prestige. To prop up a façade of fullness, individuals are tempted to place themselves above others, to outspend, out decorate, out entertain, and out succeed people in their lives. People can greedily indulge in every form of outward show, like in wealth, power, and possessions yet remain inwardly poor (Fox 1979, 1994). “When our hearts are empty, we collect things. If we can afford it, we surround ourselves with objects that we consider beautiful, and we attach enormous importance to them. Yet the objects are a distraction and our questing them creates distress for us and our ‘must have’ mentality contributes to misery and destruction experienced by others” (Krishnamurti 1953, p. 122). Greed it seems, leads to competition and not to compassion. “Greed is right. Greed works. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good” (Gekko 1987). Advertising helps consumers to focus on achieving pleasure for one self and to share pleasures with a select few. “Ads create a gnawing dissatisfaction with what one already possesses or is and in our guts, hearts, minds and souls, this gnawing dissatisfaction grows. . . Advertisements

effectively “convince us that we are not yet what we should be because we do not yet have what we ought to have” (Fox 1979, p. 208). When engaged in on a mass scale for the sake of mass ‘education’ and mass profits, alluring advertising serves to divert willingness to show compassion (Wals 2014; Krishnamurti 1953). With billions of dollars spent annually, who can deny that selling is one of the biggest industries? For example, the average high school seniors – the 17 years old – have seen over 450,000 commercials on American television. In the year 1948, American companies spent $4.87 billion on advertising, while in 1976, they spent $33.42 billion. Ad expenditure worldwide is expected to exceed 591 billion US dollars and possibly grow to 724.1 billion by 2020. In 2016, the largest market for advertising dollars was the United States with 190.8 billion US dollars in ad spending, followed by China and Japan (Statista 2017). Previous field studies also revealed some of the social forces drive greater consumption and pleasure seeking while necessarily reducing caring for others and the environment. “We face too much competition, and enjoy too little satisfaction. We have to work longer hours, work harder, work cheaper; this all add more pressure, more hours and less time to give back in time and in dollars. These all add tremendous strain to our lives” (Kevany 2002). Ubiquitous calls to consume breed unrelenting materialism and consumerism that are fraught with emptiness, loneliness, and anxiety (Wallis 1994; Table 1).

Consequences of Unrelenting Consumption Taylor (2007) and other environmental educators argue that consumption and capitalism are elevated to the highest religion. While consumption becomes associated with important, personal values, citizen-consumers may be more amenable to allowing industrialists privileges and exemptions to extract dwindling resources. “Being plugged in”, to feed the electronic cultures, requires constant energy sources. Unrelenting demands and overconsumption have led to

C

282

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Forces driving unconscious consumption

understand, evaluate, and manage the connections between their personal lifestyles and routine (consumption) practices on the one hand and global environmental change on the other? Individuals, fulfilling their many social roles, including that of consumer, often contend with motivations that are conflicted, complex, and multifaceted (Sassatelli 2006). “How, in fact, do we educate the young to think clearly about important things in a culture that spends $500 billion per year to deceive using the finely honed tools of advertising? How do we prepare them to comprehend systems, patterns, and larger contexts in a society much distracted by entertainment and given to specializations?” (Orr 2004, p. xiii). Johnston (2008), asks but “[h]ow did we get to a point where consumers are responsible for ‘saving’ the world by shopping?” (p. 236). Developing media literacy and marketing awareness may enable school children as well as adults to practice more critical thinking, selfdiscipline, and mindfulness (Fox 1979; Theobald 1997). Like other adult educators, Mezirow (1990) and Brookfield (2000) identified different forms of critical reflection to aid in transformative learning and to reexamine long-held presuppositions. The importance of critical reflection for responsible action should not be understated for a democratic society. Parent and community groups have worked with governments to limit advertisements in schools and reduce the corporatization of education and the unquestioned consumption culture. Educators might help citizenconsumers develop a healthy awareness of and detachment from the allure of things, while also fostering a greater sense of shared responsibility for caring for all living beings (Levan 1998; Taylor 2007). Environmental educators along with various fields of study have sought to raise awareness of the nature of the self, the environment, and how all beings and systems are interconnected. Research reveals strong connections to structural, cultural, and personal biases that suppress the willingness to change perspectives and welcome modifications to lifestyles (Hawken 1993; Theobald 1997). In a study of university interns, referred to as “the next generation of professionals,” the researchers found that

External forces at work Compelling ! consumerism Aggressive ! competition Expectation of ! constant happiness Increasing time ! pressures Media influence ! and allure Unethical behavior

!

Prevailing capitalism Agencies paid to care for others

! !

Internalization by individuals Desire to have more, consume more Desire to be better than others Only happiness is acceptable

Little time for service, for others Unconscious consumption does not replace gnawing dissatisfaction Poor role models used to justify other unethical behavior Hide values and resist spirituality Individual compassion declines

Kevany (2002)

outstripping forests, out-harvesting eco-systems and outraging those fair-minded. Yet the message from many social institutions is for individuals to excel. Such pressure to perform often includes pressure to consume. Unconscious or uncritical consumption can be associated with the loss of self-confidence, gratitude, and spiritualawareness. “Were it only a problem of budgets, careful management would be enough, but the current crisis is much deeper. Fundraisers cannot fix it. The present crisis is more serious; it is a spiritual crisis” (Levan 1998, p. 97). Overconsumption is a spiritual crisis because it involves a disconnection from values and ethics and from the place of humans within the natural world.

Teaching Consciousness and Sustainable Consumption Past efforts seeking to examine and modify sustainability patterns placed greater focus on individuals (Jackson 2006). Spaargaren (2011) asked how do ordinary people deal with environmental matters and how do they perceive,

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development

283

the interns desire to consume was incongruent with their stated commitment to sustainable development. Their work revealed that a responsible consumption culture had not yet grown strong in Brazilian corporations or higher education (Antunes da Luz et al. 2016). This research team cited research carried out in the UK about the prominence of the attitude-behavior gap, or values-action gap. When talking about green products, 30% of the consumers reported concern over environmental issues, but were slow to translate such concern into actually going green (Antunes da Luz et al. 2016). Attention to more ethics education may be of value.

consciously are two key strategies. Reflections citizen-consumers might consider are, “Does this action move me towards or away from my life goals? How does it help or hinder others? What ripple effects might this consumption generate for the water, air, soil?” Some questions that may be helpful in assisting with transiting to more conscious and sustainable practices are from the “Ten Transformers” (homeplanet.org).

Ethics Education To address these growing environmental, economic, political crises require addressing the spiritual crisis. Strategies for successful transitions may seek to include secular and spiritual teachings on empathy, compassion and selfdiscipline as well as texts from social-psychology, eco-psychology, or environmental education (Hawken 1993; Roszak 1992). An emphasis on values education appears beneficial; such insights may be found in the cultures of some communities that previously were colonized and discredited. Qualities that many First Peoples strive to teach and to emulate are called the Seven Sacred Teachings. To cherish knowledge is to know wisdom; To know love is to know peace; To honor all of the Creation is to have respect; Bravery is to face the foe with integrity; Honesty also means “righteousness”, be honest first with yourself – in word and action; Humility is to know yourself as a sacred part of the Creation; and Truth is to know all of these things (Empowering the Spirit 2017).

1. Does the issue, product, food, decision, behavior serve my highest purpose? 2. Am I being wise? 3. Have I accumulated enough intelligence or information to make a decision? 4. What judgments or bias’ are present? 5. Have I used compassion and mercy in my decision? 6. Does the issue product, food, decision, or behavior serve to heal the planet? Measuring Consumption Impact To calculate one’s impact from consumption may be challenging to achieve. How might one assess the value of the environmental, health, and social impact of their consumption patterns? Various tools have been devised; one being the life cycle assessment (LCA) (Yao et al. 2015). LCA is a helpful yet complex tool to apply. It may be more frequently used in industrial contexts where there is willingness to invest the time and effort to design the study, collect the data, and analyze and calculate the impact. If applied effectively, the impact assessment would reveal areas in which improvements could be made.

Technological Innovations Those cultivating conscious lifestyles may also want to respect and integrate the principles of: cooperation, freedom, happiness, responsibility, simplicity, understanding, and unity (Kennedy 2010; Roszak 1992). Educators and community facilitators may propose exercises to steer citizen-consumers towards becoming more conscious citizens and sustainable consumers. Consuming less and then consuming fewer things more wisely and

With advances in technology, not only can practices be deployed to reduce harm, they are increasingly being designed to replenish human debts to nature. Innovations that help consumers to live comfortably but with minimum adverse ecological impacts could be more frequently deployed (Goleman 2009). Devices that reduce emissions and energy use could also be helpful. Technology that helps to measure and offer feedback on

C

284

consumption patterns and impact could be beneficial in helpings consumer recalibrate their beliefs and habits. With the magnitude of wide scale overconsumption significant shifts and systems solutions are needed. Institutes of higher education could be preparing citizens more than consumers and reducers more than consumers. Such may be the outcome of more systems thinking. Another strategy is to promote companies with production practices that help consumers make healthy and ethical choices. Organizations that demonstrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) and “conscious brands” may enable citizen-consumers to replace the dissonance when making purchases with pride and confidence that the purchase advances their individual and community goals (Adams 2014). Supporting Fairtrade labels may be one such example. Other efforts to rethink consumption habits include websites like Kijiji and Craigslist that encourage buying second-hand and many charity shops also help consumers direct their funds to “good causes” through their consumption. Cooperative approaches to online purchasing, buying clubs, trading items with friends, and learning to “make do” with what they have are other examples of approaches to conscious consumption. Other approaches to conscious consumption may be to inspire consumers to reduce their footprint in the size of their homes and the amount of materials they consume through their lifestyles. Those who switched to Tiny Homes and “small footprint living” found organization, clarity, and enjoyment and ease had returned to their lives. “But I kind of feel like paring down and having less is more – it makes life simpler” (Rodgers as cited by Gross 2017).

Conclusion A lengthy quote by Krishnamurti is worth considering. Many of us have forgotten how to be kindly, how to look at the stars, at the trees, at the reflections on the water, we require stimulation of pictures and jewels, of books and endless amusements. We are constantly seeking new excitements, new thrills; we crave an ever-increasing variety of sensations. The craving for sensation and gratification prevents the experiencing of that which is always new.

Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development Sensations can be bought, but not the love of beauty. The pursuit of sensation dominates the mind. Sensations like pleasure, excitement, fear and violence are dominant features of the modern life. Virtue comes with freedom; it comes when there is an understanding of what is. The signing of a contract does not induce love, nor is it based on an exchange of gratification, nor on mutual security and comfort. All these things are of the mind; and that is why love occupies so small a place in our lives. . .. it is the lack of love that creates the problem (Krishnamurti 1953, pp. 122–123).

The roles of education, of educators, of leaders, of citizen-consumers need to include that of conscious consumer, among other functions. “If we look at humanity’s and Mother Earth’s future through the eyes of our children and grandchildren we will feel, immediately, the need of concerning ourselves with sustainability and of creating means to implement it in every field of reality” (Boff 2012 as cited by Antunes da Luz et al. 2016, p. 315). Conscious consumption holds great potential when it becomes the habit of choice of concerned citizens and compassionate humans.

References Adams T (2014) Brands must embrace the future of fully conscious consumption. The Guardian, Marketing and Sustainability. 23 Apr 2014, p 106 Anand S, Sen A (2000) Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev 28(12):2029–2049 Antunes da Luz A, de Francisco A, Miranda Santos S, Mesquita Soares A, Kovaleski J (2016) Sustainable development and conscious consumption: a perception of undergraduate interns in the region of camps Gerais, Parana, Brazil. Interciencia 41(5):312–318. Accessed 20 Nov 2017 at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa? id=33945552004 Brookfield SD (2000) Transformative learning as ideology critique. In: Mezirow, Associates J, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Kindle ed. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. pp. 125–148 Empowering the spirit (2017) Seven sacred teachings. Accessed on 12 Dec 2017 at http://empoweringthespirit. ca/cultural-awareness/seven-grandfathers-teachings/ Fox M (1979) A spirituality named compassion. Harper and Row Pub, New York Fox M (1994) The reinvention of work: a new vision of livelihood for our time. HarperCollins, New York Galtung J (1969) Violence, peace, and peace research. J Peace Res 6(3):167–191 Gekko G (1987) Wall street, Hollywood film

Conservation and Sustainable Development Goleman D (2009) Sustainability: the future of ecological leadership. Harvard Business Review online. https://hbr.org/2009/05/the-future-of-ecologica l-leade.html. (Cons.03/22/2016) Gross A (2017) Cottage living: the pros and cons of a small footprint. Newsday, Lifestyle Home and Garden Hawken P (1993) The ecology of commerce: declaration of sustainability. HarperCollins Publishers, New York Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2015) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13:38–52 IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (1980) World Conservation Strategy. Accessed 14 Mar 2004. http://sustainability.psu.edu/fieldguide/ wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IUCN_World-Conservati on-Strategy.pdf Jackson T (2006) Beyond the ‘Wellbeing Paradox’: – wellbeing, consumption growth and sustainability. University of Surrey, Surrey. https://www.surrey.ac. uk/ces/files/pdf/0606_WP_Wellbeing_and_SD.pdf Johnston J (2008) The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of whole foods market. Theory Soc 37(3):229–270 Kennedy A (2010) 2010. Using community-based social marketing techniques to enhance environmental regulation. Sustainability 2(4):1138–1160 Kevany KD (2002) The art of stewardship: service beyond self, doctoral thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto Krishnamurti J (1953) Education and the significance of life. Harper & Row, San Francisco Levan C (1998) Living in the maybe: a steward confronts the spirit of fundamentalism. W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Mezirow JE (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco Orr DW (2004) Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington, DC Roszak T (1992) The voice of the earth: and exploration of Ecopsychology. Touchstone Book, New York Sassatelli R (2006) Virtue, responsibility and consumer choice: framing critical consumerism. In: Brewer J, Trentmann F (eds) Consuming cultures, global perspectives: historical trajectories, transnational exchanges. Berg, Oxford, pp 219–250 Spaargaren G (2011) Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture: Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. Glob Environ Chang 21(3):813–822 Statista (2017) Global advertising market – statistics & facts. The statistics portal. https://www.statista.com/ topics/990/global-advertising-market/ Taylor C (2007) A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Ten Transformers from the website homeplanet.org Theobald R (1997) The Challenge of abundance. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island Wallis J (1994) Soul of politics: beyond the religious right and secular left. Harcourt Brace, New York

285 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15 Wren-Lewis J (n.d.) The Dazzling Dark, John Wren-Lewis – a near-death experience opens the door to a permanent transformation. http://www.capacitie. org/wren/archive.htm WWF (2016) Living planet report 2016 summary. Accessed on 27 October 2017, http://awsassets.panda. org/downloads/lpr_2016_summary_high_res.pdf Yao L, Liu L, Wang R, Yin K, Han B (2015) A qualitative network model for understanding regional metabolism in the context of Social–Economic–Natural Complex Ecosystem theory. Eco Inform 26(Part 1):29–34

Conservation and Sustainable Development Bila-Isia Inogwabini Center for Research and Communication in Sustainable Development (CERED), Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, The Jesuit Loyola University of Congo, Kinshasa, Congo Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Definition The chapter discusses the linkages between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Based on the three key principles of sustained extraction of natural resources based on scientific management, reduced wastage, and equity in redistribution of the yields, the chapter demonstrates that biodiversity conservation is part of the foundation on which sustainability is constructed.

Introduction Modern-day biodiversity conservation, as opposed to preserving biodiversity, can be genuinely traced back to the publication of the worldwidely prized The Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. in 1972. According to Inogwabini and Leader-Williams (2013), this volume

C

286

predicted a gloomy future for humankind, prompted by our over-extraction of natural resources. Globally, humankind has gained an increasing interest in exploring the role that our species has played in shaping the ecosystems in which they live (Des Jardins 2001). Since then, conservation and environmental issues have become a persistent theme in wider debates over human development and well-being (Ghimire and Pimbert 2000). The establishment of numerous international, national, and local multilateral, governmental, and non-governmental organizations and conventions provides evidence of an emerging consensus and a more active willingness by societies around the world to care for their environment. Indeed, the Convention on Biological Diversity now has more than 190 state signatories, which is more than any other United Nations Convention. Despite that large international consensus, the question about how to conserve biodiversity is still much debated. There is this wide spectrum of biodiversity conservation paradigms, ranging from traditional resource conservation through use to religiously immaculate protection of untouchable biota (Inogwabini and Leader-Williams 2013; Bajracharya and Dahal 2008; Madhusudan and Raman 2003; Karanth 2001; Ghimire and Pimbert 2000). At one end of the spectrum is the elitist approach to conservation, whose main aim is to extract biodiversity from direct human use and influence by establishing biodiversity priority areas for conservation that are justified by motives such as scientific research and recreation (Ghimire and Pimbert 2000); this paradigm originated a long way back in human history (Dixon and Sherman 1991), with historical epitomes being royal reserves in Assyria in 700 BC and similar actions in China in 300 BC (Waley 1939). The elitist approach to conservation is sometimes known as fence-and-fines approach (Carruthers 2004). At the other end of the spectrum lays the biodiversity conservation constituency that holds the beliefs that the best approach to conservation is to integrate humankind in the overall biodiversity conservation’s equation. Indeed, humans are a key part of the ecosystems in which they live (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003).

Conservation and Sustainable Development

Acknowledging that crucial reality, Inogwabini and Leader-Williams (2013) argued that biodiversity and environmental conservation can only be achieved by making multiple arrangements with local communities to manage ecosystems in a sustainable way, including through common property resource regimes. Seen from these perspectives, even establishing protected areas should seek ways in which human aspirations and needs over the long term should be better accommodated (Leader-Williams et al. 1990). Integrated Humankind – Biodiversity Conservation paradigm is sometimes termed the “populist approach” and is far from being a recent scientific creation; it has its roots in the very definition for conservation that Pinchot offered nearly a century ago (Smith 1998; Ponder 1987): conservation is prudent use of nature’s bounty, as opposed to unrestricted extraction of natural resources (Eckersley 1992). Pinchot’s way of defining conservation espouses three important principles: (a) sustained extraction of natural resources based on the principles of scientific management; (b) reduced wastage of natural resources; and (c) equitable sharing of the benefits deriving from those resources by all social segments. According to Jardins (2001), this definition is essentially anthropocentric, but it also paves the way to modern concepts of “multiple use” (Kennedy and Quigley 1994) and “sustainable development” (IUCN 1991). Imbedded in the heart of the key objectives of the 1992 – Convention on Biological Diversity (Glowka et al. 1996), multiple use and sustainable development are now the gauges by which sound conservation approaches are to be measured. Integrated Humankind – Biodiversity Conservation paradigm offers solid foundations to what is currently known as human welfare ecology (Blaikie and Jeanreneaud 2000), which places humanity at the center of biodiversity conservation. Stating so, however, calls for some clarifications, which would help show the linkages between conserving biodiversity and sustainable development. Of course, the first set of clarifications is about clearing the minds on what concepts “biodiversity conservation” and “sustainable development” mean. This is what is done in the section that follows.

Conservation and Sustainable Development

Clarifying Concepts Obviously, to understand biodiversity conservation, it is important to understand what it is meant by biodiversity. The definition of the concept biodiversity has changed over time (Bosworth et al. 2011). Narrowly defined, biodiversity is equated with the number of species or what is called the “species richness” found in a given location (Morgan 2009). However, during the past decades, this definition moved away from the narrowness of numbers of species; it now includes living organisms and the complex interactions between them and interactions between living organisms and their abiotic environments. Hence, shortly, biodiversity is the totality of living organisms and functions that ensure that life (as it is currently known to humans) is maintained on earth. This definition decomposes biodiversity in three main components, composition, structure, and function (Neem et al. 2008, cited by Bosworth et al. 2011), and implies that biodiversity should not be viewed only as the total numbers species; it has to be expanded to include functions that interrelate different organisms and sustain life on earth. It follows from the very definition of biodiversity that, broadly, biodiversity conservation is about investing concerted efforts to ensure that the totality of living organisms and biological, chemical, and physical functions that maintain life (as it is currently known to humans) are kept safe. Reasons to support biodiversity conservation are instrumental, utilitarian value of biodiversity, intrinsic values, and human responsibilities toward nature. As corollaries to these reasons, cohorts of arguments (economic argument, cultural) and principles (precautionary principles and intergenerational fairness) have been put forward. The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as a development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Brundtland Commission is another way to call the World Commission on Environment and Development. Evidently, a development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of

287

future generations to meet their own needs is one of the principles, namely, the intergenerational fairness principle, which is at the core of biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity does offer not only raw resources for human to develop material means on which to live, but it does also provide conditions that sustain the physical human life itself on earth. It is in that sense that conserving biodiversity is more than just an issue of maintaining biodiversity in order to ensure that material resources are available for humans to extract; conserving biodiversity has ethical implications. Responsibilities toward biodiversity go beyond the precautionary principle and intergenerational fairness; they are about what future humans want of life on their own on earth.

Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development As indicated above, to conserve biodiversity is to invest concerted efforts to maintain the totality of living organisms and biological, chemical, and physical functions stable. This is to be done through an “Integrated Humankind – Biodiversity” Conservation approach. The “Integrated Humankind – Biodiversity” Conservation paradigm is grounded on the human welfare ecology. The backbones of human welfare ecology are that any action should account for (1) environmental quality, (2) social justice, (3) democratic rights and duties, (4) equitable access to natural resources, and (5) recreation and spiritual needs (Jardins 2001; Eckersley 1992). Human welfare ecology is based on the concept of ecosystem management. These five pillars of human welfare ecology provide metrics to sustainable development as defined by the Brundtland Commission. Indeed, the most difficult issue related to sustainable development is on how to define operational measurable indicators. So, using the five pillars of human welfare ecology, one would sensibly identify elements of sustainable development, as understood currently. Before doing so, however, rephrasing Bennett (2004), the importance of strengthening ecological coherence and resilience as necessary conditions for both biodiversity

C

288

conservation and sustainable development has to be firmly and clearly stated. Sustainable Development is about Sustained existence of Natural Resources First and above all, the very idea of sustainability conveys an image of a system with positive feedback loops ensuring that the system and its components are sustained over time (Chapin and Whiteman 1998). The system can be pictured as the whole world, and eco-regions, biomes, ecosystems, and species are constituents of that system. Framed this way, each component has to ensure that its effects contribute to the maintenance of the multiple and diversified life’s equilibriums throughout the world. The word conservation has similar meanings, implying “whatever is there remains present there” in its current shape, functions, and geographic location. Without so much theoretical digging behind the palpable, the basic understanding of both concepts shows that they are interlinked in several ways. Biodiversity conservation aims at maintaining different forms of life on earth, while sustainable development seeks to use different natural resources but in a way that they should be conserved in the long run. Conserving biodiversity constructs foci of resilience of natural systems, while sustainability would seem to be an action to prevent abusive usage of materials provided by resilient ecological systems. These linkages are shown in some details in each subheading below. For a comprehensive understanding, the narrative will build on different sustainable development goals (SDG), which have obtained a consensus, which can be genuinely interpreted as being globally accepted. Sustainable Development Is About Environmental Quality This is basically about delivering on ecosystem services. Conservation biodiversity will ensure that ecosystems are maintained in good health, which, in turn, will help maintain environmental quality. Environmental quality is a prerequisite for human well-being, and that quality can be serviced mainly only by conserving the biological diversity residing in different ecosystems.

Conservation and Sustainable Development

Particularly, conserving biodiversity will provide support to sustainable development goals such as good health and well-being (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and affordable and clean energy (SDG 7). There are no better means to keep the environmental quality and provide good quality ecosystem services than keeping the ecosystems safe of unwarranted human interventions. This is the core business of biodiversity conservation. Relatively unbroken stands of forests, for example, ensure good quality water and cleaner air and, for some cultures, provide spiritual goods that are necessary for humans. Biodiversity conservation, in many parts of the world, strives to keep unbroken forest stands for diverse reasons, including as means to preserve habitat species. Biodiversity conservation also encourages caring for forests for their own sake because of species that constitute these forests. In working to maintain forest covers relatively intact, biodiversity conservation contributes significantly in keeping environmental quality at levels that are capable to sustain life. Sustainable Development Is About Social Justice This is the essence of sustainable development objectives on gender equality (SDG 5), reduced inequality (SDG 10), and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). Human welfare ecology addresses these in terms of its other pillars, namely, democratic rights and duties and equitable access to natural resources. As indicated above, biodiversity conservation needs to place human needs at the core of its thinking; this is not only through looking at the negative human impacts on diverse components of biodiversity but also in factoring human needs as part of the ecological processes. By doing so, biodiversity conservation sets thresholds of resilience, which are limits beyond which human activities should not drive the ecosystems. Access to food is among the first of human rights, which is also the first metrics of social justice. Biodiversity conservation, understood as means to ensure that species and their functions are maintained stable on earth, ensures that animal and plant food species are maintained throughout the planet. Doing so will

Conservation and Sustainable Development

contribute to reducing hunger (SDG 2). Of course, reducing hunger cannot be adequately addressed in the current conditions without touching upon issues of responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). The current levels of consumptions are far from being responsible; a large portion of consumptions is not based on genuine needs. There are those who consume, and industrial mass production has directed humans’ reduced wastage of natural resources. Sustainable Development Is About Preserving Life Below Water (SDG 14) and Life on Land (SDG 15) As indicated above, maintaining the stability of biodiversity (defined as being inclusive of species and biological, chemical, and physical functions) on earth is the paramount objective of biodiversity conservation. The role of biodiversity conservation here will be to maintain viable ecosystems where these are still present and restore ecological functionalities of these that have been degraded by human activities over the last centuries. Biodiversity conservation will offer the opportunities to study, to understand, and to implement human extractive activities that are compatible with the ecological resilience of freshwater and marine ecosystems as well as wetlands and multiple terrestrial ecosystems. Healthy biodiversity conduces to higher ecosystem productivity, which offers higher returns for extractive activities such as fishing on freshwaters and oceanic environments; and healthy soil ecosystems and biodiversity are sine qua non conditions for increased agricultural yields. Biodiversity conservation is a means to sustain healthy biodiversity and healthy soil ecosystems and biodiversity across the world. Because these lead to increased productivity for food, it is sensible to infer that biodiversity conservation is clearly vital to achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger). Biodiversity conservation is a means to ensure that major ecosystems of the earth such as forests, soils, and waters are kept healthy. Healthy forests, healthy soils, and healthy waters offer the largest sinks for carbon dioxide, which contributes significantly to the greenhouse effects. Hence, biodiversity conservation is also a means to act positively on climate change by keeping

289

healthy ecosystems that would swallow large chunks of CO2. Simply stated, to achieve SDG 13, biodiversity conservation is a key component of the general mixture of scenarios being envisaged. Sustainable Development Is About Ending Poverty (SGD 1), Yet Biodiversity Conservation Offers the Means to Achieve This Goal In the debate about what type of food production would be sustainable in providing both quality food and ecological returns to the ecosystems, researchers (e.g., Tscharntke et al. 2012) have demonstrated that, as opposed to large-scale farming, agriculture practiced under smallholder farmer-dominated landscapes is currently the backbone of global food security in the developing world. Smallholder farming distributes the production chain across a large number of community members providing them access to land and food markets. This in turn contributes to helping large numbers of people, including men and women wherever they might be located, fight against the poverty at different scales. The intrinsic nature of smallholder farming is that it is worldwidely a means to achieve the gender inclusivity (SDG 5). Indeed, the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV 2012) argued that the steady rise in global demand for food and agricultural commodities presents smallholder women with opportunities to take better advantage of diversifying markets and earn a competitive price for their produce. Presenting women with opportunities to take better advantage of markets and earn more financial incomes is a path to reducing inequality (SDG 10). Biodiversity conservation would, therefore, offer the means to achieve this outcome through ecological agriculture, which also known as “eco-agriculture landscaping” (Scherr and McNeely 2008). Other technical frameworks to achieve the same results have been tried in different places and include, without arrogance to claim being exhaustive, approaches such as ecological networks, biosphere reserves, reserve networks, bioregional planning, biological or conservation corridors, and ecoregion-based conservation (Bennett 2004). But the ultimate goal for all these models

C

290

remains the same: to conserve essential ecosystem functions while simultaneously allowing an exploitation of natural resources and economic development that would not break the natural capacities for biological resources to bounce back (Bennett 2004). For certain, ecological agricultural farming methods are still being discussed by the scientific community and the trajectory it will take still unmapped. However, there are scientists (e.g., Brussaard et al. 2010) who believe in the possibility of a science that develops the best ecological means to produce food in a way that has substantially less negative effects on biodiversity and associated ecosystem services and, indeed, should be able to contribute to their persistence and enhancement. Furthermore, the global livelihood of most of communities in the developing world heavily depends on natural assets, which are mostly biological in nature. As Barretta et al. (2011) rightly concluded, degradation in these natural assets leads to deterioration in the human conditions. Conserving natural biological goods is, therefore, an efficient tool to prevent the worsening of human conditions.

Cross-Fertilization Between Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development The narrative above may be wrongly interpreted as stating that only biodiversity conservation is important to sustainable development. This is not so: indeed, biodiversity conservation also benefits from the general sustainable development framework and guidelines. Requirements made by the very concept of sustainable development such as pressing demands on environmental impact assessment for development projects that are highly placed on the sustainable development’s agenda support the very ideals that are entrenched in matrices of biodiversity conservation. A good point to bring up in this context of how sustainable development would support biodiversity conservation is the demand made by sustainable development to care about biodiversity across the world. This demand forces humans, as indicated above, to think more creatively and foster innovation in

Conservation and Sustainable Development

many other areas of human lives (SDG 9 and SDG 11). Innovation is needed in many areas, particularly in how humans treat the waste that is generated from their living habits, including food that has been being wasted for reasons of inefficiencies of production and consumption mechanisms. Wasted waters and food and other types wastes from industry impoverish soils and waters; they do destroy some biodiversity. Innovations in how to address these wastes will have globally positive effects on biodiversity conservation. More broadly, the very sustainable development framework provides a stall for the thinking process for many biodiversity conservation biologists and other actors. With this in mind, it is far from being an overstatement to indicate that sustainable development helps biodiversity conservation actors to think beyond the boxes of species and community biology. Because humans are a major determinant of what happens to other species on earth, conservation is far from being an issue of biology. The diversified philosophical background that is attached to the sustainable development offers a mining area that is often ploughed by conservation actors. Particularly and historically, there has been a stiff conflict between preserving biodiversity and fulfilling basic human needs of local communities residing within and near highly valued biodiversity areas (Adams et al. 2004). Human communities local to those areas were, historically, not allowed to exploit resources within and near these areas even if that exploitation was relatively harmless to biodiversity. The idea of biodiversity conservation, geared with the notion sustainable development, provides the means to bridge that gap, which was thought to be incommensurable. In that sense, biodiversity conservation and sustainability crossfertilize each other. This conclusion should not, however, blur the lines demarcating biodiversity conservation and sustainable development because, paraphrasing Adams et al. (2004), these are two different policy areas; each can be pursued in its own right. But, the basic value of the idea of sustainability lies, in the end, in the efforts it requires from practitioners of both sides to bridge the gap between the two without merging them into a single objective, which they are not. Bringing together the efforts required from practitioners of

Conservation and Sustainable Development

both sides, that is, from biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, is what is truly called partnership (SDG 17), without which nothing will be achieved on both sides.

291

actually a set of goals to be achieved through the actions needed for the other (sustainable development).

Cross-References A Final Reflection Beyond the opposition described above (see the paragraph on “Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development”) and the existing cross-fertilization pathways (discussed in the section immediately above), it is important to remind all of us of the clarified definition of biodiversity as both the building blocks of and the mechanisms (processes, functions, and relationships) to maintain life on earth. With this in mind, one can come to see that opposing sustainable development against biodiversity conservation is, in essence, a flawed way of looking at things. Indeed, there cannot be thoughts of development without agents of development; the very existence of agents of development is prerequisite by biodiversity. That gives the very reason why Sustainable Development Goals 14 (Life below water) and 15 (Life on land), which have been described elsewhere as being development civilization goals (see ▶ “Ecology and Sustainable Development” in this encyclopedia). Indeed, for development to be genuinely sustainable, its action needs to conserve biodiversity on earth in sufficiently good shape. Sustainable Development Goals 14 and 15, respectively, boil down to, in a more expanded version, conserving and sustainably using ocean, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development and (2) protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managing forests, combating desertification, and halting and reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity loss. These details are clearly a plan of action, which should provide the overarching blueprint of how sustainable development should be deployed across the planet. Seen from this angle, the dichotomous opposition between biodiversity conservation and sustainability can be bridged without needing enormous moral discussions. One may conclude that one (biodiversity conservation) is

▶ Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development ▶ Water Conservation Strategies for Sustainable Development

References Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306:1146–1149 Bajracharya SB, Dahal N (2008) Shifting paradigms in protected area management. National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), Kathmandu Barretta CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. PNAS 108(34): 13907–13912 Bennett G (2004) Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological networks. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland Blaikie P, Jeanrenaud S (2000) Biodiversity and human welfare. In: Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP (eds) Social change and conservation. Earthscan, London, pp 46–70 Bosworth A, Chaipraditkul N, Cheng MM, Gupta A, Junmookda K, Kadam P, Macer D, Millet C, Sangaroonthong J, Waller A (2011) Ethics and biodiversity. Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, UNESCO, Bangkok Brussaard L, Caron P, Campbell B, Lipper L, Mainka S, Rabbinge R, Babin D, Pulleman M (2010) Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:34–42 Carruthers J (2004) Africa: histories, ecologies and societies. Environ Hist 10:379–406 Chapin FS, Whiteman G (1998) Sustainable development of the boreal forest: interaction of ecological, social, and business feedbacks. Conserv Ecol 2(2):12. Available from the Internet. http://www.consecol.org/vol2/ iss2/art12/ Des Jardins JR (2001) An introduction to environmental philosophy, 3rd edn. Wadsworh – Thomas, California Dixon JA, Sherman PB (1991) Economics of protected areas: a new look at costs and benefits. Earthscan, London Eckersley R (1992) Environmentalism and political theory: toward an eco-centric approach. University College London Press, London

C

292 Ghimire KB, Pimbert PM (2000) Social changes and conservation: an overview of issues and concepts. In: Ghimire KB, Pimbert PM (eds) Social changes and conservation. EarthScan, London, pp 1–45 Glowka L, Burhenne-Guilmin F, Synge H (1996) A guide to the convention on biological diversity. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Papers Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37:215–226 Inogwabini BI, Leader-Williams N (2013) Conservation paradigms seen through the lenses of bonobos. In: Sodhi NS, Raven P (eds) Conservation biology: lessons from the tropics. Oxford University Press, Oxford IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (1991) Caring for the earth: a strategy for sustainable living. The World IUCN, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and World Wide Fund (WWF) Karanth KU (2001) Debating conservation as if reality matters. Conserv Soc 1(1):64–66 Kennedy JJ, Quigley TM (1994) Evolution of forest service organizational culture and adaptation issues in embracing ecosystem management. In: Jensen ME, Bougeron PS (eds) Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Volume II. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR318, Portland, Oregon, pp 16–26 Leader-Williams N, Harrison J, Green MJB (1990) Designing protected areas to conserve natural resources. Sci Prog 74:189–204 Madhusudan MD, Raman TRS (2003) Conservation as if biological diversity matters: preservation versus sustainable use in India. Conserv Soc 1:49–59 Morgan GJ (2009) The many dimensions of biodiversity. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 40(2009):235–238 Neem S, Bunker D, Hector A, Loreau M and Perrings C (2008) Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and Human Wellbeing. Oxford University Press, New York Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV 2012) (2012) Gender and agriculture. SNV Brief (4). Available at http://www.snv.org/public/cms/sites/default/files/ explore/download/snv_practice_brief_4_-_gender_and_ agriculture.pdf Ponder S (1987) Gifford Pinchot: press agent for forestry. J For Hist 31:26–35 Scherr SJ, McNeely JA (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:477–494 Smith MB (1998) The value of a tree: public debates of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Historian 60:757–778 Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59 Waley A (1939) Three ways of thought in ancient China. George Allen and Unwin, London

Constructive Development Theory

Constructive Development Theory ▶ How Worldview Development Influences Knowledge and Beliefs About Sustainability

Constructivism and Sustainable Development Qudsia Kalsoom School of Education, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore, Pakistan

Definition Constructivism and sustainable development may be defined as a dynamic relationship between knowledge construction, learning, and sustainability. The relationship is complex because of the complexity of the concepts of constructivism and sustainability. In this relationship, constructivism is both an antecedent condition for sustainable development and a process of sustainable development. The problems of sustainability are not fixed but rather fluid and uncertain. To address the ever-changing and emerging problems of sustainability, constructivist solutions are needed because they capture the complexity of the phenomenon. Constructivist solutions involve subprocesses of constructivist thinking, constructivist practices, and constructivist knowledge creation.

Introduction Constructivism and sustainable development are closely linked. Constructivism is a theory of learning as well as a philosophical position, while sustainable development is an ideal to be achieved. Constructivism is rooted in the belief that “knowledge” is constructed by the people. It is not “fixed” and “out there.” Knowledge about the problems associated with sustainability should also be constructed. The problems of today’s

Constructivism and Sustainable Development

world are different from the problems of previous centuries. Environmental degradation and climate change are the phenomenon of past 100 years. Similarly, the gap between rich and poor countries has never been so vast until the twentieth century. Dealing with monstrous industrial waste is another example of today’s problems. Sustainable development is the development which is concerned about sustainability problems and intends to address them to achieve a state of balance between three components of sustainability, i.e., economy, society, and the environment. As sustainability problems are “real-world problems” (Brundiers et al. 2010) involving a number of players, therefore, their solutions should also involve a number of people in some way or other. Involvement of “everyone” in the journey of sustainability is possible if people are open to learn about the real-world problems and are committed to play a role in addressing them. Researchers have to find integrative solutions to the problems, while solution implementers have to constantly reflect on the outcomes and modify solutions wherever necessary. Ever changing nature and complexity of sustainability problems make it desirable to employ constructivist approach in learning about sustainability issues and conducting research.

Constructivism and Sustainable Development/Sustainability Sustainable development has a connection with constructivism. The following sections explain constructivism, SD, and relationship between the two constructs, i.e., constructivism and SD. Constructivism Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning. It explains “knowing” and how one comes to know (Fosnot 2013). The term appears quite often in literature related to educational psychology and research methods in social sciences. Some authors use the term “constructivism” interchangeably with “constructionism,” while others consider constructivism as a learning theory while “constructionism” as a research paradigm.

293

However, many theorists have used the term constructivism as a research paradigm (Lincoln and Guba 2013). Constructivism as a Theory of Learning

“Constructivism” in educational psychology refers to a set of learning theories. Constructivist theories of learning view learning as a process of making/constructing meaning and developing deep insights through experience and social interaction (Fosnot 1996). Constructivists believe that learning is a process of development involving creation of conceptualizations and validating them. This view is in contrast with the concept of learning as memorizing information existing in books. It is different from behaviorist theory of learning too. Behaviorist theory of learning views learning as a relatively permanent change in behavior, while constructivism views learning as a continuous process of meaning construction. In behaviorism, learning is a product, while in constructivism, learning is a process of development. There are different models of constructivism like trivial constructivism, social constructivism, and radical constructivism. Trivial constructivism views knowledge as internalization and reconstruction of external reality. Conversely, radical constructivism views knowledge as reconstruction of existing knowledge structures in the light of new experiences. According to this view, knowledge is not an accurate representation of external reality (Doolittle 2014). Radical constructivism can be explained in the light of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Piaget 1977). According to him, cognitive development involves mental processes of assimilation, accommodation, contradiction, and equilibrium. Assimilation allows learners to assimilate new information or concepts in prior existing schemas. Accommodation involves building on the existing conceptions, thus altering them. For example, a learner might have understanding of environmental pollution. New information such that irresponsible consumers’ behavior is responsible for environmental pollution will be first assimilated by the learners in their existing schema/conceptualization of “environmental pollution.” If the learners further process that information in their

C

294

minds, then they will be able to learn about the concept of responsible consumer behavior. While learning new concepts, there is constant shifting between the processes of assimilation and accommodation. This is called equilibrium. A truly constructivist learning environment allows the learners to experience cognitive processes leading to learning of new concepts. Piaget believed that activities of explorations and discovery were important in cognitive development or learning. Social constructivism views “knowledge” as something socially constructed. Social constructivists believe that learning is the process of building internal representations of external structures. These internal representations are influenced by one’s beliefs, prior experiences, culture, interaction with others, and scaffolding (Doolittle 2014). Like radical constructivism, social constructivism also rejects the idea of external reality. Researchers have tried to identify principles of constructivism to explain the concept further (Hein 1991; Doolittle and Hicks 2003). Some of the key principles are as follows: • Learning is an active, mental process in which the learner uses sensory input and constructs meaning out of it. Though hands-on experiences are important in learning, they do not lead to learning without mental engagement. • The construction of knowledge or making meaning are individually and socially active processes. • Language is an important factor in meaning construction. The language we use influences our learning. • Learning is essentially contextual. We cannot learn isolated facts and theories devoid of any context. We learn new things in relationship to what else we know, what we believe, our prejudices, and our fears. • Learning is not instantaneous. For real learning, we need to revisit ideas, ponder on them, try them out, play with them, and use them. • The construction of knowledge is fostered by authentic and real-world environments. The above principles of constructivism suggest that the process of meaning making is complex

Constructivism and Sustainable Development

and involves a number of influences like time, context, language, etc. These principles provide a guideline to educators to plan for constructivist learning activities. Constructivism as a Philosophical Position

Constructivism as a “worldview” refers to ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological assumptions. Constructivism views reality as nonphysical matter of convention and definition. In other words, reality exists only in the minds of the people contemplating them. These people are social scientists. “Reality” in constructivism is determined or influenced by the relationship between the knower and the knowable (to be known). So knowledge created by the “knower” is subjective and mediated by the knower’s prior experiences, gender, social status, race, and context. Knowledge created or constructed by the knower exists in the time/space framework. As knowledge is created by the knowers, therefore it is important to study the constructions of different knowers to infer conclusions. Moreover, the values of the knowers and the research participants should be uncovered or made transparent (Lincoln and Guba 2013). Sustainable Development/Sustainability Sustainable development or sustainability is a complex, integrative concept comprising of environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspects. The changing world is characterized by increasing complexity, globalization, and reflexive modernization. Today, quality of technological product cannot be judged on classical criteria of inner engineering because each engineering product has implications for society, economy, and environment. Similarly, decisions made at the global, corporate, or national levels have implications for the society, economy, and the environment. Considering the interconnectedness of issues, sustainable development focuses on the “wholeness.” The purpose of sustainability is to keep the whole system functional without compromising the needs of the future generations. Sustainability is an ethical ideal for the development of the society without compromising/ destroying nature’s resources. In a wider sense,

Constructivism and Sustainable Development

sustainability is associated with the equity in the possibilities for development between the present and the future generations (Ciegis et al. 2009). Sustainability is concerned for using the earth’s resources cautiously and equitably to allow present and future generations to continue to exist on Earth with an adequate quality of life. In this vein, “sustainability is a valuated quality of processes, structures and systems” (Becker et al. 1999) that helps people today and tomorrow to get a “proper and fair share of the planet’s resources” (Ciegis et al. 2009). Economy, society, and environment are three key underlying dimensions of sustainability. These components interact and influence each other in a whole. Therefore, sustainability refers to sustaining the whole system by maintaining a balance among its components. Sustainability is not a physical entity or condition which may be achieved after an intervention. It is a thinking paradigm based upon the values associated with human dignity and human rights (McKeown and Nolet 2013). Sustainability as an outcome of sustainability initiatives is a state of balance among the individual components of the whole system. This involves environmental sustainability or conservation along with socioeconomic sustainability. Environmental sustainability achieved with present trends, where a small minority lives in luxury, would be socially unsustainable as it will continue perpetuating institutionalized injustice (Bossel 1999). Similarly, exploiting environmental resources at higher rate to meet the needs of all people in all countries will not be environmentally sustainable. Relationship Between Constructivism and Sustainability Learning Constructivism, both as a theory of learning and as a worldview, is related to sustainable development. As a theory of learning, constructivism has implications for making people acquire sustainability competencies – a precondition for sustainable development. The competencies include systems thinking; normative competence; strategic competence; anticipatory competence; and interpersonal competence (Wiek et al. 2011). Sustainability competencies involve cognitive as well as affective dimensions of learning. These

295

competencies cannot be developed by memorizing information transmitted by the teacher. To develop sustainability competencies, learners should be provided opportunities to fully interact with the content related to economy, society, environment, and their interaction with each other. Scholars from the field of sustainability education have suggested the use of constructivist pedagogies to help the learners become aware of the dimensions of sustainable development. Some of the suggested constructivist pedagogies in sustainability education are project-based learning; service learning; community problem-solving; transdisciplinary problem-oriented learning; critical dialogue; inquiry-based learning; interdisciplinary undergraduate research; experiential learning; and internships (Brundiers et al. 2010; Cheong 2005; Kalsoom and Khanam 2017; Lasen et al. 2015; Wiek et al. 2014). It is also important to remember (as mentioned earlier) that learning does not occur instantaneously. It needs time. All constructivist pedagogies give time to the participants to assimilate new ideas and information in their existing concepts and then develop them as new concepts (accommodation). Besides cognitive learning, sustainable development requires affective learning, i.e., developing attitudes for carrying out favorable sustainability practices at the individual and collective levels. Affective learning is transformation in attitudes, hence, difficult to achieve. We can learn new information quickly, but developing an attitude needs time. For example, one can become aware of socioeconomic inequalities by looking at some statistics. However, developing an attitude to campaign against inequalities requires time. A favorable context may help in developing an attitude early. Constructivist pedagogies focusing on sustainability issues provide a context to the learners to transform their attitudes. For example, repeated critical dialogue on socioeconomic inequalities can help the participants to take a proactive role to address inequalities at individual or community level. Similarly, service learning provides a context to the participants to know about the problems faced by the people. A longer interaction with the people in the service learning program has a potential to bring

C

296

transformations in learners’ attitudes. Constructivist pedagogies are appropriate pedagogies for developing sustainability competencies because they provide opportunities for cognitive and affective learning. Constructivism and Sustainability Research Constructivism has implications for sustainability research too. Sustainability research is different from typical scientific research which aims at advancing the field by producing knowledge. The researchers from natural sciences apply positivist or post-positivist methodological approaches to produce context-free knowledge in laboratory settings. Scientific research methodology is rooted in ontological and epistemological assumptions that reality is absolute and independent of the knower and the context. These beliefs lead to laboratory-based research where the researcher can control variables and test hypotheses and theories. Contrarily, research in the field of sustainable development is not only concerned about the advancement of the field of sustainability; its main concern is to produce research that can solve sustainability problems. Dual focus of research (i.e., advancement of the field and solving the problems of sustainability) has resulted into a new field of research, i.e., sustainability science. The field of sustainability science is combination of research and education that “results in new knowledge, technology, innovation and holistic understanding” (UNESCO 2018). The aim of sustainability science cannot be achieved through natural science research methods because these methods are not applied in real-world settings. The problems of climate change, water scarcity, war, rapid urbanization, overpopulation, and gap between rich and poor are real-world problems. It is also true that most of these problems have occurred due to scientific advancements in different fields. These problems are underpinned by complexity, uncertainty, context, and incompleteness of information. These problems can neither be investigated nor solved in laboratory. They demand real-world, contextual solutions. There is a fair consensus among the academia that sustainability problems need new ways of knowledge production and decision-making

Constructivism and Sustainable Development

(Lang et al. 2012; Scholz et al. 2006). Sustainability research should reflect the complexity, diversity, and variability of the problems. Moreover, the research process should involve diverse actors, especially those whose needs and interests are at stake. This will help integrate the best available knowledge. It might also help in creating ownership among the people to address the problems. The research approach focusing on complexity, diversity, and contextuality of the research problems has been labeled as transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary research aims at the solution or transition of societal problems by integrating knowledge from various fields. The underlying assumption of transdisciplinary research is that our world is an integrated whole. Real world is not compartmentalized in different subjects or disciplines. All its problems are integrated and transdisciplinary. They cannot be solved through monodisciplinary knowledge. Transdisciplinary research process (TRP) is characterized by collaboration, production of solution-oriented knowledge, and application of the produced knowledge in scientific and societal practice. It is also important to consider that TRP is not a linear process but rather involves iterative or recursive cycles guided by regular reflection (Lang et al. 2012). It can be claimed that TRP involves simultaneous processes of learning and knowledge creation. Constructivism serves as a guiding learning theory and a worldview in TRP. The first step in TRP is building a collaborative research team. Scientists from different fields and key “actors” from the real world collectively plan a research project. They learn about and from each other’s knowledge and decide about what, where, how, why, when, and whom of the research project. All collaborative steps in TRP involve learning from each other. Lang et al. (2012) have identified the following steps in TRP. Building a common language. Team members are expected to build a “common language” to build the capacity of team members and prevent any misunderstandings at later stages of the research process. Defining the key terms. Team members operationalize or define all key terms collectively.

Constructivism and Sustainable Development

Creating shared understanding of the sustainability problem under research. Team members (scientists, practitioners, and actors) are expected to hold detailed dialogues on the research problem to make sure that all team members fully understand the sustainability problem which is to be investigated. Deciding on the research boundary, research objectives, research questions, and success criteria. Once team members have developed a shared understanding of the broader research problem, they need to collaboratively decide on the research boundary, objectives questions, and success criteria. As team members are from different fields, therefore, it is extremely important that they all share same understanding of the research project. Design a methodological framework. Team members decide on methodological framework for collaborative knowledge production and integration. This includes agreeing on the set of methods to be employed in transdisciplinary settings. The methods chosen are integrative rooted in the philosophies of constructivism, critical theory, and post-positivism. Assign roles. Team members are assigned or they choose specific roles which they would play in the project. Apply and adjust integrative research methods and transdisciplinary settings. The team applies the tools developed under methodological framework to generate integrative knowledge. The team may decide to further develop or modify methods. Evaluate societal and scientific impact. The purpose of sustainability research is two way: knowledge generation and problem solution. Therefore, the outcomes of the research need to be reviewed in terms of scientific credibility and applicability to solve problems. Continuous formative evaluation is an essential element of the transdisciplinary sustainability research project. It is done by an extended peer group (comprising experts from science and practice). Another important component of the TRP is to enhance the capabilities and interests of the actors involved. As all actors cannot have same

297

capacities and interests, therefore it is important to create a learning environment which allows the team members to develop new conceptualizations and become more interested in the sustainability research. Taking interest in sustainability research is an attitude, while capacity of doing something is mostly cognitive. TRP allows knowledge building on one hand and cognitive and affective learning at the same time.

Future Directions Constructivism and sustainable development have implications for school education, higher education, research, and the realization of the UN Agenda 2030. The goals of the Agenda 2030 are primarily plan of action for the people and the planet to bring peace and prosperity through participation of all nations and the people. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon labeled the Agenda 2030 as a transformative vision for a better world. All 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and associated 169 targets of the Agenda 2030 are integrated. These integrated goals and targets require integrated and transdisciplinary solutions. Constructivism, as a theory of learning and paradigm of research, may serve as a tool for individuals, small groups, large groups, and universities to achieve the targets and goals of Agenda 2030.

Cross-References ▶ Constructivism and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainable Education Methods ▶ Transformative Learning for Sustainability

References Becker E, Jahn T, Stiess I (1999) Exploring uncommon ground: sustainability and the social sciences. In: Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. Zed Books, London Bossel H (1999) Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications: a report to the Balaton group. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba

C

298 Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324 Cheong IA (2005) Educating pre-service teachers for a sustainable environment. Asia Pac J Teach Educ 33(1):97–110 Ciegis R, Ramanauskiene J, Martinkus B (2009) The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustainability scenarios. Eng Econ 62(2):28–37 Doolittle PE (2014) Complex constructivism: a theoretical model of complexity and cognition. Int J Teach Learn High Educ 26(3):485–498 Doolittle PE, Hicks D (2003) Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education 31(1):72–104 Fosnot CT (1996) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, New York Fosnot CT (2013) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, New York Hein G (1991) Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry. Available at: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html. Accessed 22 May 2018 Kalsoom Q, Khanam A (2017) Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: a pedagogy to enhance sustainability consciousness. J Clean Prod 164:1301–1311 Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43 Lasen M, Tomas L, Hill A (2015) Potential of servicelearning to promote sustainability competencies in preservice teachers: a case study. Teach Educ 26(4):341–365 Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2013) The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek McKeown R, Nolet V (2013) Education for sustainable development in Canada and the United States. In: McKeown R, Nolet V (eds) Schooling for sustainable development in Canada and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–21 Piaget J (1977) Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press, New York Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(3):226–251 UNESCO (2018) UNESCO launches the sustainability science guidelines. https://en.unesco.org/news/unescolaunches-sustainability-science-guidelines. Accessed 6 Apr 2018 Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218 Wiek A, Xiong A, Brundiers K, van der Leeuw S (2014) Integrating problem-and project-based learning into sustainability programs: a case study on the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(4):431–449

Consummation

Consummation ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Contextual Learning for Sustainability Aida Guerra1,2 and Jette E. Holgaard1 1 Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability under the auspices of UNESCO, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark 2 Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Definition Context The Cambridge Dictionary (2019) defines context as “the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it.” On an analytical level, this definition implies a distinction between text (the something) and context (the situation in which this something is involved).

Contextual Layers Contextual layers are analytical distinctions to characterize distinct interrelations between text and context. For example, and related to the Science, Technology, and Science (STS) field, a contextual layer can included contexts of technology in its materialized form (e.g., context of use), contexts of technology in an institutionalized form (e.g., standardizations), and contexts of technology in a discursive form (e.g., a public debate). Other analytical distinctions can refer to contexts on micro-, meso-, and macrolevels.

Authentic Problems In a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) environment, authentic problems are social constructs that

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

represent a discrepancy between how a real life situation is an how it could be. In a scientific community, the representation of a problem has to be scientifically argued.

Introduction Grounded in brain research, contextual teaching and learning (CTL) demonstrates that people learn better when they see meaning in tasks and materials, and discover meaning when they are able to relate new information/knowledge (i.e., connect the content of academic lessons) with existent knowledge and everyday life experiences. Johnson (2002) listed eight characteristics for contextual learning: (i) make connections that have meaning; (ii) self-regulated learning; (iii) doing significant work; (iv) collaboration; (v) critical and creative thinking; (vi) nurturing the individual; (vii) reaching high standards; and (viii) using authentic assessment. Weinbaum and Rogers (1995) argued that as a mean for preparation for professional practice, it is important that the theoretical knowledge learned acquires meaning in and for different contexts. While Dolmans et al. (2005) stated that the context in which the knowledge is constructed determines its use. Sustainability is a complex and interdisciplinary concept. In engineering education, education on sustainability is often seen as fluffy and unrelated to engineering practice, which poses barriers to its integration, both from students and teachers (Guerra 2014). Sterling (1996, 22) characterized education for sustainability as contextual, meaning that “it should be applied and grounded in the local economic, social and ecological contexts and community, followed by regional, national, international and global contexts.” This means that sustainability education needs to create conditions where students learn about sustainability content, and relate it to their experiences and surroundings, including disciplinary and professional contexts, in order to learn it meaningfully and determine its use. However, Illeris (2007) argued that in traditional learning environments, the interaction between

299

students and their surrounding environment is frequently neglected. Engineering education remains quite traditional in this sense, despite curriculum changes and universities adopting new educational models stressing the need for contextual knowledge, and complementing this with a supporting educational strategy like Problem Based Learning (PBL) (see, for example, Guerra et al. 2017). In this chapter, we argue that problem-based learning methodologies can offer an approach to contextual learning for sustainability in engineering education. Specifically, we argue that it provides students first-hand experiences of sustainability problems and exhibits different sources of motivation for them to create meaning from the learning experience in everyday life, as well as including societal, environmental, and economic perspectives. This chapter aims to answer the following research question: In which ways can problem-based learning enhance contextual learning for sustainability in engineering education?

After a short presentation of the PBL framework, the paper presents a PBL approach for staff and students to enhance contextual learning and sustainability thinking in relation to their studies. The paper includes examples from Medialogy (Mediatechnology) within the engineering and science domains, at it unfolds at the problem-based and project-oriented learning environments at Aalborg University, Denmark. The chapter closes with final remarks and suggestions for contextual learning for sustainability in engineering education in a PBL environment.

PBL: A Framework for Contextual Learning Over the past few decades, engineering education for sustainable development (EESD) has been integrating sustainability in engineering education, aiming to equip future engineers with sustainability knowledge and competences. However, one of the biggest challenges posed to sustainability integration is its nature (i.e., interdisciplinary, contextual, and holistic), which opposes traditional engineering views (i.e., disciplinary, reductionist, and

C

300

technocratic). Problem-based learning (PBL) is one of learning approaches used to integrate and contextualize sustainability in engineering education (Guerra 2014). In a PBL approach, real and authentic problems drive and contextualize learning. Groups of students engage in identifying, analyzing, formulating, and solving problems derived from real life situations (for more information, see Kolmos and de Graaff 2014). Problems can be understood as a discrepancy between how things are and how things ought to be. A problem is a social construction, i.e., “problems become problems when there is a ‘felt need’ or difficulty that propels one toward resolution” aiming for a change of the current state (Arlin 1989, 230; cited by Jonassen (2011, 1)). Consequently, a problem is a problem when someone, or group of people, agree upon its existence and are identified from problematic situations, which causes contrasts, conflicts, contradictions, stress, frustration, sorrow, and/or indignation toward the people involved in them (Qvist 2004; Jonassen 2011). The context in which problems are embedded is a significant part of designing the problem and its solution. While well-structured problems have a shallow context, ill-structured and complex problems tend to include multi-contextual layers and be context dependent (Jonassen 2011). Sterling (1996) argue for contextual learning when educating on sustainability and referred to several contextual layers, namely local, economic, social, and ecological contexts, as well as community, regional, national, international, and global contexts. Integrating sustainability in engineering education considers not only the contexts mentioned by Sterling but also the engineering professional context, adding more complexity and contextual layers to the problem situation. In sum, as PBL provides a framework for working with complex and ill-structured problems; it is assessed to be a suitable approach to integrate and contextualize sustainability in engineering education, whereas students’ learning is driven by identifying, analyzing, formulating, and solving ill-structured and complex problems. However, designing and implementing such PBL approaches can be challenging and complex

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

in itself. As such, there is no certainty that sustainability values will be adapted and integrated in the contextual framing of the problem in practice. Considering the above, we present the following PBL framework, which characterizes the PBL approach described above (Fig. 1), and complements it with links to a sustainability discourse. The framework is based on the PBL model practiced in engineering education at Aalborg University, Denmark. At Aalborg University, all engineering programs are problem-based and project-organized. Students learn by solving real and authentic problems beginning day 1 until they graduate, based on the AAU PBL principles (Askehave et al. 2015). In the following section, the results and the facilitation of students’ contextual learning outlined in Fig. 1 will be expanded upon and exemplified by emphasizing the potential links to sustainability. The examples presented relate to the B.Sc. in Medialogy (Media-technology) at Aalborg University, Denmark. Following the famous quotation by Albert Einstein, “If I had 55 min to solve a problem, I would spend 55 min thinking about the problem and 5 min to solve it,” we will emphasize the problem design for sustainability, and address the problemsolving and evaluation of the solution more briefly, as a continuous process of learning more and designing for sustainability.

Problem-Design for Sustainability Holgaard et al. (2017) argued that how problems are identified and presented to students influences all aspects of the learning process. Literature presents different models to design problems (Holgaard et al. 2017; Pedersen 2008; Hung 2006; Duch et al. 2001; Algreen-Ussing and Fruensgaard 2002). In these models, the problem identification starts with their relation to subject theme, which is then aligned with curriculum content and learning outcomes. Pedersen (2008, 25) defines a subject theme as, “wider and a not very precisely defined area of knowledge.” It is not presented as a problem but more of an area of interest within which students

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

301

C

Contextual Learning for Sustainability, Fig. 1 PBL framework, emphasizing the problem orientation and problemsolving processes, based on Pedersen (2008) and Holgaard et al. (2017), with potential links to sustainability

move toward a problem area (i.e., problem analysis) and problem formulation through a process of delimitation (Pedersen 2008; Holgaard et al. 2017). The problem area refers to “the theoretical and empirical context that makes the (research) problem,” i.e., it refers to the knowledge students currently have or have to develop to be able to define and explain the problem clearly (Pedersen 2008, 24). According to Holgaard et al. (2017), problem identification involves three main steps, where students: 1. Relate to a theme (i.e., clarify the boundaries of the theme, align it with the curriculum content and learning objectives, and provide an overview of interaction of different domains) 2. Map the problem field (i.e., screen for opportunities, identify and create an overview of problems that can be linked to the theme) 3. Narrow down the problems (i.e., students evaluate and select one problem to focus on out of a landscape of problems that emerge from mapping the problem field) In engineering education at Aalborg University, subject themes and sub-themes are defined in

the curriculum and by academic staff as semester themes. The B.Sc. in Medialogy at Aalborg University provides an example of education where sustainability has been used explicitly as a semester theme, and thereby students’ projects are explicitly targeted to address sustainability challenges. For example, the B.Sc. in Medialogy program has been using the following semester themes during the second semester: social responsibility (Spring 2014), sustainable lifestyles through exercise (Spring 2015), and sustainable lifestyle through food waste reduction (Spring 2018). Starting by relating to the theme, students define and clarify the boundaries of sustainability by attaching meaning to the concept. Based on other interpretations, they clarify their understanding of sustainability by considering the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) and interactions of the different aspects of sustainability. Students are supported by workshops on sustainability, which triggers literature reviews to clarify the state of art in the conceptualization of sustainability. Thereby, what Sterling (1996) characterizes as “Knowing about sustainability” constitutes the point of departure to map the problem field, where concepts defined are used to identify

302

situations and contexts related to the theme, the stakeholders involved, potential problems, etc. Holgaard et al. (2017) proposed the classic questioning 5W1H model (i.e., why, what, who, where, when, and how) as a tool to support students in expanding their understanding of the theme. Students map the problem field through six interrelated investigative elements. The interrelated themes are: (i conceptualization (i.e., what), (ii) relevance (i.e., why), (iii) stakeholders (i.e., who), (iv) place, sites, contexts (i.e., where), (v) state of the art (i.e., when), and (vi) problems to be addressed (i.e., how). The output of mapping a problem field is a list of problems related to the subject theme. Students can select one problem to analyze further and argue for its educational and social relevance. Figure 2 constitutes an example of how this tool is used by a group of students (Group A313a) of B.Sc. in Medialogy (Spring 2015).

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

The example in Fig. 2 shows that students, by working from the theme of sustainable lifestyles through exercise, can tend to shift to a narrow focus on exercise, and it can be questioned whether the same map (Fig. 2) had evolved from having exercise as the theme. In this respect, the facilitation of student learning is crucial, as the facilitator, through critical questioning, can point students to more divergent thinking – using the conceptualization of sustainability as a stepping stone. For example, regarding mapping of the problem area in Fig. 2, one could ask: Is exercise enough to create a sustainable lifestyle? What other areas of sustainability could come into play (e.g., clean air when exercising outside, the environmental impacts of the products that we use/consume during exercise, the economic impact of exercise, etc.)? In this way, “exercise” becomes a trigger to talk about sustainability – instead of “just” letting sustainability being a

Contextual Learning for Sustainability, Fig. 2 Example of problem field mapping, B.Sc. in Medialogy (1st year, 2nd semester, Spring 2015), Group A313a

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

trigger to talk about “exercise.” This dialectic is used to motivate students, as future designers of technological products, to consider sustainability as a basic contextual condition. The exemplary nature of PBL comes into play – linking the abstract with the concrete, the broader picture with the specific focus. In this regard, it is crucial to provide the students with both the abstract “knowing about sustainability” with the opportunity to bring this knowledge into play in a concrete act for sustainability. The 5W1H model, presented in Fig. 2, can furthermore be used as a starting point for the problem analysis to qualify the statements made and select the primary questions for further research. Students formulate an initiating problem, then they analyze this initiating problem in the problem analysis, and after that they are able to formulate a problem that is scientifically argued. Figure 3 illustrates the 5W1H model adapted for problem analyses and contextual mapping, with examples of questions formulated to inspire students. The extent and depth of the scientific support depend on the timeframe of the project, as well as the learning objectives in the study regulations. In any case, however, the problem design has the aim of designing an authentic problem embedded in a societal context. During the problem analysis and contextualization, students analyze “the chosen problem,

303

substantiate claims and expand the knowledge of the problem to pinpoint specific motivations for action” (Holgaard et al. 2017, 1077). Problem analysis corresponds to the problem area, and according to Pedersen (2008, 31), it is where students document and argue for their problem, i.e., the problem analysis leads to the problem formulation and argues for its relevance. It “requires deep insight, precise concepts, a theoretical background, and documentation to back up” the final problem (Pedersen 2008, 31). In relation to this, students need to identify what they know about sustainability and what knowledge they are lacking, and develop strategies to acquire and evaluate sustainability in relation to the context. While in problem identification the strategy used relates to a broad sustainability theme, the problem analysis is a strategy to learn about sustainability in practise. This learning can be supported not only by facilitation, course modules, and further literature review, but also by investigating the problem and user needs in context. At Aalborg University, all 1st year engineering programs have a course named “ProblemBased Learning in Science Technology and Society” (PBL-STS), which supports student learning and their problem design process. The PBL-STS course is an interdisciplinary course where students develop knowledge, skills, and

Contextual Learning for Sustainability, Fig. 3 Conceptual mapping of problem area with examples of questions to inspire students. (Adapted from Holgaard et al. (2017))

C

304

competences to investigate a problem in context. By using STS (Science, Technology and Society) methodologies, including observations, qualitative interviews, and diary studies, students learn how to capture the essence of a problem by studying behavioral patterns and the mental models that the developed product will be subjected to. Another important learning from the STS perspective is the social construction of technology (SCOT) (see Bijker et al. 1987), and an awareness about how the understanding of technology is shaped though time by different social groups and in different cultural and institutional settings. Thereby, technology is constructed and reconstructed, not only by design, but also in the use of the product. This highlights the risk of a solution that is intended to be sustainable having unintended impacts that could have been prevented if trade-offs had been considered in the design’s sustainability. Furthermore, the STS perspective helps students to think beyond user needs by making a comprehensive stakeholder analysis that also includes governmental, market, and citizen actors, as well as the media. Yet again, such course activity is supported by aligned facilitation of the project-work, which is not directing the students to integrate sustainability, but more they are probing students to consider the complexity of the problem, contemplate the contextual conditions for the design, argue for the social relevance of a potential solution, and, last but not least, consider the societal impacts of a potential solution. In this respect, students come to see the sustainability challenge as something that they inevitably have to consider – if not as an internalized value, then at least as a societal condition that they cannot afford to overlook. The conclusions that emerge from the problem analysis allow students to formulate the motivation for a research question, i.e., problem formulation. According to Holgaard et al. (2017, 1083), the motivation “includes clear statements of the need for problem solving,” leading to an overall question and possible sub-questions capable of guiding the problem-solving process. Furthermore, the question should also enable students to

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

develop a problem-solving methodology. Box 1 presents an example of problem formulation from a group of students from B.Sc. in Medialogy (Spring 2015). Box 1 Example of Problem Formulation, B.Sc. of Medialogy (1st Year, 2nd Semester, Spring 2015) – Group A317b Theme: Sustainable lifestyle through exercise Motivation: The initial assumption was that motor impairments were the most common and widespread problem among stroke patients. It was discovered through the interviews that cognitive impairments were the most common impairment among people with acquired brain damage. It was discovered that the motor impairments were caused by the cognitive impairments. It was also learnt that people in the early stages of life with brain damage have trouble with learning and suffer from dualthreaded learning. The solution will be focused on the users in the age group 15–25 with cognitive impairments. Simple cues, such as a light touch or snapping fingers, are enough for a patient to overcome a repetitive action. Problem Formulation: How can a mobile phone application help the age group of 15–25, suffering from brain damage in the right hemisphere, support their rehabilitation with daily objects? In sum, the problem design starts with a broad subject theme leading to problem identification, problem analysis, and problem formulation. It represents a process that enables students to identify and formulate problems, where sustainability knowledge “moves” from a broad and abstract concept toward a specific, delimited, and yet contextualized meaning (Fig. 4). This meaning is also aligned with the discipline and the curriculum content. Even though this process is supported by facilitation and courses, it is mainly self-directed, and decisions are for the student to make according to their interests, experiences, and emotions, which aim to make the learning process even more relevant and meaningful.

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

305

C

Contextual Learning for Sustainability, Fig. 4 Problem design: identify, analzse, and formulate problems within sustainability as a subject theme

Problem-Solving and Evaluating Solutions – Learning More and Designing for Sustainability Whereas the problem design has had the purpose of questioning existing discourses, institutions, and practices related to a selected problem and then clarifying what demands and success criteria for a potential solution, the problem-solving process basically is shaped by “what the problem calls for.” This means that the facilitation of student learning shifts from uncertainty about the nature of the problem to uncertainty about the ways to approach the problem. A considerable uncertainty still rests in handling the innovation process, such as selecting the relevant methods to approach the problem, balancing and supporting the process of divergent and convergent thinking in the design phase, and having the human and material resources to implement the design. Furthermore, as the alignment between problem design and problem-solving is crucial, considerable attention should also be put toward facilitating that students “keep in touch with context” during design and implementation. There is a risk that students turn off contextual perspectives and turn on disciplinary perspectives; and although the focus is shifting toward discipline-specific methods, the facilitator should keep momentum in the contextual and sustainability thinking.

In the B.Sc. of Medialogy at the PBL environment at Aalborg University, there are at least four different ways that students integrate contextual learning and sustainability into their problemsolving process: – Seeing sustainability as a hidden quality of a product – Bringing sustainability into the mind-set of the user – Supporting sustainability agency – Adding to the market of sustainably sound products In many cases, sustainability is seen as a hidden quality of a product because it might not be a demand directly stated by the user. Instead sustainability is seen as a basic condition for design comparable with price and durability, which have to be considered in all phases of a product’s life-cycle. In a user-centered design approach, the challenge is for the facilitator to continually prompt for sustainability thinking in the design choices. However, the relevance of the prompt has to be highly considered. Example Box 1 shows an example where sustainability aspects are expected to be marginal in the problem-solving phase. If sustainability in this case is prompted continually during design and implementation, without much relation to the problem at hand, there is a risk that sustainability will be

306

alienated and it might nurture more than hinder the risk of turning the context off during problemsolving. In other cases, which move beyond seeing sustainability as a hidden quality of a product, sustainability is in the core of the problem-solving process – as it constitutes an explicit part of the problem formulation. Over time, the Medialogy B.Sc. students have brought sustainability into the mind-set of the user by designing assistive technology to educate for sustainable development – e.g., making edutainment games for school children. They have been supporting the sustainable user, either by assisting the user to avoid cognitive dissonance (e.g., by monitoring the use of energy and making prompts for reflection) or making a choice that is aligned with his/her sustainability stance (e.g., by creating an app to get easy access to organic food). Furthermore, they have been adding ideas and prototypes to foster a market of sustainably sound products – e.g., by optimizing the use of stand-by on electronic equipment in a household. If these types of projects are the target, a semester theme that would more closely connect to the phases of problemsolving could act as a trigger, such as, for example, having the theme “design for sustainability.” When the students present a prototype, or sketch a potential solution, Remmen (1995) pointed to three different types of technology assessment (TA), which are presented to the B.Sc. students in Medialogy in order for them to assess the developed prototype in a wider contextual perspective. The three types of TAs are (Remmen 1995): 1. Consequence assessment – being reactive and oriented to assessment of existing solutions 2. Comprehensive assessment – being proactive and providing room for assessing new solutions in the being 3. Constructive assessment – being interactive – making room for future solution to influence technological change By taking the perspective of Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA), technology assessment moves beyond being reactive, as the consequence assessment, and toward proactive as the comprehensive assessment focusing not only on the negative effects, but also the potential for alternative solutions

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

(Remmen 1995). According to Rip et al. (1995, 8), CTA “tries to change technology in society for the better, and thus has to face existing entrenched technologies and societal regimes, and develop other entrenchment paths for these and new ones.” Furthermore, Kiran et al. (2015) stressed the need to supplement the more “quantifiable risk,” related to health or the environment with more ethical implications of those technologies. They introduced a set of principles for an ethical-constructive technology assessment approach (eCTA), which is used to inspire Medialogy students to include ethical considerations in their research. The Medialogy B.Sc. students are furthermore introduced to concepts of life-cycle assessment. Even though the method is primarily introduced as a method used by sustainability scientists, it is emphasized that students should be able to screen a prototype and point out potential focus areas of such assessment. For example, exposing school children to potential threats of climate change could initiate ethical considerations in making edutainment games, whereas an app to find stores offering different types of ecological food might take into consideration the distance and means of transportation getting to the store. Furthermore, a focus on assistive technology as a “technical fix” to create sustainable lifestyles without considering a broader field of incentives might also be questionable. Students are encouraged to engage in and document such discussions – and in this respect it is not the actual result of the assessment that is the objective for learning, but the awareness to point to relevant contextual factors to be assessed. CTA and eCTA move beyond focusing on the user by including an explicit focus on innovative systems and societal implications. By setting the solution to a problem in a wider context, the learning cycle closes by providing input for another problem-based learning process, pointing to potentials, challenges, and knowledge gaps, which might motivate a new problem analysis and potentially new solutions.

Final Remarks In this chapter, PBL has been proposed and exemplified as a way to motivate contextual learning

Contextual Learning for Sustainability

for sustainability, by letting students identify, analyze, formulate, and solve authentic problems. The exemplarity embedded in the PBL approach furthermore stresses the interrelation between the abstract and the experience-based. Whereas courses introduce and create an overview of existing discourses, institutions, and practices within a given field, students are able to gain their own experiences working in and across the introduced fields by identifying and addressing authentic problems. If the students are to move beyond considering the prospects of the user, and take a broader societal responsibility for their professional practices, we have argued for specific and explicit attention to science, technology, and societal dynamics, including sustainability challenges. Sustainability is, however, not explicitly embedded in the PBL approach, and education for sustainability should therefore be continually emphasized throughout the process of problem-based learning. We have, with concern for exemplarity, highlighted the need for students to have an overall introduction to sustainability, as well as to gain their own experiences in addressing authentic sustainability challenges and carry on this mindset in the design of new products. We have presented a step-by-step approach of problem design and included methods that engage students in contextual thinking – stressing the need for both systematic and holistic approaches when addressing ill-structured and complex authentic problems. We have highlighted the need to prompt (and not direct) the students to include sustainability as a basic condition in their problem and product design, and doing that by continuously questioning and evaluating their project work from societal and contextual perspectives – enhancing critical thinking as well as social imagination. And as a last remark, we want to emphasize that to reach contextual layers that move beyond disciplinary domains, a targeted transdisciplinary focus is needed. A transdisciplinary focus can, for example, be facilitated by including facilitators from outside the discipline, but with a science, technology, and societal research perspective. In sum, we have argued that problem-based and exemplary learning, combined with an

307

explicit focus on sustainability and a systematic and transdisciplinary approach to facilitation, can help students to contextualize engineering and science problems beyond the context of use. It is about challenging students to think contextually, to think sustainability, and to make sustainable sound solutions for future generations.

References Algreen-Ussing H, Fruensgaard N (2002) Metode i Projektarbejdet: Problemorientering Og Gruppearbejde. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. https://www.saxo.com/dk/ metode-i-projektarbejde-problemorientering-og-grupp earbejde_helle-algreen-ussing-niels-o-fruensgaard_ pdf_9788773078051 Arlin PK (1989) The problem of the problem. In: Sinnott JD (ed) Everyday problem solving. Praeger, New York, pp 229–237 Askehave I, Prehn HL, Pedersen J, Pedersen MT (2015) PBL – problem based learning. https://www.aau.dk/ digitalAssets/148/148025_pbl-aalborg-model_uk.pdf Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T (1987) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Dolmans DHJM et al (2005) Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ 39(7):732–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x Duch BJ, Groh SE, Allen DE (2001) The power of problembased learning: a practical “how to”; for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Pub, Sterling Guerra A (2014) Problem based learning and sustainable engineering education: challenges for 21st century. UNESCO, Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability. http://vbn.aau. dk/da/publications/problem-based-learning-and-sustaina ble-engineering-education(77857ff6-8114-4923-a46a-4 23e19357f38).html Guerra A, Ulseth R, Kolmos A (Professor in Engineering Education) (2017) PBL in engineering education: international perspectives on curriculum change. Sense Publishers, Rotherdam. http://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/ pbl-in-engineering-education(97c2fbab-9d20-48469f93-8ae318fb821c).html Holgaard JE, Guerra A, Kolmos A, Petersen LS (2017) Getting a hold on the problem in a problem-based learning environment. Int J Eng Educ 33(3):1070–1085 Hung W (2006) The 3C3R model: a conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdiscip J ProblemBased Learn 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/15415015.1006 Illeris K (2007) How we learn: learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge, London/New York Johnson EB (2002) Contextual teaching and learning: what it is and why it’s here to stay. Corwin Press, Lake Oswego

C

308 Jonassen DH (2011) Learning to solve problems: a handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge, New York Kiran AH, Oudshoorn N, Verbeek P-P (2015) Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. J Responsible Innov 2(1):5–19. https://doi. org/10.1080/23299460.2014.992769 Kolmos A, de Graaff E (2014) Problem-based and projectbased learning in engineering education. In: Olds BM, Johri A (eds) Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–161 Pedersen K (2008) Research problem and problem formulation. In: Olsen PB, Pedersen K (eds) Problemoriented project work: a workbook. Roskilde University Press, Copenhagen, pp 23–41 Qvist P (2004) Defining the problem in problem-based learning. In: Kolmos A, Fink F, Krogh L (eds) The Aalborg PBL model – progress, diversity and challenges. Aalborg Universitetsforlag, Aalborg, pp 77–91. http://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/defining-the-problemin-problembased-learning(6de79c20-002b-11da-b4d5000ea68e967b).html Remmen A (1995) Pollution prevention, cleaner technologies and industry. In: Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter Publishers, London, pp 199–222 Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (1995) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter Publishers, London Sterling S (1996) Education in change. In: Huckle J, Sterling S (eds) Education for sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp 19–39 Weinbaum A, Rogers AM (1995) Contextual learning: a critical aspect of school-to-work transition programs, Education reform and school-to-work transition series. Academy for Educational Development, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED381666

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability Rabiya Karani and Madhavi Venkatesan Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Definition Continuous improvement efforts can be defined as a methodology of actively and repeatedly making process improvements. Its focus is on improving communication of strategic goals that are guided

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability

by measuring and monitoring the production process. Continuous improvement is an ongoing activity aimed to raise organization-wide performance by making incremental and focused changes (Bessant and Caffyn 1997). Rapid and continuous improvements combine to achieve operational excellence that helps organizations sustain changes.

Introduction Increased complexity of services and fluctuating financial markets have increased risk faced by supply chains. Manufacturing processes are required to demonstrate acceptable social and environmental standards. Commercial pressures from government regulation and growing customer pressure for actions regarding renewable energy forms are listed as one of the main challenges faced by businesses. Furthermore, organizations now face internal pressures associated with sustainability of human resources in an environment of declining satisfaction levels. Combined, the two challenges highlight the importance of industrial and commercial activity to sustainability. Improved work and social environments result in improving employee satisfaction, commitment, and productivity, which can help build key strategies for an integrated system of regeneration and renewal infrastructure (Wilkinson et al. 2001). Continuous improvement efforts are a key to sustaining performance and customer satisfaction as organizations shift from having short-term goals to making long-term improvements. Studies on operations management have noted the importance of developing dynamic capabilities that help firms sustain a competitive advantage in the long term (Galeazzo et al. 2016). Continuous improvements are largely dynamic capabilities once they include organizational context. Dynamic capability is defined as “a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its opening routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness” (Zollo and Winter 2002, p. 340). With the increase in risk faced by organizations, they are pressured to meet social and environmental standards that can stimulate sustainability and

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability

enhance transparency within the supply chain. However, it is difficult to standardize the structure of sustainability reporting due to the increase in diversity of national cultures, business sectors, and firms. Hence, it is crucial for organizations to work on developing a continuous improvement framework that enables them to repeatedly “improve the quality of their disclosure no matter the framework used in disclosing the sustainability data” (Okongwu et al. 2016).

Implementing a Continuous Improvement Framework Initiating Continuous Improvement Loss of market share or difficulties in adapting to new business conditions results in companies introducing total quality management programs. However, current methods do not achieve the desired level of customer satisfaction and productivity (Wiley 1992). As organizations identify problems, they reach the first stage of continuous improvement that deals with problem-solving solutions. Once companies initiate the process of attaining strategic goals, they are able to uncover issues, and actions taken to avoid such problems start the process of continuous improvement (Wiley 1992). It incentivizes organizations to shift from attaining short-term solutions to building a continuous improvement framework that sustains new goals. Practicing Continuous Improvement Strategies Japanese management systems introduced the term “kaizen” in the mid-1950s. The term expresses the concept of continuous improvement in all aspects of life. It is a customer-driven strategy that builds a foundation for collaborative and crossfunctional problem solving to enhance customer satisfaction levels (Wiley 1992). Kaizen values gradual, steady, and continuous change by anticipating future problems. But on the other hand, some organizations also rely on innovation to improve management and sustain progress through fast growth and profits (Wiley 1992). Anticipating uncertainty and accounting for future risks helps management systems sustain their results over a long term.

309

Continuous Improvement and Its Infrastructure Coordination and execution of process improvement strategies are areas where action is required for sustained improvements (Anand et al. 2009). Continuous infrastructure must support both coordination and execution of projects by initiating systematic selection and review of projects. Research shows that a lack of adequate coordination turns ineffective after realizing immediate gains. In order to attain sustainability, organizations must move away from finding strategies to gain immediate results and instead implement a continuously improving system that can evaluate the chances of uncertainty and provide ways to adapt to the everchanging economy (Anand et al. 2009). The infrastructure for continuous improvement in essence addresses three broad categories of “purpose, process and people” (Anand et al. 2009). Purposeful decisions formulate and communicate organizational goals. Next, decisions are made to adopt methods that uniformly address improvements. Lastly, in order to engage individuals and enable participation, training and purposeful motivation is crucial. To develop a successful infrastructure for continuous improvements, organizations must create new strategies while uniformly implementing existing processes (Anand et al. 2009). This can be achieved by incorporating control features and accounting for uncertainty. Moreover, it is important to achieve a balance between projects that are aimed at improving efficiency and those that seek to design new strategies.

Incorporating Risk Within the Continuous Improvement Framework Risk Management and Sustainability Risk management and business continuity management define risk as “the effect of uncertainty on goals.” Risk is usually understood as a deviation from expected due to uncertainty that is lack of information, which makes it difficult to predict likelihood of occurrence of future events (Pojasek 2013). It is crucial to align risk management with an organization’s structure, culture, and strategy.

C

310

Most businesses overlook the potential of risk management strategies in attaining a continuous improvement system that can sustain outcomes. Accounting for risk lowers the chances of uncertainty and increasingly contributes to attaining sustainability goals. Risk management is an integrated part of an organization and cannot be viewed as a stand-alone system. It feeds on continuous feedback from all systems of the organization to estimate the likelihood of issues in the long term. It also helps leadership distinguish between courses of action and prioritize certain strategies over others by identifying potential problems that may occur in the future (Pojasek 2013). Continuous improvement of strategies to manage risk requires periodic evaluation of relevant factors. This in turn improves an organization’s capability in handling problems and finding a solution prior to the actual event. To have the most updated information, risk management strategies tend to be inclusive and transparent. The key value added by risk management strategies is its ability to be highly responsive to changes and its ability to be dynamic and iterative. Risk management must therefore facilitate continuous improvement framework to attain sustainable effects. To make sustainability “operational,” organizations must implement a continuous improvement framework that improves ways to manage risk and drive sustainability into the long term (Pojasek 2013). It can help organizations evaluate risk, create solutions, and plan ahead, which in turn lowers any risk associated with the company’s goal, making it easier to sustain decisions made by the organizations. Sustainability Production In order to attain a sustainable production, companies must implement an integrated strategy to industrial production in order to minimize the generation of waste (de Ron 1998). There are several sustainable production options that can be tailored to meet individual company’s goals. However, each option initiates an assessment to introduce continuous improvements in its operations. The assessment analyses products and processes of the complete supply chain, studies improvement options, and integrates the process into the daily operations of the company (de Ron 1998). Consecutive

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability

improvements further help organizations achieve sustainability in areas such as waste and cost minimization, resource conservation, and improved quality and delivery options. Sustainable production highly depends on awareness, quality, flexibility, and environmental issues. In 1950, a framework was proposed to improve sustainability disclosures shared by firms. This framework is based on continuous improvement approach and a continuous representation maturity model (Okongwu et al. 2013). The model discusses three steps of a firm’s maturity in sustainability disclosures, namely: define, measure and manage, and improve and change. Their paper argues that transparency and early stakeholder engagement will improve the disclosure’s credibility and lead to firm growth (Riccaboni and Leone 2010). They suggest evaluating the complete supply chain from a closed-loop or lifecycle perspective to clearly identify each component that can be improved. This includes studying the process from the extraction of raw materials to the disposal of waste. The second stage of the framework would showcase how the strategies are implemented in a closedloop supply chain. At this stage, the authors also discuss the value of noting the impact on environmental, ecological, and social sustainability. Lastly, firms would be required to show their improvement initiatives and provide evidence of any changes and progress made. Most importantly, it is crucial to note that there cannot be a strict structure for a sustainability disclosure report and the most valuable discussion would be on providing ways to continuously improve their supply chain and strategy models (Okongwu et al. 2013).

Continuous Improvement Models Implemented in Different Economic Sectors Continuous Improvements Within the Automotive and Capital Goods Industry Many improvement strategies emphasize the importance of repeatedly innovate ways to improve efficiency, but Gonzalez and Martins (2016) discuss the need for behavioral changes to attain sustainable solutions. They found that within the automotive industry, firms have

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability

programs that are more focused on employee engagement at operational and managerial levels. They witness sporadic improvements and problem-solving strategies as a way to build a continuous improvement framework within the more routine supply chain and production cycle that may not necessarily require a routine change in product design. On the other hand, within the capital goods sector, firms focus on specialized groups to make strategic continuous improvements. They work on implementing relatively small solutions to changes that have already been implemented. The paper discusses how the knowledge generated by employees directly affects performance of improvements (Gonzalez and Martins 2016). Continuous Improvement Within the Pharmaceutical Industry Ethical preferences and social concerns for sustained global health are critical issues within this industry. It is often argued that pursuing a continuous improvement framework may not necessarily minimize the costs relative to the implementation of short-term solutions. When managerial entrepreneurs search for opportunities with the willingness to take risks, considering the ethical demands in their reconfiguration of resources, they stand a greater chance of achieving success in this era where society puts a premium on social innovations that answer health and environmental questions (Louche et al. 2010). By introducing a continuous improvement framework similar to dynamic capabilities, firms can adapt to the environment by way of “legitimization and institutional recognition” in turn adding value to the organization and individuals (Ahen 2014). Ahen (2014) analyzed the evolution of firms within this industry that have innovatively responded to critical health needs in economies through the implementation of continuous improvement strategies reflecting dynamic capabilities of a firm (Beske 2012). Historically, pharmaceutical firms have sporadically responded to health problems of emerging economies. In order to achieve a long-term successful model, firms depend on optimizing their continuous improvement frameworks to capture new opportunities without “sacrificing socio-ethical and new institutional expectations” (Ahen 2014). The paper states that

311

reconfiguration of a firm’s internal resources to meet the emerging market’s demand encourages redesign projects that can be undertaken at low social and functional costs, while achieving positive externality (Ahen 2014). Continuous Improvements and Sustainable Firm Competitiveness Studies have shown that sustainable competitive advantage is rare due to the volatility of financial market. There is also an interest to look into the ethical consequences of sustainable competitive advantage. In order to address these issues, firms are now reevaluating the impact of their management and production cycle on the social and environmental economy. Moreover, organizations are implementing frameworks to repeatedly evaluate the efficiency of supply chain models and provide ways to improve individual satisfaction. Competitiveness can be defined as “the capacity to make sustainable competitive advantage which can be employed at the individual, corporate, industrial and national levels” (Marín et al. 2012; Vilanova et al. 2009). It is suggested that a firm’s performance is highly dependent on its ability to sustain competitiveness. There are three broad categories that firms aim at improving: customer loyalty, investor attractiveness, and positive feedback from the community. Naturally, as market demand and needs change, so does individual’s demand for specific firm characteristics. In order for firms to sustain their customers, they must repeatedly improve their strategic models to meet the needs of their market (Park et al. 2016). More importantly, firms need to be able to predict and estimate future market trends that could potentially influence their audience and develop their organizational structure accordingly. One key element in implementing such continuously improving framework is incorporation of uncertainty and risk. More recently, environmental problems have gained public engagement and interest. This has led to firms incorporating environmental impact and studying externalities within their production and organizational framework (Wahba 2008). Studies have shown that organizational competitiveness depicts an organization’s environmental association with performance improvements (Klassen and McLaughlin 1996).

C

312

Sustainability Monitoring Practices and Performance Shafiq et al. (2017) investigated problems that arise from principal–agent relationships. One of these problems discussed is the risk-sharing problem. This problem steps from the difference in the perspective of risk of the agent as compared to the principal that results in variation in strategies developed to achieve sustainability. The principal is mostly focused on minimizing its costs, whereas the agent is interested in maximizing profits (Shafiq et al. 2017). Here, principal is the “buying firm” and the agent is the supplier. They argue that misaligned interest and asymmetric information incentivize the buyers and sellers to behave differently. The agency theory proposes two solutions for this problem: behavior-based contract or monitoring and outcome-based contract (Shafiq et al. 2017). Outcome-based activities are more focused on immediate short-term results and are seen as an appropriate solution when the risk and uncertainty in the sector is minimal. Whereas behavior-based contracts are interested in evaluating the entire supply chain process and strategies. Such a contract would facilitate continuous changes in mechanisms that form the basis of long-term collaborative environments. Studies have found that continuous initiatives made to improve supply procedures have reduced sustainability-related incidents. For instance, investment in new technologies to decrease environmental footprint has lowered sustainability risk (Shafiq et al. 2017). By being able to lower uncertainty, firms are able to present sustainable options that can be thoroughly controlled and would have minimal negative externalities. As firms are encouraged to effectively monitor supply chains, they develop a skillset to study the appropriate actions and behaviors by continuously learning, resulting in improved performance. Continuous Improvements Toward Sustainability Schrettle et al. (2014) classified drivers of sustainability into external and internal systems. Here, the internal drivers of the organization are its culture and strategy. Cultural drivers such as motivation, management, and information dissemination build

Continuous Improvements and Sustainability

ecological responsiveness (Cezarino et al. 2018). Gabler et al. (2015) mention that innovation is another factor to build an ecological strategy. Continuous improvements strategies can be dynamic and make a firm more competitive as it continually changes to optimize its production. Networks of interactive elements that affect the society form the basis of sustainable development. Organizations play a crucial role in sustainable development as they “create practices that enable the capacity of transforming sustainability in a dynamic strategy” (Cezarino et al. 2018). Continuous improvement strategies need to account for uncertainty and risk in order to get sustainable results. Kohlbacher (2013) made some contributions to the development of innovative strategies by implementing continuous improvement framework to attain sustainable outcomes. He found that a process-based culture might not be sufficient to make improvements in innovation. However, firms that implement a continuous improvement framework along with a culture that relates to this framework were able to make more sustainable advances (Glover et al. 2015). It is crucial for the management of a firm to distinguish between process management and continuous improvement along with their dimensions. He states “process management is a multidimensional phenomenon” (Kohlbacher 2013). This concept reiterates the significance on incorporating a continuous improvement framework that addresses several areas that work together to manage an organization’s strategic framework. Final Remarks Continuous improvement efforts undertaken by organizations can provide a structure that repeatedly evaluates trends in the market to bring out desired and sustainable solutions. Such a framework regularly learns from changes and volatilities within the market and also incorporates uncertainty and risk management models. Due to the difficulty faced in establishing a thorough structure for a firm’s sustainability disclosure report, models and frameworks are being developed to report changes, progress, and innovations made by organizations in improving their production and supply chain procedures. Continuous evaluation of methods to

Corporate Social Responsibility

optimize outcomes along with a continuous improvement in human behavior and cultural values toward environmental and social economy leads to sustainable outcomes that achieve high positive externalities.

References Ahen F (2014) Ethically constrained optimization of dynamic capabilities: towards sustainable global health. Soc Responsib J 10(3):436–454 Anand G, Ward P, Tatikonda M, Schilling D (2009) Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. J Oper Manag 27(6):444–461 Bessant J, Caffyn S (1997) High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement. Int J Technol Manag 14(1):7 Beske P (2012) Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 42(4):372–387 Cezarino L, Alves M, Caldana A, Liboni L (2018) Dynamic capabilities for sustainability: revealing the systemic key factors. Syst Pract Action Res 32(1):93–112 de Ron A (1998) Sustainable production: the ultimate result of a continuous improvement. Int J Prod Econ 56:99–110 Gabler CB, Richey Jr. RG, Rapp A (2015) Developing an eco-capability through environmental orientation and organizational innovativeness. Ind Market Manag 45: 151–161 Galeazzo A, Furlan A, Vinelli A (2016) The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis. Oper Manag Res 10(2):33–46 Glover WJ, Farris JA, Van Aken EM (2015) The relationship between continuous improvement and rapid improvement sustainability. Int J Prod Res 53(13):4068–4086 Gonzalez R, Martins M (2016) Capability for continuous improvement. TQM J 28(2):250–274 Klassen R, McLaughlin C (1996) The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Manag Sci 42(8):1199–1214 Kohlbacher M (2013) The impact of dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement on innovation: the role of business process orientation. Knowl Process Manag J Corp Transform 20(2):71–76 Louche C, Idowu SO, Filho WL (2010) Innovative CSR: From Risk Management to Value Creation, Green Leaf Publishing, Sheffield Marín L, Rubio A, de Maya SR (2012) Competitiveness as a strategic outcome of corporate social responsibility, Corp Soc Res Environ Manage 19:364–376 Okongwu U, Lauras M, François J, Deschamps J-C. (2016) Impact of the integration of tactical supply chain planning determinants on performance. J Manuf Syst 38:181–194 Okongwu U, Morimoto R, Lauras M (2013) The maturity of supply chain sustainability disclosure from a continuous improvement perspective. Int J Product Perform Manag 62(8):827–855

313 Park E, Kwon S, Kim K (2016) Assessing the effects of corporate sustainable management on customer satisfaction. Sustain Dev 24(1):41–52 Pojasek R (2013) Organizations and their contexts: where risk management meets sustainability performance. Environ Qual Manag 22(3):81–93 Riccaboni A, Leone EL (2010) Implementing strategies through management control systems: the case of sustainability. Int J Prod Perform Manag 59(2):130–144 Schrettle S, Hinz A, Scherrer-Rathje M, Friedli T (2014) Turning sustainability into action: Explaining firms’ sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance. Inter J Prod Econ, Elsevier, 147(PA):73–84 Shafiq A, Johnson P, Klassen R, Awaysheh A (2017) Exploring the implications of supply risk on sustainability performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag 37(10):1386–1407 Vilanova M, Lozano JM, Arenas D (2009) Exploring the Nature of the Relationship Between CSR and Competitiveness. J Bus Ethics 87:57–69 Wahba H (2008) Exploring the moderating effect of financial performance on the relationship between corporate environmental responsibility and institutional investors: some Egyptian evidence. Corp Soc Res Environ Manage 15(6):361–371 Wiley A (1992) The meaning of continuous improvement. Tech Commun 39(4):709–710 Wilkinson A, Hill M, Gollan P (2001) The sustainability debate. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(12):1492–1502 Zollo M, Winter SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13(3): 339–351

Cooperative Inquiry ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Corporate Governance ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Corporate Social Responsibility ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

C

314

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, Mauri Luiz Heerdt and Issa Ibrahim Berchin Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

Synonyms Business social responsibility; Corporate governance; Corporate social responsibility; Corporate sustainability; Organizations sustainability; Social responsibility of organizations

Definition Changes in the market require new and more comprehensive initiatives from organizations. Social responsibility emerges as a new management perspective to answer these market demand and it goes beyond the traditional social sphere to include the environmental dimension as well. Thereby, it is possible to affirm that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is directly related with the principles of sustainable development. Considering that corporate responsibilities permeate economic, environmental, and social responsibility, their main result is corporate sustainability, promoting an organization’s growth while improving sustainable development.

Introduction From debates regarding the responsibilities of organizations, in the early 1950s and 1960s, academics and those of the business world began to study the relations between business activities and their impacts on society (Palihawadana et al. 2016; Carroll 1991, 1999). Within this, academics

indicated the need to limit an organization’s actions to achieve higher profits at any costs, forcing them to act more responsibly within society and within ethical and legal boundaries (Carroll 1991). Only since the 1970s, organizations started to broaden their indicators for performance evaluation, from a restrict focus on financial aspects to include social concerns; thus, since the 1980s, the environmental perspective became integrated into the organizational reports (Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Carroll 1991, 1999). Since the 1990s, organizations started to adopt sustainability as a concept and practice, valuing sustainability reports as a growing interest of researchers and managers (Montecchia et al. 2016; Halkos and Skouloudis 2016). Considering that the public sector alone is not enough to lead society into a sustainable future, there is a growing social and market demand for organizations to adopt socially responsible practices, contributing to the advancing of sustainable development through public and private partnerships (Sarkar and Searcy 2016; Venturelli et al. 2017).

Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility in the Context of Sustainable Development One of the great challenges of development, application, and monitoring of an organization’s initiatives of social responsibility is the lack of awareness of the concept (Sarkar and Searcy 2016; Scandelius and Cohen 2016; Matten and Moon 2008). Demands for sustainable practices, particularly for social responsibility measures, evolved with the passing of time, and when associated with the growing number of publications on the theme, the term loses its effectiveness, becoming rather vague, which results in the hardship of managers to comprehend, adopt, and report such practices (Sarkar and Searcy 2016). Since corporate social responsibility’s (CSR) meaning and practices depend on the time and place of each organization, CSR requires particular objectives and principles adapted to the local realities of each organization (Van Marrewijk

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

2003). Accordingly, due to the complexity and dynamism of organizations, the understanding over CSR still varies according to the place and time that the concept is being approached, being influenced by different legal, political, cultural, and social systems (Venturelli et al. 2017; Matten and Moon 2008). However, the core of CSR thinking includes the understanding of the reflection of the social impacts of organizational activities (Matten and Moon 2008). From the analysis of several studies, documents, and declarations published since 1953 until 2014, Sarkar and Searcy (2016) demonstrate the evolution and the increasing complexity of the concept of CSR in promoting sustainable development. Thus, the authors propose a contemporaneous definition of CSR, indicating that social responsibility implies that organizations must assume their economic responsibility and must voluntarily go beyond basic legal requirements, being ethical in all its activities and observing the impact of its actions in all societies’ stakeholders, contributing simultaneously to global sustainability (Sarkar and Searcy 2016). In turn, Bachmann and Ingenhoff (2016) understand social responsibility as a specific form of responsibility, represented by a multi-relational attribution which covers a subject (companies or organizations), an object (generate profits and revenues; accomplish social, political, and cultural benefits; improve the quality of the environment), an authority (stakeholders), and a criterion (normative standards that are within and beyond profitability and legal requirements). CSR can be considered the voluntary commitment of an organization in contributing positively to a society through the conduction of its activities, implying the maintenance of a social balance between the organization’s operations and the claims of its many stakeholders (Palihawadana et al. 2016). Therefore, some factors, particularly the economics such as financial health and the level of market competition, directly influence the probability of organizations to act in a socially responsible manner (Campbell 2007). Social responsibility can be considered a way to reach the sustainable management of organizations (Maas and Reniers 2014; Benites-Lazaro and

315

Mello-Théry 2017), going beyond the traditional social sphere to include the environmental dimension as well. Thereby, it is possible to affirm that the concept of CSR is directly related with the principles of sustainable development (Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry 2017). Some authors, such as Scandelius and Cohen (2016, p.5), approach CSR and sustainability as synonyms and affirm that “the complexity of sustainability emerges as an important challenge in CSR communication.” Considering that corporative responsibilities permeate economic, environmental, and social responsibility, their main result is corporate sustainability (Van Marrewijk 2003), promoting an organization’s growth while improving sustainable development (Sarkar and Searcy 2016; Karaosmanoglu et al. 2016; Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry 2017). Aiming at providing guidance and recommendations for organizations to structure, evaluate, and improve their social responsibility, including the relations with stakeholders and impacts on local communities, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 defines CSR as “the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior,” which contributes to sustainable development, considers the expectations of the stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law and norms, and is integrated throughout the organization and practiced in all the organization’s relationships (ISO 2017). To act in a socially responsible manner, organizations must not consciously do anything that may harm their stakeholders (i.e., investors, employees, clients, suppliers, and the local community in which they operate), and if companies may cause any harm to them, they should be compensated accordingly (Campbell 2007). Hence, the concept of CSR is centered in meeting the concerns of the stakeholders about the relations between organizations’ activities and society’s welfare (Carroll 1999). Thus, considering CSR as part of the strategic plan of organizations to meet the stakeholders’ expectations and demands, communication is fundamental to assure its efficiency (Montecchia et al. 2016; Halkos and Skouloudis 2016; Singhapakdi et al. 2015).

C

316

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

When aligned with the organization’s strategic goals, CSR generates innovation, which increases its competitive advantages and promotes better and long-lasting performance results (Bocquet et al. 2013). Considering that organizations and their stakeholders have diverse social, economic, and environmental interests to achieve their strategic goals, the development and dissemination of sustainability reports, through disclosure practices, can be useful means to increase an organization’s transparency, a brand’s value, image, and reputation, demonstrating competitiveness and motivating stakeholders (Montecchia et al. 2016; Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Singhapakdi et al. 2015). In this regard, customers’ perception of organizations has severely changed in the past years, demanding organizations to, besides offering quality products and services, assume a leadership and responsible posture in the promotion of sustainable development, through supporting community development, supporting environmental protection and conservation, reducing resource consumption, and generating clean energy (Karaosmanoglu et al. 2016). Thereby, CSR serves as part of the competitive structure and as a strategic tool for the organization’s positioning in the market, creating value and improving image (Karaosmanoglu et al. 2016; Singhapakdi et al. 2015; Ramasamy et al. 2013). As important as adopting sustainable practices, such as CSR, it is to transmit the will of the organization in doing so, not only as a market strategy (as it is commonly perceived by customers) but as a natural motivation, reflecting the mission and vision of the organization with ethic and transparency, resulting in higher credibility and improvement of the organizational image (Karaosmanoglu et al. 2016; Lock and Seele 2016; Montecchia et al. 2016; Rim et al. 2016). Aiming to enhance the credibility of their image, organizations must adopt measures to increase the market’s trust in their good in order to promote the development of communities and environmental conservation, and without aiming profits toward, avoiding disloyal marketing practices such as green washing (Lock and Seele 2016; Rim et al. 2016). Among these measures, the development and promotion of CSR reports, or the sustainability reports, serve as a strategy to disseminate the organization’s

social responsibility practices and its performance. Thus, to increase its credibility, these reports should be produced periodically and by external agents, observing the perspective of diverse stakeholders, using a clear and comprehensive language, and adopting clear evaluation criteria (Lock and Seele 2016; Montecchia et al. 2016; Birkey et al. 2016). Among the strategies to enhance the credibility of CSR practices, it is the establishment of partnerships between companies and nonprofit organizations, in which both sides benefit companies by receiving the trust of society in the actions and goodwill of nonprofit organizations and nonprofit organizations by receiving the necessary funds to conduct their activities (Rim et al. 2016; Campbell 2007). The consumers’ skepticism of CSR emerges from perceived egoistic intentions, by the lack of value-oriented reasons and by the absence of customer orientation strategies. Therefore, in order to reduce skepticism and increase credibility of organizations, managers must concentrate efforts toward understanding their clients, closely monitoring their perceptions of the company, and attending the individual necessities of customers (Skarmeas et al. 2014). Accordingly, this perspective of CSR is aligned with the stakeholders’ theory (Campbell 2007) to promote sustainable development. In the vast literature based on CSR, the focus on stakeholders is a prominent interest area. Focusing on the internal environment of organizations, Singhapakdi et al. (2015) demonstrate the importance of the congruence between the principles of the organization and the vision of its employees in relation to the practices and principles of CSR, proving that inconsistency and lack of understanding and communication between them (employees and organization) can lead to employees’ dissatisfaction, affecting the quality of life in the workplace, consequently influencing the production’s performance. When properly communicated, employeecentered social responsibility initiatives (e.g., safety, comfort, inclusion, work environment, ergonomics) and those focused on the environment (e.g., recycling programs, use of environmentally friendly materials, pollution control) have a positive impact on the organization’s image and performance (Andreu et al. 2015). To emphasize the importance of CSR in sustainable development, the ISO published a report on

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

social responsibility and the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (SDGs), alleging that social responsibility is represented by the level of contribution an organization has to sustainable development and its impact on society and the environment (ISO 2016), contributing to the all goals in different levels: No Poverty Zero Hunger Good Health and Well-being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure Reduced Inequalities Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Climate Action Life Below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions Particularly to Goal 8, “Decent Work and Economic Growth” The CSR has emerged as a global phenomenon, stimulating diverse organizations in several sectors to adopt practices of social responsibility; among them, higher education institutions (HEIs) have shown great interest in adhering to such practices as trainers of qualified human resources, adopting managerial behaviors similar to those of companies (Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. 2017; Ahmad 2012). With the increasing importance of CSR in both profit-oriented and nonprofit institutions, HEIs adopt

317

social responsibility practices, proactively (innovating and leading the market) or reactively (attending to normative requirements or answering to market push), as a strategy to generate competitiveness by training and promoting skilled labor, aware of the global sustainability challenges (AsrarUl-Haq et al. 2017), also promoting social inclusion and development and environmental awareness. Considered promoters of social responsibility, HEIs have three main stakeholders: employees, students, and society. Thus, the engagement of employees in CSR practices and their perception of them are essential to increase their satisfaction and commitment to the institution, strengthening the role of HEIs as the main disseminators of good practices for social development and welfare (Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. 2017). Accordingly, HEIs play an important role in the transition to a more sustainable and responsible society, generating and disseminating knowledge and preparing students to assume their future position in society in an ethical and responsible way (Stough et al. 2017). To summarize the discussions in this review, Table 1 presents one definition of CSR to be used in the context of sustainable development, Table 2 presents the dimensions that underpin CSR, and Table 3 presents its principles. From the review of certain studies (e.g., Dahlsrud 2008; Sarkar and Searcy 2016; Palihawadana et al. 2016; Venturelli et al. 2017; Calabrese et al. 2015), it is possible to identify some of the main dimensions which permeate and compose the most current definitions of CSR, among which it is possible to highlight environmental, social, economic, stakeholders and the normative (norms, regulations, and laws). Thus, some of these observed principles that increase

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Proposed definition of CSR Term CSR

Definition Organizations should conduct their business activities complying with legal requirements and moral principles, contributing to the sustainable development of societies through transparency, ethics, and accountability. Increasing their profits while promoting social development and welfare, by respecting their employees and the communities where they operate, establishing networks with their stakeholders, while also promoting environmental quality and conservation, reducing its ecological footprint

Authors Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Palihawadana et al. (2016), Montecchia et al. (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Venturelli et al. (2017), Calabrese et al. (2015), Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry (2017), and AsrarUl-Haq et al. (2017)

C

318

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Main dimensions of CSR Dimension Environmental

Social

Economic

Stakeholders (investors, employees, customers, suppliers, and the local community)

Normative/legal (norms, regulations, and laws)

Definition To respect and protect the natural environment, avoiding its degradation and pollution while promoting the recovery and improvement of its quality, enhancing the environmental performance of organizations, and, consequently, reducing its ecological footprint. Additionally, reports on the environmental performance and practices of organizations also operate as a tool to demonstrate its responsibility and increase the stakeholders’ awareness and the organizations’ image in the market To promote a relationship between the organization and the society, opening channels for communication, promoting local development and welfare, while improving the quality of life of the organization’s employees, and generating reports on the social responsibility initiatives To promote economic growth, increasing profits, maintaining the organization’s profitability, and managing the operations of the organization in a responsible manner, respecting both the society and the natural environment. Adopting a responsible corporate governance, especially when managing crises and risks To value the organization’s relations with its stakeholders, observing their needs and demands when planning and making decisions. Also enhancing employees’ wellbeing and safety, improving the quality of the work place, enhancing the local communities’ welfare, increasing financial returns to the investors, valuing responsible and ethical suppliers. Thus, respecting human rights, working conditions, promoting the development of human capital, strengthening attraction and retention of talented labor, and involving stakeholders in the organizations’ initiatives To meet the minimum legal requirements and go beyond, developing and implementing internal codes of conduct that increase the standards of social and environmental responsibility of the organization

Authors Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Montecchia et al. (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Venturelli et al. (2017), Calabrese et al. (2015), and Benites-Lazaro and MelloThéry (2017)

Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Palihawadana et al. (2016), Montecchia et al. (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Venturelli et al. (2017), Calabrese et al. (2015), Benites-Lazaro and MelloThéry (2017), and Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. (2017) Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Palihawadana et al. (2016), Montecchia et al. (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Venturelli et al. (2017), Calabrese et al. (2015), Benites-Lazaro and MelloThéry (2017), and Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. (2017) Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Venturelli et al. (2017), Calabrese et al. (2015), and Benites-Lazaro and MelloThéry (2017)

Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Palihawadana et al. (2016), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Venturelli et al. (2017), and Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. (2017)

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

319

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Table 3 Main principles of CSR Principles Voluntarism

Definition Commitment and promotion of voluntary actions of the organization that go beyond legal obligations

Ethics

Organizations must act in accordance with the moral and ethical principles of society, respecting human and environmental dignity and rights, promoting environmental and social justice, avoiding amoral and immoral behavior in the conduct of their business Organizations can promote goodwill actions for social and/or environmental causes in an unintentional manner and without aiming at selfimprovement Organizations must act in a sustainable manner, aiming at achieving their economic development, while promoting environmental conservation and improvement of its quality, and promoting the development of the local communities where they operate, consequently promoting actions that contribute to the sustainable development

Philanthropy

Sustainability

the breadth and solidity of CSR are voluntarism, ethics, philanthropy, and sustainability (Sarkar and Searcy 2016; Dahlsrud 2008; Palihawadana et al. 2016; Montecchia et al. 2016; Rim et al. 2016; Karaosmanoglu et al. 2016; Venturelli et al. 2017). In accordance with the dimensions presented in Table 2, ISO 26000 presents core interdependent subjects, which offer a holistic integrated approach for CSR, which are community involvement and development, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and organizational governance permeating all others (ISO 2016). It is also possible to list certain practices which can increase the credibility of CSR practices, such as social responsibility disclosure through the periodic publication of evaluation reports with transparent indicators in accessible platforms, establishing feedback systems, and starting partnerships and relationships with stakeholders (Lock and Seele 2016; Montecchia et al. 2016; Rim et al. 2016; Scandelius and Cohen 2016; Venturelli et al. 2017; Calabrese et al. 2015). The communication with stakeholders on the organization’s practices is essential to make them aware of the CSR initiatives, enhancing their image,

Authors Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Dahlsrud (2008), Calabrese et al. (2015), and Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry (2017) Carroll and Shabana (2010), Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Palihawadana et al. (2016), Montecchia et al. (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Venturelli et al. (2017), and Asrar-Ul-Haq et al. (2017) Carroll and Shabana (2010), Van Marrewijk (2003), Carroll (1991), (1999), Campbell (2007), Venturelli et al. (2017), Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry (2017), and Rim et al. (2016) Sarkar and Searcy (2016), Van Marrewijk (2003), Venturelli et al. (2017), Maas and Reniers (2014), and Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Théry, (2017)

strengthening their relations with clients, and conquering their loyalty (Andreu et al. 2015; Calabrese et al. 2015). Accordingly, after reviewing the literature on CSR, it is possible to observe a shift of the concept, which originated with an exclusive focus on social practices and evolved to embrace the environmental dimension as well, finally focusing on the promotion of sustainable development, thus, growing from corporations to reach public organizations, non-governmental organizations, and educational institutions, including HEIs.

Cross-References ▶ Social Responsibility and Sustainability ▶ Socially Responsible Investing in Sustainable Development

References Ahmad J (2012) Can a university act as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) driver? An analysis. Soc Responsib J 8(1):77–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 17471111211196584

C

320

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Andreu L, Casado-Díaz A, Mattila AS (2015) Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR communication strategies. J Bus Res 68(7):1488–1495. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.039 Asrar-Ul-Haq M, Kuchinke KP, Iqbal A (2017) The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: case of Pakistani higher education. J Clean Prod 142:2352–2363. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.11.040 Bachmann P, Ingenhoff D (2016) Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relat Rev 42(3):386–394. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.008 Benites-Lazaro LL, Mello-Théry NA (2017) CSR as a legitimatizing tool in carbon market: evidence from Latin America’s clean development mechanism. J Clean Prod 149:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.02.095 Birkey RN, Michelon G, Patten DM, Sankara J (2016) Does assurance on CSR reporting enhance environmental reputation? An examination in the U.S. context. Account Forum 40(3):143–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.accfor.2016.07.001 Bocquet R, Les Bas C, Mothe C, Poussing N (2013) Are firms with different CSR profiles equally innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data. Eur Manag J 31(6):642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012. 07.001 Calabrese A, Costa R, Rosati F (2015) A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis. Account Forum 39(4):312–327. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.accfor.2015.06.002 Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?: an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 32(3):946–967 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.321.6698&rep=rep1&type= pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2017 Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz 34(4):39–48. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-g Carroll AB (1999) Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Bus Soc 38(3):268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303 Carroll AB, Shabana KM (2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. Int J Manag Rev 12(1):85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x Dahlsrud A (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15(1):1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/csr.132 Hahn H, Kühnen M (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J Clean Prod 59:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 Halkos G, Skouloudis A (2016) National CSR and institutional conditions: an exploratory study. J Clean Prod 139:1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 07.047

ISO (2016) ISO 26000 and SDGs. https://www.iso.org/ files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_26000_and_ sdgs.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2017 ISO (2017) ISO 26000 – social responsibility. https://www. iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2017 Karaosmanoglu E, Altinigne N, Isiksal DG (2016) CSR motivation and customer extra-role behavior: moderation of ethical corporate identity. J Bus Res 69(10):4161–4167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2016.03.035 Lock I, Seele P (2016) The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. J Clean Prod 122:186–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.02.060 Maas S, Reniers G (2014) Development of a CSR model for practice: connecting five inherent areas of sustainable business. J Clean Prod 64:104–114. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.039 Matten D, Moon J (2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 33(2):404–424 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159405. Accessed 25 Feb 2017 Montecchia A, Giordano F, Grieco C (2016) Communicating CSR: integrated approach or selfie? Evidence from the Milan stock exchange. J Clean Prod 136:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.099 Palihawadana D, Oghazi P, Liu Y (2016) Effects of ethical ideologies and perceptions of CSR on consumer behavior. J Bus Res 69(11):4964–4969. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.060 Ramasamy B, Yeung MCH, Chen J (2013) Selling to the urban Chinese in East Asia: do CSR and value orientation matter? J Bus Res 66(12):2485–2491. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.039 Rim H, Yang S, Lee J (2016) Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): the mediating role of perceived altruism and organizational identification. J Bus Res 69(9):3213–3219. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035 Sarkar S, Searcy C (2016) Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. J Clean Prod 135:1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.06.157 Scandelius C, Cohen G (2016) Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders – the role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. J Bus Res 69(9):3487–3499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2016.01.037 Singhapakdi A, Lee DJ, Sirgy MJ, Senasu K (2015) The impact of incongruity between an organization’s CSR orientation and its employees’ CSR orientation on employees’ quality of work life. J Bus Res 68(1):60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014. 05.007 Skarmeas D, Leonidou CN, Saridakis C (2014) Examining the role of CSR skepticism using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. J Bus Res 67(9):1796–1805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.12.010 Stough T, Ceulemans K, Lambrechts W, Capuyns V (2017) Assessing sustainability in higher education curricula:

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy A critical reflection on validity issues. J Clean Prod (In Press) 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.02.017 Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44(2):95–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/a:1023331212247 Venturelli A, Caputo F, Leopizzi R, Mastroleo G, Mio C (2017) How can CSR identity be evaluated? A pilot study using a fuzzy expert system. J Clean Prod 141:1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.09.172

321

economic, environmental, and social issues of products and services. The way of making, using, and re-using of products is the focal point of C2C, combining the biological as well as the technical metabolism. As a paragon, C2C serves nature where no waste exists and everything is nutrients for other organisms or systems (MBDC 2016).

Introduction

Corporate Sustainability ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Correct Externalities ▶ Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

Cost ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy Andreas Meyer and Petra Schneider Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany

Definition The objective of Cradle-to-Cradle is to provide a positive agenda for the continuous innovation of

As result of the production of new goods through industrial processes, often remain residues that are no longer used for other purposes, forming waste. The main reason for residues resulting from industrial processes is non-closed material flow. The scope of the principle of “Cradle-to-Cradle” (C2C) is to close the material cycles within the production, so that no more wastes are generated and the resulting residues are returned to other production steps, following the example of nature. The rethinking concept was introduced by William McDonough and Michael Braungart: Cradle to cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (McDonough 2002; McDonough and Braungart 2009), which states: Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn’t have a design problem. People do.

The production and the life cycle of a good are essentially always in the same phases, that is, exploration, processing for refining with subsequent transport, and distribution, use, and finally disposal. The life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO 14044) is a feasible tool for determining and evaluating the environmental impacts of all substeps that arise during a product’s life until the product’s life end. An LCA follows the “Cradle-to-Grave” approach, which analyzes all phases of the product life with their associated environmental impact. Yet another process, which does not take into account the whole life cycle, is the “cradle to gate” principle whereby companies look at and publish the environmental impact of their products (ISO 14025).

C

322

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

Cradle-to-Grave The principle originated in the USA, legally enshrined there in 1976 with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Bernosky 2011), and is a special form of the precautionary principle that oversees the control of a particular problem throughout its lifetime (Erdmann and Kastenholz 1995). Applied to an LCA, this means that every step in the life cycle of a product, with its environmental effects, can be represented. Thus it is shown how the respective phases of a product affect its life in order to optimize it and thus to reduce the environmental impact or to compare it with other products. In addition, the approach can also be used to consider services with their environmental effects; the basics for creating an LCA are ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.

Cradle-to-Gate The approach is based on the Cradle-to-Grave principle for a product or service. However, not the entire life cycle but only the production phase of a good is analyzed. The central element of cradle to gate analyses is communication with investors and consumers. The product information can be compared directly with other comparable products.

Approach to Cradle-to-Cradle Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (McDonough and Braungart 2009) A Question of Design

With the onset of the industrial revolution and the resulting mass production, it was assumed that natural resources are available in unlimited quantities. There was little thought about the effects of resource depletion and the ever increasing release of emissions, everything seemed inexhaustible. The design of the products pursues the goal of being visually attractive, cost-effective, and manufactured according to current regulations in order to satisfy the customer’s expectations.

However, as products tend to be designed with little foresight on health and the environment, the C2C concept speaks of PrimeTech (primitive products), a design that is unintelligent and unelegant. A product design with harmful and serious consequences is also called “generationwide tyranny,” because only the next generations will experience the effects of the current action and thus determined by the current conditions. Therefore, a future-saving strategy of change must be made among manufacturers and designers (McDonough and Braungart 2009). “Less Poor” Is Not Good

Reduce, avoid, minimize, reduce, and limit are the terms that are used in most of the environmental programs. However, neither the extraction of raw materials nor the damage to the environment is ended, only a slowdown of the processes occurs. The concept of eco-efficiency, which refers to the above-mentioned principles, is therefore a successful approach only at first glance. Taking into account the environmental impact, a long-term environmental protection can often not be achieved because environmental pollution is not stopped but delayed (McDonough and Braungart 2009) or even sometimes becomes more intensive. Eco-efficiency is associated with a cradleto-grave flow (Braungart et al. 2007). Increasing efficiency can create products or services with less resource use. This can lead to changes in the behavior of users: they consume more – the initial savings are partially reversed. This effect is called rebound (Menoni and Morgavi 2014). The result is a rise in the absolute level of ecological footprint (Figge and Hahn 2004; Pogutz and Russo 2009). The concept of eco-efficiency was introduced by Schaltegger and Sturm (1990), the concept only became popular after adoption by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in 1992. Cradle-tocradle therefore also pursues the approach of eco-effectiveness. Eco-effectiveness and cradleto-cradle design present an alternative design and production concept to the strategies of zero emission and eco-efficiency (Burchart-Korol et al. 2012).

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

Eco-Effectiveness

McDonough and Braungart’s symbol of ecoeffectiveness is the cherry tree. Although this produces much more than for its actual purpose (to create a new cherry tree), there is no question of lack of efficiency or waste. Every flower, every fruit produced by the tree, serves as food for humans or animals and everything that falls to the ground rots and in turn supplies other plants, microorganisms, and the soil with nutrients (McDonough and Braungart 2009). Unlike ecoefficiency, it is not about achieving the goals with as few resources or environmental impact as possible. Eco-effectiveness means that it can also be produced in abundance, but in such a way that everything is in harmony with its environment. By-products that should be incurred can be recycled to other processes without leading to a reduction in material properties. Waste Equals Food

As a rule, products are designed in such a way that they can be completely recycled after use and the

323

materials used can be reused in the same quality. McDonough and Braungart distinguish between two types of material streams, biological and technical nutrients (McDonough and Braungart 2009). Nutrients with an intelligent product design, including their individual components, can be recycled back into a cycle without reducing the material properties. The waste from one process thus serves as food for another product or process without leaving any residue that has to be disposed of. Cradle-to-Cradle Principles The C2C concept is designed so that the individual components of a product, after their use, can be reused completely and without loss of quality. That concerns the reuse of all respective parts of the product either in a biological or technical cycle, see Fig. 1, without negatively affecting humans or the ecosystem. Thus, for example, no chemicals are to be used which released harmful substances for humans during the use phase, for instance VOCs (Volatile Organic

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Fig. 1 Biological and technological nutrient cycle (www.c2cplatform.tw)

C

324

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

Compounds). According to the model of nature, everything moves in one, ever-lasting cycle. The principle of implementation consists of three simple principles (MBDC 2016): Through the cradle-to-cradle concept, McDonough and Braungart (2009) foster a sustainability concept in product design and use with the following key subjects: (A) Eliminate the Concept of Waste • Nutrients become nutrients again. All materials are seen as potential nutrients in one of two cycles – technical and biological cycles. • Design materials and products that are effectively “food” for other systems. This means designing materials and products to be used over and over in either technical or biological systems. • Design materials and products that are safe. Design materials and products whose nutrient management system leaves a beneficial legacy economically, environmentally, and equitably. • Create and participate in systems to collect and recover the value of these materials and products. This is especially important for the effective management of scarce materials. • Clean water is vital for humans and all other organisms. Manage influent and effluent water streams responsibly, and consider local impacts of water use to promote healthy watersheds and ecosystems. • Carbon dioxide (CO2) should be sequestered in soil. Our current practice where carbon dioxide ends up in the oceans and in the atmosphere is considered a mismanagement of materials. (B) Use Renewable Energy The quality of energy matters. Energy from renewable sources is paramount to effective design. Aligning with Green-e’s list of eligible sources, renewable energy sources are solar, wind, hydropower, biomass (when not in competition with food supplies), geothermal, and hydrogen fuel cells.

(C) Celebrate Diversity • Use social fairness to guide a company’s operations and stakeholder relationships. • Encourage staff participation in creative design and research projects to enhance your Cradle-to-Cradle story. • Technological diversity is key for innovation; explore different options in looking for creative solutions. • Support local biodiversity to help your local ecosystem flourish; strive to have a beneficial social, cultural, and ecological footprint. (D) Circular Economy and Cradle-to-Cradle The concept of the circular economy is to make products and processes environmentally friendly and sustainable. These should be designed so that more can be recycled or reused and better environmental and water management is achieved (EASME 2018). The raw materials should thus be used over and over again, see Fig. 2. For example, in this way, a PET bottle is recycled, from which then a garment is created. Among other things, the Circular Economy Action Plan of the European Commission aims to ensure that all plastic packaging is reusable by 2030 (European Commission 2018). The connection between Circular Economy and the C2C concept (Fig. 3) goes one step further. At C2C, care is taken to see which chemical substances are used in the products. Instead of just being less harmful to the environment, the products should be designed to be environmentally friendly and therefore useful in biological and technical processes (EPEA 2018a). Although a PET bottle can be recycled, it contains toxic ingredients such as acetaldehyde and antimony, which are harmful to human health (Welle 2016). The substances arrive on the one hand through drinking of the water into the body or, if the PET was recycled to a garment, by the wearing of the clothes on the skin (BfR 2016; BUND 2018; iwd 2006). Ecodesign Ecodesign is a systematic and comprehensive design approach for products to reduce environmental impact through life cycle design through

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

325

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Fig. 2 Circular economy (EASME 2018)

C

Know-how feedback loop for Technosphere product design Disassembly/Recycling/Upcycling Disassembly/Remanufacture/Component Harvesting Refurbishment

Technosphere

Re-distribution Maintenance Renewable Energy Service

Redesign & Prototyping

Material & Additives Formulation

Component Production

Product Assembly

Distribution

Collection Consumption

Biosphere

Bio-based regeneration by natural environment

Harvesting & processing bio-based resources for Biosphere and Technosphere materials

Agricultrue, aquaculture forestry Cascades to regenerate feedstock industrially

Bio-nutrient dispersal & emmission

Bio-nutrient reprocessing & renewable energy production

Know-how feedback loop for Biosphere product design

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Fig. 3 Circular economy powered by Cradle-to-Cradle (EPEA 2018a)

improved product design. In the product planning and design phase, producers can influence every stage of value creation and material lifecycle and drive forward eco-innovation. The definitions in the product planning and design phase determine to a large extent both the product-related costs and the environmental

impacts. The actors involved in the product development process can influence every phase of the product’s added value and the material life cycle and promote environmentally sound innovations. Ecodesign’s goal is to find environmentally sound solutions in an integrated life-cycle analysis in order to reduce the overall environmental impact

326

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

of a product. It therefore supplements the classic requirements for product development, such as functionality, safety, ergonomics, and price/performance ratio, with the requirement of environmental friendliness. Ecodesign is thus a comprehensive design task of sustainable corporate management. The environmentally sound design of products requires quantitative and qualitative evaluation standards and supporting instruments. With the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EG, the European Commission has for the first time created a framework for the definition of product groupspecific minimum requirements (European Commission 2009). The aim of the directive is to improve the environmental compatibility of energy-related products, taking into account the entire life cycle by setting ecodesign requirements. The Ecodesign Directive provides for two different ways of establishing product-group specific ecodesign requirements: implementing measures – i.e., EC directives in the form of directives or regulations – or industry self-regulation initiatives. Products do not have to meet requirements until they are specified in a product group-specific implementation measure. The Ecodesign Directive sets out, as a framework directive, the conditions, criteria, and procedures for the adoption of those implementing measures and the criteria that a selfregulatory measure must fulfill.

Certification For a product to receive the Cradle-to-Cradle Certified label, some requirements must be met before the certification process. On the one hand, no chemicals that are on the “banned list” might be contained, that are substances that cause irreversible damage to human health and ecosystems. The limit, which must not be exceeded, is a substance concentration of 1000 ppm (MBDC 2016). On the other

 MRS ¼

hand, there are no certified products that cause ethical problems (e.g., weapons) or, for example, are linked to child labor or racism. This means that companies have to produce their products socially just. In addition, food, countries, and cities are also excluded from certification. The certification is carried out by a licensed expert (C2CPIIa). Certification Levels and Categories The certification is divided into five levels, from Basic to Platinum. Decisive for the overall assessment is the worst result of a category, see Fig. 4. The Basic category is intended to alert people that the product is currently in the certification phase (MBDC 2016). Once a product has received a certificate, it has to be recertified every 2 years in order to persuade the manufacturer to improve its product. The quality of the product is divided into five categories during the certification process. Material Health

The assessment is based on the chemicals used and their effects during and at the end of the use phase. The substances are subdivided by an ABC-X rating, where A stands for optimal, B optimizing, C tolerable, and X not acceptable (EPEA 2018b). Furthermore, the materials are classified according to whether they serve as a biological or technical nutrient. The aim of the analysis is that only materials that are not classified as X are used (Table 1). Material Reutilization

The C2C concept is designed to design a product so that no waste is generated and all materials used can be reused in the biological or technical cycle. Critical to the product score level is the Material Reutilization Score (MRS, Eq. 1), which is determined by five factors.

   % recycled or rapidly renewable % of product recycable þ2 product content or biodegrabable=compostable 3

(1)

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

327

C

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Fig. 4 Product scoring (c2ccertified.org)

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Table 1 Material health Level Basic

Bronze Silver Gold

Platinum

Achievement Generic material is 100% characterized Technical nutrient/biological nutrient is identified At least 75% of the product material (by weight) using ABC-X rating At least 95% of the product material (by weight) using ABC-X rating 100% of the product material (by weight) using ABC rating No X material All process chemicals have been assessed No X chemical

According to MBDC (2016)

The materials used in a product are considered to be recyclable, biodegradable (inclusive compostable), already recycled, or rapidly renewable (less than 10 years for renewal) (MBDC 2016).

Renewable Energy and Carbon Management

If possible, production should be carried out in such a way that no energy sources that emit CO2 are used during the manufacturing process. For this reason, the use of fossil and nuclear energy should be reduced or completely prevented (Table 2). Water Stewardship

The use of water in industrial processes is particularly problematic due to the use of chemicals during the manufacturing process. The C2C concept aims to reduce the burden of water and consumption. At the highest level of certification, the water must be reprocessed to the point of leaving the factory in drinking water quality (Table 3). Social Justice

Also part of the C2C certification is social justice. The preparation of the product should be carried out in such a way that the product is produced

328

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Table 2 Renewable energy and carbon management (MDC 2016) Level Basic Bronze Silver

Gold

Platinum

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Table 4 Social fairness (MBDC 2016)

Achievement Annual electricity use and greenhouse gases are quantified Electricity use and carbon management strategy is developed The final manufacturing stage, 5% of electricity is renewable and 5% GHG emissions are offset The final manufacturing stage, 50% of electricity is renewable and 50% GHG emissions are offset The final manufacturing stage, >100% electricity is renewable and >100% emissions are offset

Level Basic Bronze

Silver

Gold Platinum

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy, Table 3 Water stewardship (MBDC 2016)

Achievement Protection of fundamental human rights Social responsibility self-audit is complete Positive impact strategy is developed (based on UN Global Compacta or B Corpb Minimum 25% of the product material (by weight) are certificated (e.g., Fair Trade) and/or issue-related audit Or Complete investigation and impact strategy for supply chain social issues Or Actively conducting a social project Two silver level requirements All silver level requirements Facility audit is completed by a third party or an internationally certification is obtained (e.g., GSCPc or B Corp)

a

Level Basic

Bronze Silver

Gold

Platinum

Achievement Water-related issues are characterized A statement of water stewardship described the actions which are taken for the identified problems Water audit is completed Chemicals in sewage are characterized and assessed Or A positive impact strategy for supply chain water issues at the least 20% of Tier 1 (facilities with no product relevant effluent) Chemicals in effluent are optimized (no problematic assessed chemicals leaving) Or Demonstrated progress for the silver level requirements (facilities with no product relevant effluent) Sewage in drinking water quality

under fair and decent conditions. The focus is on business principles in the company and the supply chain, such as the fair treatment of employees and investments in restoration measures (Table 4). Practical Application of the Cradle-to-Cradle Principle

The number of products previously certified by C2C has continued to increase in recent years,

http://www.globalcompactselfassessment.org https://www.bcorporation.net c http://www.gscpnet.com b

allowing products to be found in many different areas of life today. Starting with baby equipment through car parts, building materials, textiles u.v.m. (C2CPIIb), the products go through the whole day to day life. In addition, the C2C principle is integrated in building planning for various projects. Thus, the planning of the new preschool in Listerby, Sweden, was inspired by the C2C thought. The materials used were examined in advance and, as far as possible, only those that do not contain any toxic substances were used. Toys from the old school, which could contain harmful substances was disposed of by the staff. The energy demand of the building is 100% covered by renewable energies. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, a concept was developed to improve the biodiversity of the local ecosystem.

Cradle-to-Cradle as Tool to Enhance Sustainable Development Cradle-to-cradle addresses sustainability, particularly the Sustainability Development Goals

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

(SDG): 3 (Good health and well-being), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), 12 (Responsible consumption and production), and 13 (Climate Action). The implementation of the circular economy principles started in water and waste management; even there is still potential for improvement. Practicing circular economy does not only mean the understanding of the life cycle of a product but also to understand the mechanisms of how to transform an end-of-life cycle into a circular life cycle. At this point links the concept of Industrial Symbiosis links in, focusing on enlarging the sustainability in the economy, which became popular in the last years. In the literature, a clear definition yet does not exist; however, the most comprehensive characterization was done by Boons et al. (2011), based on the definition of Chertow (2007), who summarized “engaging traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and by-products. The keys to industrial symbiosis are collaboration and the synergistic possibilities offered by geo-graphic proximity.” Boons et al. (2011) went beyond that definition by including a competitive advantage through the exchange of physical substances as complementary aspect as well as the consideration of social and geographical aspects. With this addition, the characterization of Industrial Symbiosis considers the common aspects of sustainability. The origin of the concept of the Industrial Symbioses was laid by the municipality of Kalundborg in Denmark, where the first Eco Industrial Park started in the 1970s. The Industrial Symbiosis enables companies to develop multilateral solutions for material and energy flows, thus overall reducing the ecological footprint.

Conclusions The concept is not just eco-vision, but a healthy environment is seen as the basis for social justice and sustainability according to the triple bottom line (Elkington 1997). That is why the social side of

329

extracting raw materials has to be examined. Business success with Cradle-to-Cradle is already proven by companies from various industries: manufacturers of textiles and floor coverings, some of the furniture manufacturers, chemical companies, timber house companies, cosmetics, and cleaning companies, as well as companies from other industries, including first electronics manufacturers with it. Since 2010, products can be certified to C2C. C2C is also a political challenge: on the one hand, there needs to be a genuine circular economy in the above sense of political and/or legal incentives. On the other hand, there are sometimes sales problems for C2C products, because harmful substances are allowed and because of their massive use, cheaper than the innovations. The policy would have to facilitate innovation and promote and allow only safe substances as starting materials, demand the C2C supporters. Cradle-to-Cradle “(C2C) is the vision of a waste-free economy, where companies no longer use hazardous and polluting materials and all substances are permanent nutrients for natural cycles or closed technical circuits” (McDonough and Braungart 2009). Compostable textiles, edible packaging, pure plastics, or metals that can be used for the same purpose indefinitely – that’s what the future should look like.

Cross-References ▶ Behavior Change for Sustainable Development ▶ Bio-construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil ▶ Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Development ▶ Circular Economy and Sustainable Development ▶ Composting and Sustainable Development ▶ Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development ▶ Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Recycle Relevance and Sustainable Development ▶ Role of Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability and Life Cycle Cost Analysis

C

330

Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy

▶ Sustainability Assessment Tools ▶ Sustainability Challenges ▶ Sustainability Indicators ▶ Value Creation and Sustainable Development ▶ Waste Management Strategies for Sustainable Development ▶ Waste Reduction and Sustainable Development ▶ Waste Diversion and Sustainability ▶ Waste Reduction and Sustainable Development ▶ Water Conservation Strategies for Sustainable Development

References Bernosky JJ (2011) Overview of environmental laws and regulations: navigating the green maze. American Water Works Association, Denver, p 63 Boons F, Spekkink W, Mouzakitis Y (2011) The dynamics of industrial symbiosis: a proposal for a conceptual framework based upon a comprehensive literature review. J Clean Prod 19(9):905–911 Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A (2007) Cradleto-cradle design: creating healthy emissions a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J Clean Prod 15(13–14):1337–1348 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) (2018). Schadstoffe in Plastik. Berlin. https://www. bund.net/chemie/achtung-plastik/schadstoffe-in-plastik/. 01/19/2018 Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) (2016) Einführung in die Bewertung der Bekleidungstextilien. Berlin. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/einfuehrung-indie-problematik-der-bekleidungstextilien.pdf. 01/19/ 2018 Burchart-Korol D, Czaplicka-Kolarz K, Kruczek M (2012) Eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness concepts in supply chain management. Congress Proceedings Carpathian Logistics Congress CLC Jesenik, Czech Republic Chertow MR (2007) “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. J Ind Ecol 11:11–30 Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute (C2CPIIa). Assessors. http://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/ find-an-assessor. 01/20/2018 Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute (C2CPIIb). Certified products. http://www.c2ccertified.org/prod ucts/registry. 01/27/2018 Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks – triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek EPEA Internationale Umweltforschung GmbH (EPEA) (2018a) Cradle to Cradle: toolbox for a circular economy. http://www.epea.com/circular-economy/. 01/19/2018 EPEA Internationale Umweltforschung GmbH (EPEA) (2018b) Cradle to Cradle: scientific foundation. http:// www.epea.com/scientific-foundation/. 01/20/2018

Erdmann K-H, Kastenholz HG (1995) Umwelt- und Naturschutz am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts: Probleme, Aufgaben und Lösungen. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 104–106 European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009. pp 10–35 European Commission (2018) Implementation of the circular economy action plan. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/circular-economy/index_en.htm. 01/19/2018 Executive Agency for SME. (EASME) (2018) R2Pi – supporting the transition to a circular economy. https:// ec.europa.eu/easme/en/news/r2-supporting-transitioncircular-economy. 01/19/2018 Figge F, Hahn T (2004) Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ 48(2):173–187 Informationsdienst Wissenschaft e.V. (iwd) (2006) Mineralwasser aus PET-Flaschen ist mit Antimon verunreinig. Bayreuth. https://idw-online.de/de/news 144181. 01/19/2018 ISO 14025:2011 (ISO 14025). Environmental labels and declarations – type III environmental declarations – principles and procedures ISO 14044:2006 (ISO 14044). Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines McDonough W (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York, p 15 McDonough W, Braungart M (2009) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. Vintage, London McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) (2016) Cradle to cradle certified product standard version 3.1. pp 107–110 http://s3.amazonaws.com/c2cwebsite/resources/certification/standard/C2CCertified_ ProductStandard_V3.1_160107_final.pdf Menoni M, Mogravi H (2014) Is eco-efficiency enough for sustainability? Int J Perform Eng 10(4):337–346 Pogutz S, Russo A (2009) Eco-efficiency vs ecoeffectiveness: exploring the link between GHG emissions and firm performance. Academy of Management Annual Conference Best Paper Proceeding, Chicago, August 7–12 Schaltegger S, Sturm A (1990) Ökologische RationalitätAnsatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von ökologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten. Die Unternehmung 4:273–290 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018) Volatile organic compounds’ impact on indoor air quality. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality. 01/18/2018 Welle F (2016) Verpackungsmaterial aus Polyethylenterephthalat (PET). Frankfurt am Main. 2016. http://2015. dlg.org/fileadmin/downloads/food/Expertenwissen/Le bensmitteltechnologie/2016_4_Expertenwissen_PET. pdf. 01/19/2018

Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development

Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development Tanja Srebotnjak Hixon Center for Sustainable Environmental Design, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, USA

Definition Sustainable development is commonly defined according to the Brundtland Commission as development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Cradle to grave refers to life cycle of products from the sourcing of raw materials to the product’s final disposal. It is typically linked to life cycle assessment, which is a set of methodologies and principles for capturing the full environmental and/or social impacts of a product throughout its life span. Thus, cradle-to-grave assessment is a necessary step toward sustainable product design.

Introduction The Brundtland Commission in 1987 defined sustainable development succinctly as “development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). This definition enshrines that societal activity, such as economic growth, must allow all people to meet their needs for longtime physical well-being (Brundtland 1987, Chap. 2, para. 43). Those needs include at a minimum shelter, food, and clothing but are often extended to include sanitation, education, and healthcare (Max-Neef et al. 1989). Moreover, sustainable development is generally viewed as development that delivers wellbeing while maintaining capital stocks – natural and man-made – for use by current and future generations (Brundtland 1987, Chap. 2, para. 36). Thus, sustainable development encompasses principles of intra- and intergenerational fairness,

331

support for societal institutions, and rules and norms facilitating such fairness, under the overarching umbrella of environmental protection. Looking at current social and economic systems, it is clear that they are not in a sustainable state (Rockström et al. 2009). Many natural resources are used at unsustainable rates, while the by-products and end products of human consumption, such as pollutant emissions and solid, industrial, and hazardous wastes, are accumulating in the environment and threaten the climate, water quality, biodiversity, and the health of soils and oceans. For the past 200 years, the industrial revolution and the digital age have spurred an unprecedented growth in industrial and consumption activity, yielding innumerable advances and conveniences in daily life. However, at the core of this economic machine is a linear philosophy of “take, make, waste” that has become pervasive and poses formidable challenges for a transition to sustainable resource use and waste management (Doppelt 2009). In nature, resources are constantly reused and recycled in myriads of interconnected systems that rely on sunlight as the main external energy input. In order to be sustainable, humanity has to fundamentally rethink and redesign its economic system – by operationalizing sustainable development in ways that enable economic principles and systems to protect the resources we depend on and allow everyone to share in the use and consumption of its products and services. The so-called circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, mimicking nature, while enabling social well-being and intra- and intergenerational equity (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018). Thus, if sustainable development is about meeting people’s needs in perpetuity, then economic activities must deliver sustainable products and services. Current product life cycles mirror macroeconomic ones in being predominantly linear: raw materials are extracted or harvested from the environment, refined and manufactured into the product, which is then delivered to retailers, bought and used by consumers, and finally disposed of in landfills or incinerated (Klöpffer 1997). In the long run, this cradle-to-

C

332

grave model – despite material, product, and technological innovation – is associated with resource shortages, waste accumulation, and declines in the capacities of ecosystems to continue to provide services we require, a trajectory that Rockström et al. (2009) refer to as overshooting planetary boundaries. Sustainable development requires closing the loop and moving toward a cradle-to-cradle product model, i.e., a continued recycling of materials and resources into economic uses to minimize waste and reduce pressures on natural resources.

The Relationship Between Cradle to Grave and Sustainable Development The term cradle to grave originated in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), which is also known as life cycle analysis, eco-balance, and cradle-to-grave analysis (Moncaster and Symons 2013). LCA is a suite of internationally standardized methods and techniques that enable the assessment of environmental and human health impacts associated with all the stages of a product’s life, starting with raw material extraction and ending with its disposal or recycling (ISO 2006a, b). Thus, the main objective of LCA is to gain a more detailed and complete picture of the types, magnitudes, and spatiotemporal distribution of a product’s environmental impacts. LCAs, albeit time-, knowledge-, and resource-intensive to carry out, furthermore allow the systematic comparing of products and the tracking of changes made to processes, their inputs and energy requirements, vis-à-vis their environmental impacts. Thus, cradle-to-grave perspectives and analyses within an LCA framework are useful for informing decision-making for sustainability. It yields a number of useful product sustainability indicators (▶ Sustainability Indicators), such as its carbon footprint, that can be used to move from linear product life spans to circular ones, albeit the analysis on its own is primarily an information source and does not provide the solutions for circular designs or a path to a sustainable development model. To achieve these, LCA

Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development

(or cradle-to-grave analysis) needs to be coupled with additional analyses, such as life cycle costing (▶ Sustainability and Life Cycle Cost Analysis) as well as social and macroeconomic policy changes that facilitate the reorientation of consumption from the linear “take-make-waste” to a “borrow-use-return” practice, i.e., the long-term cycling of resources within an economy (McDonough and Braungart 2010). LCA, and cradle-to-grave analysis within it, is thus a tool for sustainability assessment that can guide the reduction of environmental impacts of goods and products (Moltesen and Bjørn 2018). Its detail and focus on processes support material and energy substitutions that are more environmentally friendly, minimize waste generation, and/or link to other products’ life cycles to reduce the need for virgin materials and create cascading reuse and recycling chains. The results of cradleto-grave analyses can provide consumers with information about the environmental impacts associated with the product and consumption choices they make, leading to greater environmental literacy and awareness. Policymakers can use these types of analyses to inform regulatory action, incentive programs, and other policies aimed at increasing resource efficiency and reducing environmental degradation. In addition, products with demonstrably lower environmental impacts than those of competitors can gain larger market share and reward and reinforce sustainable product design by companies – a signal that can be further enhanced through LCA-based eco-labels (Clift 1993). How pervasive is cradle-to-grave analysis within the corporate product design and development sphere? Since its origins in the 1960s as a tool for energy analysis, LCA has become a widely used tool for determining the impacts of products or systems for a whole range of environmental and natural resource issues. It is now prevalent in academic research, has built a robust foothold in industry (accompanied by an even larger growth in LCA software and consulting businesses), and gained the attention of policymakers as a data-driven decision-support tool (McManus and Taylor 2015). More recently, its methodology and toolbox have expanded to

Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development

include social aspects of sustainable development (Social-LCA) and links to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A major driver of the growth in acceptance of LCA has been climate change and with it the need to fully account for the carbon footprint of products and systems and to address claims against renewable energy sources that they are less carbon-neutral than stated (Wiedmann and Minx 2008; Weidema et al. 2008).

Criticisms of Cradle-to-Grave Analysis Cradle-to-grave analysis, within the context of life cycle assessment, offers a highly quantifiable methodology for comprehensive environmental impact assessment. However, the methodology is not without criticism. First and foremost, the cradle-to-grave perspective, as discussed, reflects an inherently unsustainable product and economic model, in which energy and resources are extracted from the environment to make goods and products for temporary use and consumption that release pollutants and waste and ultimately end up in landfills, incinerators, or the environment. Thus, small changes to linear systems may produce some environmental benefits but do not change the fundamentally unsustainable nature of the system. Second, the results of a cradle-to-grave analysis can only be as good as the data that flow into it. However, data availability and accuracy in LCA-type cradle-to-grave studies are often limited, outdated, and involve proxies and regional or technology averages. The use of proprietary data furthermore hampers the comparability of such analyses due to their “black box” character. Scientific understanding of causeeffect relationships for the health and environmental effects of many chemicals, toxic substances, and processes are frequently lacking, such that environmental impact assessments are at best approximations and conservative estimates. Third, sustainability is a multidimensional concept, involving societal, environmental, and economic aspects. Cradle-to-grave analysis

333

within an LCA framework focuses on the environmental impacts, thereby neglecting to account for social and economic effects. However, some of these issues are now being addressed by efforts to develop consistent methodologies for social LCA and life cycle sustainability assessment of products (Dreyer et al. 2006; Klöpffer 2008; UNEP 2009, 2018). As valuable as the detailed quantitative information of cradle-to-grave analyses is, not every aspect of sustainability can be reduced to a number and inserted into a model. This applies to capturing the hard-to-measure qualitative aspects of the benefits of products, for example, the overall societal benefits of modern medicines and healthcare systems. Furthermore, the systems thinking of cradle-to-grave analysis requires setting system boundaries, but doing so may reduce the comparability across studies as analysts make different choices. It is also not always clear where one system boundary ends and the next starts. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has developed guidelines to help reduce such conflicts and facilitate comparability, credibility, and reproducibility of cradle-to-grave analyses, but they still provide some leeway to analysts to decide what to include. At a minimum it is thus recommended to carry out sensitivity analyses to gauge the role of subjective decisions on the final results.

Final Comment Cradle-to-grave thinking reflects the linear economic model that grew exponentially since the industrial revolution and is still the prevalent philosophy underlying economic production and consumption in most parts of the world. It is thus in contradiction to the objectives of sustainable development, which strives to protect natural and man-made capital stocks to generate benefits and well-being for current and future generations. The term originated in life cycle assessment theory and applications and enables the systematic capture and analysis of the energy and material flows and environmental releases throughout

C

334

a product’s life cycle, starting with raw material extraction and progressing through manufacture, use, and final disposal or recycling. As a result, it can be used to identify hotspots and opportunities for resource efficiency gains and reduced material or product toxicity. Comparative analyses can help guide consumers in their product decisions and influence markets by giving advantage to companies with cleaner products. Closely associated with cradle-to-grave analysis is the logical correction toward a circular economy based on cradle-to-cradle product life cycles. The indefinite or long-term cycling of resources through the economy prior to its return to the environment represents the desire to shift from a “take, make, waste” approach to a “borrow, use, return” mentality in resource use. To this end, cradle-to-grave analyses can offer points for intervention that shift product life spans onto a circular path and/or link them to others in cascading reuse and recycling chains that prolong the useful life of resources and materials within the economy. As more and more companies, policymakers, and researchers use and advocate for life cycle thinking, the cradle-to-grave model has also been extended to include social and sustainability aspects within the broader life cycle assessment framework. Social LCA and life cycle sustainability assessment are noteworthy developments in this context, albeit still at relatively early phases of maturity and adoption.

Cross-References ▶ Sustainability and Life Cycle Cost Analysis ▶ Sustainability Indicators

References Brundtland Commission (1987) Our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2018 Clift R (1993) Life cycle assessment and ecolabelling. J Clean Prod 1(3–4):155–159

Cradle-to-Grave and Sustainable Development Doppelt B (2009) Leading change toward sustainability: a change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Routledge, London and New York Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018) What is the circular economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ circular-economy. Accessed 19 July 2018 ISO (International Standards Organization) (2006a) International standard ISO 14040: environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. ISO, Geneva ISO (International Standards Organization) (2006b) International standard ISO 14044: environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva Klöpffer W (1997) Life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 4(4):223–228 Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89 Max-Neef MA, Elizalde A, Hopenhayn M (1989) Chap 2: Development and human needs. In: Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. Apex, New York, p 18 McDonough W, Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 82:13–26 Moltesen A, Bjørn A (2018) LCA and sustainability. In: Hauschild M, Rosenbaum R, Olsen S (eds) Life cycle assessment. Springer, Cham Moncaster AM, Symons KE (2013) A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’embodied carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 standards. Energ Buildings 66:514–523 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32 UNEP (2018) Life cycle initiative. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). https://www.lifecycleinitiative. org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/life-cycle-approaches/ social-lca/. Accessed 6 June 2018 UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, Paris Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Løkke S (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 12(1):3–6 Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecol Econ Res Trends 1:1–11

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

Creating of Goods ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Creation ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Creative Writing ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development Branden Lewis1,2 and Joy Kcenia O’Neil1 1 School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA 2 College of Culinary Arts, Johnson and Wales University, Providence, RI, USA

Definition The definition of food pedagogy is the knowledge and skill interactions of learning within the fusion of foodrelated content and experiential process as one cooccurrence.

Introduction Food pedagogy is the fusion of food-related content and experiential process as one co-occurrence. Coupled with the critique of, and solutions to food related issues, society forms power relations that serve as the foundational underpinnings of critical theory. The combining of food pedagogy and critical theory equates to critical food pedagogy. Situated within experiential learning theory (Dewey

335

1938), sustainability education (Capra 2002; Capra and Luisi 2014; Wals et al. 2017; Edwards 2005, 2010; Jickling and Sterling 2017; Lange 2002, 2010, 2018; Sterling 2001; Stibbe 2009; Orr 1992, 2004, 2016), and adult learning theory and higher education (Campbell 2006; Dirkx 1997, 1998a, b, 2008; Dirkx et al. 2006; Lange and O’Neil 2016; Hooks 2010, 2014; Mezirow 1981, 1990, 1991, 1997; O’Neil 2015, 2017a, b; Sumner 2008, 2012, 2013a, b, c, 2015; Taylor 2006, 2008), critical food pedagogy problematizes social, environmental, and economic power struggles as they relate to dynamics of food systems and socioecological food justice. According to Wals et al. (2017), “educators need strategies for anticipatory engagement with changing socio-ecological realities – both in present and future – in order to be effective within their various embodied contexts” (p. 19). Through the context of critical theory, food pedagogy provides a space for researchers and practitioners to investigate social, environmental, and economic power struggles as they relate to dynamics of food systems and socio-ecological food justice, including, but not limited to, food security; food sovereignty; globalization; oppression; food literacy; health – including hunger and obesity – loss of knowledge and deskilling; environmental sustainability; restoration; and even transformation (Hayes-Conroy and Hayes-Conroy 2008, 2016; Flowers and Swan 2012, 2016; Freeman 2013; Guthman 2007, 2008a, b, c, 2009; Harris and Giuffre 2010; Hernandez and Sutton 2003; Julier 2004, 2008, 2013; Mezirow 1991; Sumner 2008; Swan and Flowers 2015; Wever 2015). These areas of research interlace with many of the 17 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Education for Sustainable Development Goals (2017), specifically those which address hunger, health, equality, opportunity, responsibility, and sustainability in regard to ecology, natural systems, climate change, and food systems. Food pedagogies typically take place through adult learning experiences. Mezirow (1991) asserts that such experiences provide an opportunity for critical reflection of assumptions which

C

336

can trigger transformation. Such transformation is also cited by Sterling (2001) in his breakdown of deep learning and change, where he surmises, “third-ordered learning happens when we see things differently” (p. 15). Food pedagogies are well positioned for adult learning because of the importance of food to humanity. As adult learning educator, Sumner (2013a) affirms, “food is central to human existence and learning – people eat everyday” (p. 194). By considering the causes of, and solutions to, societal injustices through the teaching of food, critical food pedagogy has recently provided opportunities for researchers to dive deeper into these constructs. Works by sociologist, Julier (2004, 2008, 2013; see also Julier and Gillespie 2012; Julier and Lindenfeld 2005), explore inequalities, morality, cultural and social implications, and food systems, while Flowers and Swan (2012, 2016; see also Swan and Flowers 2015) apply multiple pedagogical views to analyze food pedagogy and lead the field in critically analyzing the social, political, and cultural complexities of food teaching in “learners” lives. In higher education, environmental scientist and sustainability educator, O’Neil (2015, 2017a, b), builds on the work of Belliveau (2007; see also Trubek and Belliveau 2009) to explore cooking, kitchen pedagogy, and transformation, which is strongly rooted in Deweyan Pragmatism. While these authors do not explicitly draw from critical food pedagogy to inform their theories and pedagogies, they employ the lens of critical food pedagogy into the subject matter of sustainability and food. When these concepts are developed through a critical lens and deployed in an experiential cooking pedagogy, O’Neil’s research indicates transformative change can be achieved (O’Neil 2015, 2017a, b). Sumner (2008), inspired by Wendell Berry’s 1990 claim that eating is an agricultural act, reinterprets his concept as “eating is a pedagogical act” (p. 352) and critically investigates the field of food pedagogy through political economies and cooking, while others, such as Gruenewald (2003), hone in on place-based learning, and newcomers like Wever (2015) research school garden programs, each with a critical view. Further, many garden-based pedagogy theorists have probed

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

different paths of inquiry to build an assemblage of research in the field (Blair 2009; Hayes-Conroy 2009; 2014; Koh 2012; Walter 2013; Williams and Brown 2013; Williams and Dixon 2013; Yamashita 2008). One such researcher, LaCharite (2016), looks specifically at the recent uptick in higher education institutions’ use of agriculture programs to inform pedagogy and engage in issues of sustainability, food and agriculture, critical thinking, and community involvement. In a testament to how wide-ranging critical food pedagogies are, there are also numerous researchers who inform the field by looking closely into restorative effects of reflection, rehabilitation, (be)coming, and transformation, as they pertain to adult and higher education (Belliveau 2007; Curtin and Heldke 1992; Dirkx 1998a, b, 2008; Freire 1970; Gruenewald 2003; Hooks 2010, 2014; Jickling and Sterling 2017; Lange 1998, 2002, 2010, 2018; Lange and O’Neil 2016; Mezirow 1981, 1990; O’Neil 2017a, b, c; Sipos et al. 2008; Sterling 2001; Sumner 2013c).

Critical Food Pedagogy in Practice in Higher Education Food pedagogy, absent of the critical lens, classically focuses on the theory and practice of teaching through an experiential food-related process, such as growing food, shopping at a market, cooking or eating a meal, and even composting/ diverting food waste. The quality of the experience is paramount, as it must promote desirable future experiences and continued growth and be applicable universally and with continuity (Dewey 1938). Food pedagogy subjects can include food studies, food systems, anthropology (communities and society), and skills building; however, these formats are not necessarily compartmentalized to these topics. Dewey asserted the kitchen laboratory was an ideal learning environment to teach and learn about a broad range of subjects (Belliveau 2007). The concept of theoretical learning, combined with experiential learning, was first popularized by Dewey (1938), who adduced that they were both essential but warned, “the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

experiences are genuinely or equally educative” (p. 25). This framework has informed many adult and formal education researchers and is the forbearer to the field of experiential education. For example, Belliveau (2007) uses the study and preparation of food to test Dewey’s assertions, and researcher O’Neil (2017a, b) draws from Belliveau’s cooking pedagogy research, as well as Sterling’s (2001; see also Jickling and Sterling 2017) sustainable education works, to connect what she terms kitchen-based learning (KBL) with transformative learning systems in an educational sustainability framework. In another example, recent author, Neumann (2018), applies nutrition, cooking, and culture to sustainability through cooking classes aimed at promoting sustainable development goals. O’Neil (2017b) also dives deep into neuroscience to examine the pathways that link visceral sensing with learning – head and hand. In her work, the dualist paradigm that learning is separate from action is challenged as she makes a case for the impression sensory entanglements formed in consciousness (O’Neil 2017b). A more critical analysis of the connection between hands and head is made by a number of researchers who examine dynamics of home cooking heritage, including habits, practices, and agency, to explore the connections between consciousness, memory, knowledge, skills, motivation, and their loss in a modern, consumerist, globalized age of technology, processed foods, and objectification of the concept of “tradition” (Coveney et al. 2012; Hayes-Conroy and Martin 2010; Heldke 1988; Sutton and Hernandez 2007; Hernandez and Sutton 2003; Trubek et al. 2017; Welsh and MacRae 1998). The analysis of, critique of, and solutions to these forces and others upon society – a form of power relations – are the foundational underpinnings of critical theory. Critical theory pioneer and philosopher, Horkheimer (1982), summarizes critical theory as being meant “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (p. 244). Capra (2002) echoed this sentiment when he tapped seminal critical pedagogue, Paulo Freire, in declaring that critical theory is aimed at emancipation. In adult and higher education, this emancipation is theorized to occur through reflection,

337

perspective transformation, and becoming critically aware of one’s situation (Freire 1970; Mezirow 1981, 1990).

Critical Food Pedagogy as a Method of Research Similar to O’Neil’s (2017a, b) kitchen-based learning model, another method to engage in critical food pedagogies is by using a food-related process, such as cooking, reading about food, working on a farm, or studying the relationships between food and the human experience, as a method of research. Brady (2011), Anantharam (2017), Heldke (1988), Chiles and Coupland (2017), and Cole (2017) are all recent examples of theorists who use food pedagogy to foster deeper learning in their curricula. Brady (2011) seeks to embody self relationally through “foodmaking,” while Anantharam (2017) uses food literature to teach transnational feminist theories and practices, and Heldke (1988), also fostering feminist theory, looks to food and cooking as inquiry to circumnavigate absolutism and relativism, “to construct alternative attitudes in which to engage epistemological tradition” (p. 1). Chiles and Coupland (2017) use critical perspectives to teach the “epistemological, ethical, and empirical assumptions that characterize contemporary food controversies” (p. 49), and Cole (2017) cultivates transformative change in his students by giving them experiential educative experiences on the farm. Miller and Deutsch (2009) interpret food studies, where they explain, “relationships [between food and the human experience] are examined from a variety of perspectives and from a range of places in the food system, from production to consumption, or from farm to fork” (p. 3). Because food studies encompass such a broad field of study, it can include critical perspectives.

Surveying the Field of Food Through the Lens of Critical Theory Exploring food pedagogy through a critical lens has helped researchers like Flowers and Swan (2012, 2016; see also Swan and Flowers 2015) analyze the “significant and asymmetrical

C

338

relations of power, authority and expertise” (Flowers and Swan 2016, p. 1), as they relate to teaching and learning about food in today’s globalized environment. The researchers credit feminism along with critical race theory for contributing to the field (Swan and Flowers 2015), as they review intersectionality of race, gender, and class in the context of global experiences, inputs on people, and the injustices they face (Flowers and Swan 2016; Swan and Flowers 2015). In surveying the field through this broad perspective, the researchers position food pedagogy as encompassing more than just formal education but all modes of informal food pedagogies as well. This permits them to analyze: the specificities of ‘technologies’ of teaching about food: from cooking programs, food labelling, grower’s markets, and nutrition guides; the pedagogues who claim to ‘educate’ us about food, which now includes a growing litany of cultural intermediaries/occupational groups such as farmers, chefs, food writers, food bloggers, health practitioners and advertisers; government and corporate organisations [sic] such as local councils, health agencies, food advocacy groups, and supermarkets; media such as women’s magazines, internet sites, online short films, recipe repositories, activist newsletters and food labels; and policy instruments such as national food plans, labelling guidelines, and nutrition edicts. (Flowers and Swan 2012, p. 420)

Flowers and Swan are not alone in their critical analysis of who teaches who about food and how they do it. Critical food studies theorist, Guthman (2007, 2008a, b), examines dynamics of alternative food practices, how they are ultimately a dichotomy, their effects on social justice, and the causatum neoliberalism has on the politics of the possible. While Guthman scrutinizes color blindness in food politics and the naïveté of an idiomatic expression like “inviting others to the table”, she firsts asks, “who sets the table?” (2008b, p. 388). In a similar vein, scholar, Coveney (2006), questions who controls food

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

knowledge – while he investigates the pleasure and anxiety of eating and the discourse around nutrition, ethics, guilt, and satisfaction of food. Further, he postulates that modern knowledge of science has replaced religion in guiding judgements about ourselves and others as eaters, like how foods are often used to quantify good and bad behaviors (Coveney 2006). Guthman (2007) pushes back on such criticisms, noting their reductionist prerogatives. She states, “still, the simplistic explanations of obesity, for example – too much food, too cheap – does a disservice to understanding and confronting a society where we are both encouraged to consume and scolded for showing the signs of it” (p. 262). To fellow researchers, A. Hayes-Conroy and Hayes-Conroy (2008), the morality of such judgments is only part of the influence on peoples’ food ideologies. They forerun an area of study where externalities intersect with bodily experience of food. In their analysis of cognitively aware visceral sensing, they employ critical feminist geography to better understand how eating informs “identity, difference, and power” (Hayes-Conroy and HayesConroy 2008, p. 388). Philosophers Curtin and Heldke (1992) suggest, “a consideration of our culture’s popular attitudes toward the body and food indicates that the radical separation of mind and body, and an understanding of ourselves as nonrelational and disembodied, leads to illness” (p. 7). These researchers have critically questioned the social stigma that bad food choices are due to a lack of education, which Flowers and Swan (2016) state, ignore the “social, political and cultural complexities of food in people’s lives” (p. 1). To address this gap, Julier (2004, 2008, 2013; see also Julier and Gillespie 2012; Julier and Lindenfeld 2005), who also studies food, culture, morality, inequality, and power struggles, takes a critical view to analyze the cultural norms centered around domestic hospitality. Other researchers, such as Leahy and Pike (2015), examine social scolding, such as “policing” of the school lunch box, how informal food pedagogies are formed and implemented in school health education spaces, and their effects on students.

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

Political Economy and Sustainability Critical Food Pedagogy In formal adult education, Sumner (2008, 2012, 2013a, b, c, 2015) touches on similar themes as well, where she researches food pedagogy and employs it critically in her graduate classes at OISE/University of Toronto. She and her students focus on globalization forces, sustainable development, food literacy, and the concept of eating as a social, political, cultural, economic, and environmental act (Sumner 2008, 2013a, c, 2015). Through this lens, she utilizes a political economy framework, specifically, commodity fetishism, to look closer at how food production is hidden behind a “veil,” the foods we eat are “disembedded,” and the social, economic, and environmental information of foods’ origins are suppressed (Sumner 2008, 2013a, b). In the true spirit of critical theory, Sumner also proposes solutions to these woes, suggesting that food is also informative to learning and that “it is an entrée into larger questions about how we live, how we relate to each other and how we relate to earth” (Sumner 2008, p. 356). The novelty of employing political economies to foster connections between food and learning, combined with a sustainable development perspective, affords Sumner and her students a unique path to achieving knowledge and a sustainable worldview (Sumner 2008, 2013a, b, c, 2015). She summarizes, “to live both knowledgeably and sustainably in the future, we need a shift in worldviews, from a state of ignorance and unsustainability to one of increased knowledge and sustainability” (Sumner 2008, p. 354). Increasing knowledge about food – food literacy – pairs well with adult education, which, according to Sumner (2013c), is a “critical combination” as it “is deeply concerned with social movements and social change” and “can infuse its expertise in literacy with the aspect of food. . . because in the end, we all eat” (p. 80). With adult education, food literacy, and a critical view as the catalyst, Sumner then dives into the political-economic context of today’s globalized food system to suffuse her research. In this space, she joins researchers like McMichael (2000), who also

339

critically analyzes industrialism, consumerism, the neoliberal globalized food system, and its effects on society.

Enacting a Restorative and Transformative Food Learning Experience Reacting to the idea of food as a weapon, Wendell Berry (1977) cites food’s ancient and powerful associations. He challenges his readers to “consider the associations that have since ancient times clustered around the idea of food – associations of mutual care, generosity, neighborliness, festivity, communal joy, [and] religious ceremony. . .” (p. 11). In critical food pedagogies, food is seen more critically, as Sumner (2013a) describes, “food is a cause for celebration, an inducement to temptation, a weapon for wielding power, an indicator of well-being, a catalyst for change, and a vehicle for learning” (p. 41). Further, critical food pedagogies and the act of eating also lend itself to the position of adult learning as restorative and transformative learning processes (Lange 2010). As Sumner (2008) later states, “eating can become a transformative learning experience, opening the possibility of more inclusive, and more sustainable, ways of life” (p. 352). This concept is not just contemporary; however, even in classic literature, food is often described in a restorative or transformative way: As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans. (Hemingway 2014, ch. 1)

However, most research into transformative learning has taken place outside of the arena of food. Dirkx (1998b) once described the topic as attracting, “researchers and practitioners from a wide variety of theoretical persuasions and practice settings, yet it is a complicated idea that offers considerable theoretical, practical, and ethical challenges” (p. 1). Dirkx focuses in the adult

C

340

education arena, where he has identified major strands in the transformation field. In one such strand, which he coins “transformation as critical reflection,” he cites Mezirow’s work as “perhaps the most well-known of theories of transformative learning in the field of adult education” (Dirkx 1998b, p. 3). Mezirow (1997) believes that transformational learning carries a certain set of conditions which can serve as, “standards for judging both the quality of adult education and the sociopolitical conditions that facilitate or impede learning” (p. 11). He further postulates, “the process involves transforming frames of reference though critical reflection of assumptions, validating contested beliefs through discourse, taking action on one’s reflective insight, and critically assessing it” (Mezirow 1997, p. 11). Many of Mezirow’s beliefs are influenced by the foundation laid out by Paulo Freire, who Dirkx (1998b) credits for inspiring what he dubs, the “transformation as conscious-raising” strand of transformational theory. In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) writes of the emancipatory effects of transformational learning among the poor in Brazil. For Freire, this paradigm shift only occurs when one faces adversity through the process of emancipation (Friere 1970). Researcher, Kane (2001), attributes Freire’s acumen to having a deep understanding of epistemology, which Freire employs through emancipatory praxis. While explaining Freire’s position on what separates humans from animals, Kane (2001) also notes that it is humans’ “ability to step back from and reflect on their experience: when people are able to do this, it becomes, for Freire, “critical consciousness” though this is never fully achieved but is, rather, an ongoing process of “becoming” (p. 209). Most views of transformative learning rely on constructivist approaches to acquiring knowledge and learning, such as in Belliveau’s (2007) work, where Deweyan Pragmatism is embodied through cooking experiences, or Lange’s (2010) work, which focuses on transformative learning in environmental adult education. Lange also teams up with O’Neil to build upon Mezirowean and Freirean concepts while also challenging

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

them toward a transformative relational ontology (2016). Lange and O’Neil (2016) cite Lange (2004, 2012a, b), stating, “their conceptions have been predicated on a conventional modernist ontology that includes rationalism, cognitivism, progressivism, and a view of the self as autonomous and unitary” (p. 3). From there, the transdisciplinary duo criticizes and provides alternative viewpoints to the current modernist forms of transformative learning, which they deem “have an underlying androcentrism, ethnocentrism (specifically Eurowesternism) and anthropocentrism as well as maintaining a mind/body split and reason/emotion split which is already identified in transformative learning theory” (p. 3). In O’Neil’s (2017a, b) own body of work, she conducts research on cooking, eating, and sensing and evidences relational transformative learning through a kitchen-based learning framework. This relational transformative learning viewpoint allows her to engage food as an embodied process of learning, “towards (be)coming and (re) membering social and ecological sustainability” (O’Neil 2017a, p. 317).

Limitations of Critical Food Pedagogy As Berry (1977) and Sumner (2013a) have observed food being used as a weapon, so too can critical food pedagogies, as a topic, be used to weaponize food. Instead of focusing on healing and restorative dynamics of food in people’s lives, many critical food pedagogy researchers choose to focus on the divisiveness and power relations of food. Reduced and trivialized as a simple resource to fight over can diminish possibilities of food as a positive force, as well as silo people into slave/ master roles when they really just want to eat. Critical theory cornerstone positions, such as Brown’s (1984) quoting of Tutu’s famous adage, “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” (p. 19), and its habit to treat animals and food as simple objects confirm the reductionist’ and dualist tendencies’ critical theory tends to subjugate people, food, and animals, in order to employ

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

intersectionality research. Drawing a parallel with Freire (1970), by consuming food, one is either a victimizer or a victim. This politicization of people and their relationships with food has also prompted an emergence of food activists advocating for how and what to eat. As Guthman (2007) observes, “it seems like everyone is getting in on the eating-as-politics act, despite whatever qualifications they have to make their various claims” (p. 261). Swan and Flowers (2015) investigate these “pedagogues” as well while broadening their scope to include “policy makers, churches, activists, health educators, schools, tourist agencies, chefs—who think we don’t know enough about food and what to do with it” (p. 148). Paradoxically, limitations of critical food pedagogies can be evaluated through the lens of critical theory.

Final Remarks This review of critical food pedagogies aimed to provide a snapshot of the concept behind the term while rationalizing its use today. Mostly situated in adult and higher education framework, the spaces where critical food pedagogies exist were charted, and the critical ills, including its own limitations, were explored. The term was also broken down into its component parts, providing a review of the origins of experiential learning and pragmatism, as well as an examination of the connection of food pedagogies to a critical theory framework. In surveying the field, both formal and informal views of adult and higher education were presented, while a glimpse of some of the more prolific theorists, researchers, and practitioners of the term was viewed. Sustainability through critical food pedagogy was explored, and the importance of analyzing the social, political, and cultural complexities in both teaching and learning about food was proposed, and as critical theory necessitates, the research into solutions, such as restorative, transformative experiences of a relational, ontological “(be)coming sustainability” through food was provided.

341

References Anantharam A (2017) “I can think, I can wait, I can fast”: teaching food literature and experiential learning. Arts Hum High Educ 16(2):209–220 Belliveau C (2007) A new look at dewey’s cooking lab: a pedagogical model for interdisciplinary learning in contemporary higher education. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Vermont, Burlington Berry W (1977) The unsettling of America: culture & agriculture. Counterpoint Press, Berkeley Berry W (1990) What are people for? Essays by Wendell berry. Douglas and McIntyre. North Point Press, Berkeley Blair D (2009) The child in the garden: an evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. J Environ Educ 40(2):15–38 Brady J (2011) Cooking as inquiry: a method to stir up prevailing ways of knowing food, body, and identity. Int J Qual Methods 10(4):321–334 Brown RM (1984) Unexpected news: reading the bible with third world eyes. Westminster John Knox Press, Philadelphia Campbell J (2006) Theorising habits of mind as a framework for learning. Comput Math Sci 6:102–109 Capra F (2002) The hidden connections: a science for sustainable living. Random House, New York Capra F, Luisi PL (2014) The systems view of life: a unifying vision. Cambridge University Press, New York Chiles R, Coupland JN (2017) Questioning reality, questioning science: teaching students in the food and agricultural sciences about epistemological, ethical, and empirical controversies. J Food Sci Educ 16(2):49–53 Cole JE (2017) Cultivating change: teaching and learning in the classroom and on the farm. Food Cult Soc 20(1):153–173 Coveney J (2006) Food, morals and meaning: the pleasure and anxiety of eating. Routledge, London Coveney J, Begley A, Gallegos D (2012) ‘Savoir fare’: are cooking skills a new morality? Aust J Adult L 52(3):617 Curtin DW, Heldke LM (1992) Cooking, eating, thinking: transformative philosophies of food, vol 704. Indiana University Press, Bloomington Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Touchstone, New York Dirkx JM (1997) Nurturing soul in adult learning. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 1997(74):79–88 Dirkx JM (1998a) Knowing the self through fantasy: toward a mytho-poetic view of transformative learning. Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, San Antonio Dirkx JM (1998b) Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: an overview. PAACE J Lifelong Learn 7:1–14 Dirkx JM (2008) The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 2008(120):7–18

C

342 Dirkx JM, Mezirow J, Cranton P (2006) Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: a dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. J Transform Educ 4(2):123–139 Education for Sustainable Development Goals Learning Objectives (2017) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http:// www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:77653 Edwards AR (2005) The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Edwards AR (2010) Thriving beyond sustainability: pathways to a resilient society. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Flowers R, Swan E (2012) Introduction: why food? Why pedagogy? Why adult education? Aust J Adult Learn 52(3):419 Flowers R, Swan E (2016) Food pedagogies. Routledge, London Freeman A (2013) The unbearable whiteness of milk: food oppression and the USDA. UC Irvine Law Rev 3:1251–1279 Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing, New York Gruenewald DA (2003) The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy of place. Educ Res 32(4):3–12 Guthman J (2007) Commentary on teaching food: why I am fed up with Michael Pollan et al. J Agric Food Human Values Soc 24(2):261–264 Guthman J (2008a) Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cult Geogr 15(4):431–447 Guthman J (2008b) “If they only knew”: color blindness and universalism in California alternative food institutions. Prof Geogr 60(3):387–397 Guthman J (2008c) Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39(3):1171–1183 Guthman J (2009) On globalization, neoliberalism, obesity, local food and education. Interviewed by Scott Stoneman. Polit Cult (2) Harris DA, Giuffre PA (2010) Not one of the guys: women chefs redefining gender in the culinary industry. Gender and sexuality in the workplace, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 59–81) Hayes-Conroy JS (2009) Visceral reactions: alternative food and social difference in two North American schools. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park Hayes-Conroy JS (2014) Savoring alternative food: school gardens, healthy eating and visceral difference. Routledge, London Hayes-Conroy A, Hayes-Conroy JS (2008) Taking back taste: feminism, food and visceral politics. Gend Place Cult 15(5):461–473 Hayes-Conroy A, Hayes-Conroy JS (eds) (2016) Doing nutrition differently: critical approaches to diet and dietary intervention. Routledge, London Hayes-Conroy A, Martin DG (2010) Mobilising bodies: visceral identification in the slow food movement. Trans Inst Br Geogr 35(2):269–281

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development Heldke L (1988) Recipes for theory making. Hypatia 3(2):15–30 Hemingway E (2014) Moveable feast: the restored edition. Simon and Schuster, Buenos Aries Hernandez M, Sutton D (2003) Hand that remember: an ethnographic approach to everyday cooking. Expedition 45(2):30–37 Hooks B (2010) Teaching critical thinking: practical wisdom. Routledge, London Hooks B (2014) Teaching to transgress. Routledge, London Horkheimer M (1982) Critical theory. Continuum International, New York Jickling B, Sterling S (2017) Post-sustainability and environmental education: framing issues. In Post-sustainability and environmental education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 1–11 Julier A (2004) Entangled in our meals. Food Cult Soc 7(1):13–21 Julier A (2008) The political economy of obesity: the fat pay all. In: Food and culture: a reader. University of Illinoise Press, Springfield, pp 482–499 Julier A (2013) Eating together: food, friendship and inequality. University of Illinois Press, Springfield Julier A, Gillespie GW (2012) Encountering food systems. Food Cult Soc 15(3):359–373 Julier A, Lindenfeld L (2005) Mapping men onto the menu: masculinities and food. Food Foodways 13(1–2):1–16 Kane L (2001) Popular education and social change in Latin America. Latin American Bureau, London Koh MW (2012) Discovering learning, discovering self: the effects of an interdisciplinary, standards-based school garden curriculum on elementary students in Hawai’i. Dissertation, Prescott College, Prescott LaCharite K (2016) Re-visioning agriculture in higher education: the role of campus agriculture initiatives in sustainability education. Agric Hum Values 33(3):521–535 Lange EA (1998) Fragmented ethics of justice: Freire, liberation theology and pedagogies for the non-poor. Convergence 31(1):81 Lange EA (2002) “Out of bounds:” reflecting on sustainability education for adults. Adult Learn 13(2–3):7–9 Lange EA (2004) Transformative and restorative learning: a vital dialectic for sustainable societies. Adult Educ Q 54(2):121–139 Lange EA (2010) Environmental adult education: a manyvoiced landscape. In: Handbook for adult and continuing education. Sage, London Lange E (2012a) Is Freirean transformative learning the Trojan horse of globalization and enemy of sustainability education?: A response to C.A Bowers. J Transform Educ 10(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/154134461 2453880 Lange EA (2012b) Transforming transformative learning through sustainability and the New Science. In Taylor E, Cranton P and associates (eds) The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp 195–211

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development Lange EA (2018) Sustainability education for adults: from sustainababble to a civilization leap. In Milana M, Holford J, Webb S, Jarvis P, Waller R (eds) Handbook of adult and lifelong education and learning. Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave MacMillan Lange EA, O’Neil JK (2016) Riverspeaking: transformative learning within relational ontology. Paper presented at the International Transformative Learning Conference, Tacoma, Washington Leahy D, Pike J (2015) Just say no to pies’: food pedagogies, health education and governmentality. In: Food pedagogies, Routledge, London, pp 223–243 McMichael P (2000) The power of food. Agric Hum Values 17(1):21–33 Mezirow J (1981) A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Educ 32(1):3–24 Mezirow J (1990) How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Foster Crit Reflection Adulthood 1:20 Mezirow J (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning: ERIC Mezirow J (1997) Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 1997(74):5–12 Miller J, Deutsch J (2009) Food studies: an introduction to research methods. Oxford, Berg Neumann U (2018) Cooking courses in higher education: a method to foster education for sustainable development and promoting sustainable development goals. In: Handbook of sustainability science and research. Springer, Chicago, pp 827–848 O’Neil JK (2015) Cooking to learn” while “learning to cook”:(be) coming an (re) membering sustainability (doctoral dissertation). ProQuest LLC.(UMI Number 3705566) O’Neil JK (2017a) (be) coming and (re) membering through kitchen based learning as sustainability: an innovative living learning systems model for higher education. In: Leal Filho W et al (eds) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 317–333 O’Neil JK (2017b) What neuroscience has to say about the brain and learning. In: Wang V (ed) Theory and practice of adult and higher education. Information Age Publications, Charlotte, pp 271–302 Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press, Albany Orr DW (2004) Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington, DC Orr DW (2016) Dangerous years: climate change, the long emergency, and the way forward. Yale University Press, New Haven Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86 Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education re-visioning learning and change, vol 6. Green Books for The Schumacher Society, Cambridge Sumner J (2008) Eating as a pedagogical act: food as a catalyst for adult education for sustainable development.

343 Paper presented at the Thinking Beyond Borders: Global Ideas, Global Values, Vancouver, British Columbia Sumner J (2012) Conceptualizing sustainable food systems. In: Critical perspectives in food studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 326–336 Sumner J (2013a) Adult education and food: eating as praxis. In: Nesbit T, Brigham SM, Gibb T, Taber N (eds) Building on critical traditions: adult education and learning in Canada. Thompson Educational Publishing, Toronto Sumner J (2013b) Eating as if it really matters: teaching the pedagogy of food in the age of globalization. Brock Educ J 22(2):41–55 Sumner J (2013c) Food literacy and adult education: learning to read the world by eating. Can J Study Adult Educ 25(2):79 Sumner J (2015) Learning to eat with attitude: critical food pedagogies. In: Swan E, Flowers R (eds) Food pedagogies. Ashgate, London, pp 201–214 Sutton D, Hernandez M (2007) Voices in the kitchen: cooking tools as inalienable possessions. Oral History 35(2):67–76 Swan E, Flowers R (2015) Clearing up the table: food pedagogies and environmental education—contributions, challenges and future agendas. Aust J Environ Educ 31(1):146–164 Taylor EW (2006) Making meaning of local nonformal education: practitioner’s perspective. Adult Educ Q 56(4):291–307 Taylor EW (2008) Transformative learning theory. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 2008(119):5–15 Trubek AB, Belliveau C (2009) Cooking as pedagogy: engaging the senses through experiential learning. Anthropol News 50(4):16–16 Trubek AB, Carabello M, Morgan C, Lahne J (2017) Empowered to cook: the crucial role of ‘food agency’in making meals. Appetite 116:297–305 Wals AE, Weakland J, Corcoran PB (2017) Preparing for the Ecocene: envisioning futures for environmental and sustainability education. Jpn J Environ Educ 26(4):4_71–4_76 Walter P (2013) Theorising community gardens as pedagogical sites in the food movement. Environ Educ Res 19(4):521–539 Welsh J, MacRae R (1998) Food citizenship and community food security: lessons from Toronto, Canada. Can J Dev Stud 19(4):237–255 Wever C (2015) Cultivating critical learning: critical food pedagogy in FoodShare’s School Grown Program. (Master’s), York University, Ontario. Retrieved from http://fes.yorku.ca/files/outstanding-papers/Cassie_We ver_FINAL_MRP.pdf Williams D, Brown J (2013) Learning gardens and sustainability education: bringing life to schools and schools to life. Routledge, London Williams DR, Dixon PS (2013) Impact of garden-based learning on academic outcomes in schools: synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Rev Educ Res 83(2):211–235 Yamashita LA (2008) Learning to eat appreciatively and thoughtfully (EAT): connecting with food through school gardens. Oberlin College, Oberlin

C

344

Critical Natural Capital ▶ “Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

Critical Reflection Methods ▶ Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

Critical Skills Strategies ▶ Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development Denise Minott1, Therese Ferguson2 and Garth Minott3 1 The Mico University College, Kingston, Jamaica 2 School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica 3 United Theological College of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica

Definition Critical thinking and sustainable development is an approach to meaningful dialogue for social, economic, political and environmental problemsolving and decision-making for current and future generations and the practice of engaging in analytical dialogue and problem-solving mechanisms, through active mental and emotional inquiry, for the transformation of individuals, communities and institutions.

Introduction Critical thinking skills, acquired through a process of education, can equip learners with the ability to analyze and solve problems and to make decisions. Societal problems such as crime, poverty,

Critical Natural Capital

and pollution are sometimes the result of the decisions made at a policy level in government and business which were not subject to critical thinking aided by research and due diligence in implementation. In such instances, for problems to be solved, adequate and relevant knowledge, an open disposition, and critical thinking skills are required. The decisions born out of critical thinking can be directed toward positive responses that bring about change in the quality of life for everyone. According to Ruggiero (2012), critical thinking is focused on analyzing problems, solving them, and making decisions. Ennis (1991) contends that critical thinking is deciding what to believe or do. Siegel (1988) states that critical thinking has two components, “the ability to assess reasons properly” and the “willingness, desire, and disposition to base one’s actions and beliefs on reasons” (p. 23). Paul and Elder (2008) posit that “critical thinking is the art of analysing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it” (p. 4). Although theorists’ concept of critical thinking varies, the commonality is that critical thinking is a mental process that is aimed at making a decision about something (Bailin et al. 2010). Critical thinking often surfaces in education when sustainability is being discussed and as such “education . . . remains the most potent weapon of development” (Sunday 2012, p. 1) and decision-making. This development is also conceptualized as playing an important role in encouraging behavioral change, thus influencing critical thinking for sustainability especially in relation to solving social problems and fostering development. In the educational sector, learners who develop critical thinking skills are given the opportunity to “learn to think, specifically ‘how to think’ rather than ‘what to think’” (Thomas 2010, p. 1). Such critical thinking can serve as a tool to equip all learners with the necessary skills to solve problems and make decisions on how to respond to existing sustainability issues or those that might emerge. According to Rieckmann (2011), critical thinking is an essential skill that is required of learners to be able to respond responsibly to social, [economic], or [environmental] issues and to be able to make responsible decisions on how to positively impact development opportunities for a more

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development

sustainable future. In short, critical thinking is closely linked to sustainable development and in fact serves as a key element of sustainable development.

Overview of Sustainable Development Although a concept with long-standing roots, sustainable development gained prominence in the 1980s, popularized by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) publication Our Common Future, which defined the concept as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). Thereafter, there was widespread adoption of and commitment to the concept by the world community, particularly after its centralization at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). This led to the global action plan for sustainable development – Agenda 21 – which has become the basis for national and local level implementation of sustainable development policies, initiatives, and programs. While the concept inherently highlights the interdependency between “long-term stability of the environment and the economy” (Emas 2015, p. 2), of importance is that in their publication, the WCED highlighted that development is not simply about economic development but that “development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society” (WCED 1987, p. 43). Indeed, a focus on economic, environmental, and social concerns is integral to the notion of sustainable development as all these have to be integrated holistically into decision-making to ensure the overall sustainability of each component (Emas 2015). Implicit within the notion of sustainable development are several concepts, including the notion of needs, limits, and intergenerational equity. Holden et al. (2016) find that sustainable development is underpinned by what they refer to as three moral imperatives – satisfying human needs, ensuring social equity, and respecting environmental limits. Sachs (2015) proposes that the focus on intergenerational equity which was implicit in the WCED conceptualization remains but that there

345

has been a shift in focus over the years toward a more “holistic” approach encompassing the linkages between economic development, social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and good governance. For Sachs, sustainable development is about “socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable economic growth” alongside good governance (Sachs 2015, p. 3). Over the decades, there have been various initiatives to drive sustainable development on the global agenda. Most recently, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted in 2015 by countries worldwide, with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the forefront of the Agenda focusing on various social, economic, and environmental dimensions in order to improve the overall quality of life for all. Additionally, the Agenda comes with a “global imperative” to “leave no one behind,” with an accompanying emphasis on issues such as poverty, inclusiveness, and equality (United Nations 2016). As can be seen, sustainable development with its many facets necessitates critical thinking (among other skills) to pursue a sustainable trajectory, recognize and negotiate its complexities, and address the sustainability issues facing our world today.

Critical Thinking for Sustainable Development Sunday (2012) posits that critical thinking is a tool with which education can equip learners. Education is defined as a process “which brings about the development of the individual to the fullest extent and also the maximum development of society in such a way that both enjoy maximum happiness and prosperity” (Parihar 2017). Education can be regarded as one of the most effective means of promoting sustainable development, cultivating in individuals the ability to ensure the well-being of the future and to respond to various developmental issues (Fien and Tilbury 2002). These may be issues relating to the environment, health, or the society to name a few. Development becomes sustainable when individuals satisfy their desires without obliterating the source. Sustainable development seeks at all times to garner

C

346

the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of learners from all levels of education in order to make a positive contribution to nature and the society. This can be seen as a deliberate effort that is directed at supporting and/or contributing to sustainable development. Critical thinking skills and dispositions are dynamic and can be developed over time. Additionally, it connects with other skills such as communication, problem-solving, analysis, and interpretation. Consequently, learners can be armed with critical thinking and problem-solving skills to explore and resolve economic, social, or environmental issues, problems, and dilemmas that may hinder sustainable development. It is a vital skill for all individuals to use inside and/or outside of a formal educational environment. Notwithstanding, there are many learners at the various levels of the education system who may lack this skill. Thus, lacking the competencies needed to make responsible decisions and identify solutions to address issues may impede sustainable development of a society or nation. Educators developing critical thinking skills themselves can guide the transformation of learners to become critical thinkers and problemsolvers. These are learners who are self-directed and are open to taking initiative, uncovering new and varied ways of addressing the issues that are linked to the transformation of the society. They can do this by utilizing a variety of strategies that seek to develop or enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Freire stresses that education is not a device of oppression but requires a relationship between the teacher, [learner], and the society (Carroll and Minkler 2000). As such, Freire’s conscientization theory focuses on individuals and community developing a critical understanding of their world through [critical thinking], reflection, and taking action (Carroll and Minkler 2000).

Dialogue and Critical Thinking Problem-posing dialogue, a concept developed in the late 18th and early nineteenth century, is based on active and inquiring minds and emotions in the

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development

pedagogical process (Nixon-Ponder 1995). This dialogue, in which learners and facilitators of learning engage in equal sharing, is a tool designed to move both groups of stakeholders from a problem position to one of solutions. Freire (2001) developed and expanded on this approach by utilizing a method which sought to transform learners into critical thinkers and problem-solvers. The latter can also be community members as they work toward community development and sustainability. To this end, sustainability is both a pedagogical and a community development process. Critical thinking for sustainable development, according to Erskine (2008), entails a dialogical process in which both cooperative and collaborative learning draw on strengths and weaknesses of conversations between and among stakeholders, evaluate the results, synthesize the findings, and extract the essence of the ensuing creative dialogical process. This creative process is further stimulated by a monitoring and evaluation process which ensures ongoing reflection and action for transformation. Darder (2017) notes that Freire made this approach to critical thinking possible with his notion of critical pedagogy which aims to challenge and actively struggle against any form of social oppression and work toward transformation of social conditions which stymie the sustainable growth and development of communities. Critical thinking combines theory, practice, and critical awareness into a pedagogy which criticizes the established order and social condition for the sake of change. From this point of view, social critique or problem-posing dialogue is a process which militates against the reproduction of inequality. Like critical thinking, problem-posing dialogue focuses on community development and an example is a workshop in an urban community in Jamaica in 2015. The method used is known as participant action reflection (PAR) and is the brainchild of social scientist Eleanor Wint (Wint and Healy 1998). Problem-posing dialogue is similar to PAR in that both focus on the problem (s) being experienced and the need for critical thinking in order to develop solutions in five ways. First, individuals and communities turn the spotlight on the problem since it is of concern

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development

to all stakeholders. Second, the facilitator applies the Socratic method or didactic to the problem by probing all sides of the problem using questions to encourage dialogue. A third step is that learners/ participants work to uncover solutions and create steps to implement such solutions for the benefit of those who experience the problem in the first instance. Wint and Cooper (2003) go further and add monitoring and evaluation to the process which ensures a dialogical and pedagogical cycle is engaged in which the focus is kept on a developmental trajectory with members of the community always setting the agenda. In the first step, participants/learners identified what they determined was the problem or issue at hand. By listening and talking with each other, they identified the need for social transformation as a problem/issue. Social transformation for this group revolved around understanding each other better, understanding what the purpose of each organization/institution is, and then being able to hear and accept each other where they are. And yet others felt that perhaps it is the lack of knowledge about how behaviors affect the environment for sustainable development, for example, which causes people to behave in negative ways, which in turn reinforce their feelings of exclusion (Nixon-Ponder 1995). A second step in the dialogue with community members involved turning the spotlight on the lack of cohesiveness in the community in order to uncover the root cause of the problem. This step focuses on clarifying and further defining the problem. In this step, questions are encouraged and may be led by the facilitator; however, as in the case of the workshop, such questions may come from participants (Wint and Cooper 2003). One participant expressed the view that the legacy of enslavement was still influencing the approach to community development and is a barrier to sustainability. To overcome such a barrier, participants suggested pursuing justice through correcting existing injustices and committing to a process of change for the sake of transformation. In the third step, participants are facilitated to personalize the problem/issue and state how they feel (Giroux 2011). Without being prompted by the facilitator, participants described what they considered to be examples of injustices and how

347

they could challenge these in order to contribute to a sustainable development process. According to one participant, feeling deeply passionate about the role, each community member must play in the developmental process which means taking responsibility for nurturing ideas and thoughts that will advance learning from the past and collaborating and cooperating with all stakeholders for long-term sustainable development. A fourth step in problem-posing dialogue is discussing the problem(s) with a view to uncovering solutions that are specific, measurable, and time bound and have resources to make them work. Solutions must flow from the questions posed at the outset. Not all solutions will be feasible for implementation, so the group will need to prioritize (Luke and Gore 2014). Participants in the workshop began a dialogical process with the hope that both those present and those who were unable to attend could work together to prioritize solutions and work toward accomplishing them. A key solution for social transformation identified by participants was the need to have a broader representation of persons, agencies, and organizations that have contributed to the development of the area as defined. It was noted that all stakeholders must commit to build on the gains already made and use them as building blocks for sustainable development. The final step is the creation of specific steps to implement the solution uncovered. This is a collaborative process and participants/learners/stakeholders must take the lead in formulating strategies for social transformation (DuncanAndrade and Morrell 2008). Alternatives to the problems identified in step one are explored and the most feasible ones selected for action. The most critical issues brought out by the participants were: 1. Engage external agencies that are already involved in a number of development enterprises. 2. Engage all community groups through implementation of a consultation with all community groups and enterprises in order to secure buy-in in the movement forward to sustainable development. 3. Reopen factories and develop sporting activities for youth across communities.

C

348

4. Establish a learning center for youth in the executive of organizations which will train them in leadership, entrepreneurial readiness, and presentation of self. 5. Encourage greater collaboration, more clarity of purpose and more understandable communication (don’t “look down” on the communities) across and between agencies and communities, and critically, better leadership. Participants identified an example of the collaborative approach by pointing to a recent celebration of 177th anniversary of emancipation. For this observance, community members worked together to achieve a common goal for the celebration of such a significant milestone. Problem-posing dialogue and critical thinking therefore go hand in hand in that both use listening to all stakeholders, uncovering the real problems/ issues at hand, focusing on the way participants/ learners feel about the issue(s), and identifying specific solutions and the steps participants/ learners need to take in implementing activities toward social transformation and sustainable development. Once a monitoring and evaluation process is implemented from the outset, follow-up steps to problem-posing dialogue focus on action for transformation. All stakeholders/learners are kept abreast of the results of the transformation or change on a periodic basis.

Conclusion Critical thinking and sustainable development focus on policies and practices designed to transform individuals, communities, and institutions. For such transformation to be effective, there is the need for analysis, consideration of the needs of the present and future generations, the equipping of stakeholders/learners with the requisite tools for pursuing well-being and prosperity, and engagement in meaningful dialogue based on the use of active and enquiring minds and emotions. With its history going back to the early 1980s, critical thinking for sustainable development is recognized by the United Nations as indispensable for achieving the 2030 Agenda for

Critical Thinking and Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development. The multiplier effect of having no one left behind means a pedagogical dialogue is needed in which the strengths and weaknesses in the views of all stakeholders are utilized as assets for sustainable development for the present and the future. Critical thinking for sustainable development therefore focuses on the soft skills of positive values and attitudes while at the same time embracing social, economic, political, and environmental transformation for the good of everyone irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity, or status in society.

References Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels LB (2010) Common misconceptions of critical thinking. J Curric Stud 31(3):269–283 Carroll J, Minkler M (2000) Freire's message for social workers: looking back, looking ahead. J Community Pract 8(1):21–36 Darder A (2017) Reinventing Paulo Freire: a pedagogy of love. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London/ New York Duncan-Andrade JMR, Morrell E (2008) The art of critical pedagogy: possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, New York Emas R (2015) Brief for GSDR 2015. The concept of sustainable development: definition and defining principles. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_ concept_definiton_rev.pdf Ennis R (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach Philos 14(1):5–24 Erskine NL (2008) Black theology and pedagogy. Palgrave/Macmillan, New York Fien J, Tilbury D (2002) The global challenge of sustainability. Education and sustainability: responding to the global challenge. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/29452097_The_global_ challenge_of_sustainability Freire P (2001) Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford Giroux HA (2011) On critical pedagogy. The Continuum International Publishing Group, New York Holden E, Linnerud K, Banister D (2016) The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustain Dev 25(3):213–226 Luke C, Gore J (eds) (2014) Feminisms and critical pedagogy. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London/ New York Nixon-Ponder S (1995) Using problem-posing dialogue in adult literacy education. Teacher to teacher. Ohio

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development Literacy Resource Center. Retrieved from https://cata logue.nla.gov.au/Record/4112672 Parihar R (2017) Concept of education. Retrieved from https://rajnursing.blogspot.com/2017/09/concept-ofeducation.html Paul R, Elder L (2008) The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, Dillon Beach, CA Rieckmann M (2011) Developing key competencies for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://www. leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrich tungen/infu/files/pdf/vortraege/Rieckmann_Competen cies_and_Sustainability.pdf Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 10th edn. Longman, New York Sachs J (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press, New York Siegel H (1988) Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. Routledge & Metheun, New York Sunday BA (2012) Developing critical thinking skills in students: a mandate for higher education in Nigeria. Eur J Educ Res 1(2):155–161 Thomas I (2010) Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education and problem – based learning in universities. J Transform Educ 7(3):245–264 United Nations (2016) Global sustainable development report 2016. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. Retrieved from https://sustainable development.un.org/content/documents/2328Global% 20Sustainable%20development%20report%202016% 20(final).pdf Wint E, Cooper C (eds) (2003) Bob Marley: the man and his music. Arawak Publications, Kingston Wint E, Healy L (eds) (1998) Social work reality: illustrative case studies. Issue 2. Canoe Press/University of the West Indies, Kingston World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development Eleonora Concina Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Synonyms Critical reflection methods; Critical skills strategies; Methods for critical reasoning

349

Definition Critical thinking is a high-level cognitive process. It includes several skills needed for evaluating and understanding specific events and conditions, defining goals and effectively planning actions for reaching them.

Introduction Critical thinking is, nowadays, an essential cognitive competence, cause to the current historical period, particularly characterized by complexity. Not only, indeed, current social, economic, cultural, and political issues are due to multidimensional events and interrelated causes, but people are overwhelmed by a huge amount of contrasting pieces of information, perspectives, beliefs, and approaches to reality. In this condition, learn to reflect critically, analyzing the events from different perspectives and considering all the elements that can be involved in, striving to reach a specific relevant goal, becomes essential for pursuing the objective of a more sustainable future. Defining critical thinking is complex, since this concept includes many different skills that can be used for critically analyzing and reflecting upon events, situations, and pieces of knowledge (Lipman 1987). Critical reasoning has practical implications (Ennis 1985) since it is involved in problem-solving and decision-making tasks in real life. Considering this, it is evident that critical skills have a crucial impact on the adoption of a sustainable development approach (Sterling 2001), and they can be considered essential characteristics of responsible citizens (Davies 2015). The full development of critical thinking skills can be achieved in adult age, and it should be a typical feature of mature thinking (Taylor 2011). Critical reasoning is a complex process that needs to be supported through education since early childhood. But it is higher education (when students have already achieved most of the cognitive high-order functions) the most suitable pedagogical context for proposing and implementing methods, strategies, and activities that specifically aims to foster critical thinking abilities in young people.

C

350

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

2. The criteria: to think critically implies to adopt specific formal or informal criteria, in order to assess the effectiveness and accuracy of the reasoning process; these standards lead the whole thinking process, with the aim to assure the best possible result. 3. The sensitivity to the context: the action of critical thinking highly depends upon the context in which it is applied. More specifically, it is mainly influenced by new and atypical characteristics or limitations, for which conventional strategies and traditional solutions cannot be effectively applied.

Definition of Critical Thinking Critical thinking can be considered a high-level process, a fundamental set of skills that should be promoted since childhood and which should be the core of each training experience in adult education (Taylor 2011). To think critically includes many abilities that are needed for several different cognitive functions (e.g., taking mindful decisions, solving complex problems, analyzing atypical situations). Critical thinking has a general practical aim, since it is focused on understanding and evaluating how to do in specific conditions: for these reasons, Ennis (1985) identifies two main features of this process, defined, at the same time, as a high-level thinking and practical activity. To think critically means to adopt a more reflective attitude toward human experience (Mezirow 1990), for understanding more in depth its main features, its different sides, and its limitations. Giving its multidimensional nature, it is not so simple to give a univocal definition of the concept of critical thinking. However, in general, there are some features that have been recognized as its main characteristics. These are related to the main functions of critical thinking, namely, the need to lead effectively personal actions and reflections toward a specific desired outcome, the dependence from the context in which individual actions should take place, and the definition of specific standards or criteria that guide the thinking process (Lipman 1987; Bailin et al. 1999; Magno 2010; Halpern 2014). Many definitions of critical thinking focused on the role that this kind of process may have in directing human behavior. To conceptualize it, Lipman (1987) identified three main features: 1. The self-corrective nature: as self-corrective thinking, critical thinking allows to monitor, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise individual actions and beliefs in specific situations (e.g., when people are involved in new or unknown contexts and events, where an exploratory cognitive approach should be adopted).

The importance of criteria or standards in guiding the activity of critical thinking is also highlighted in the definition of the concept given by Bailin et al. (1999). The authors define critical thinking as a reflective process that aims to help people deciding how to act or to believe in particular situations for reaching a specific goal; considering this function, critical thinking is based on specific standards, to assure an adequate level of effectiveness and correctness in reflecting and taking decisions. These definitions underline the relevant function of critical thinking, which, as also stated by Halpern (2014), is fundamentally directed to the solution of a specific and contextualized event or problematic situation, aiming for a particular desirable goal and, consequently, the most effective way to reach it. Critical thinking includes several abilities (Fisher 2011), in a complex framework that highlights the high-order nature of this cognitive pattern. The effectiveness of the critical thinking process seems to be related also to metacognition (Magno 2010): when people start thinking critically, also the metacognitive dimension is activated, using knowledge about metacognition (e.g., about what can be considered an effective thinking process) and metacognitive strategies for monitoring, assessing, and revising, step by step, the process. Critical thinking is a cognitive process that should characterize the full-developed adult thinking (Taylor 2011), being one of the most relevant competences of a responsible and autonomous adult learner (Mezirow 1996). Although

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

351

critical thinking skills and attitudes should be promoted since the first years of school experience, their complete achievement requires some elements that can be acquired only in adult age, such as the awareness of the external background, the knowledge about key concepts for human action, the contexts, the strategies available to face specific conditions, and the standards that can define a good performance (Balin et al. 1999). In this condition, the role of higher education is to promote and enhance critical thinking, recognizing its development as one of the core learning outcomes, with particular reference to the Education for Sustainable Development approach.

making them able to reason, evaluate, judge, act, and take decisions in the current (and future) society as autonomous, responsible, and assertive citizens (Davies 2015). People who learn to reflect critically become also able to resolve problems, find effective solutions to challenging situations, and take good decisions when facing complex events (Mansoor and Nima Shakouri 2012). Recently, the educational research has investigated how critical thinking skills can be taught effectively in higher education contexts. A full development of critical reasoning is influenced by several factors, such as the teacher-students relationship, the characteristics of the educational environment, and teacher’s expertise in promoting it. In addition, critical thinking skills could be enhanced more effectively if explicit instructional strategies are used, and information about it is specifically addressed during lessons (BeharHorenstein and Niu 2015). This seems linked with the relevance that the metacognition has in critical thinking activity (Magno 2010), for which is not only important to own critical skills but also to know how to use it and to reflect about the effectiveness of personal reasoning process. One of the main pedagogical issues about the promotion of critical thinking is related to the definition of the most useful instructional approach for enhancing these competences in students. Ennis (1989) proposed a distinction between three different approaches for teaching critical thinking. The first has been defined as general approach, and it considers critical thinking development as other academic subject: for this, it should have a specific space in academic course, apart from the lessons of the other disciplines. The second approach has been called the infusion approach: it focuses on proposing teaching activities based on critical thinking during academic courses, where the main features of critical reflection are explicitly presented and discussed with the students. The immersion approach is the third approach, and it is similar to the second one, where critical reflection is included in curricular courses: the only difference is that here principles that characterize critical thinking are not made explicit, but they are implicitly addressed during lessons. All these approaches are included in

The Promotion of Critical Thinking in Higher Education To learn to reflect critically is an essential competence in a life-long learning approach (Baker 2013), since high-level reasoning abilities are directly involved in each formal or informal educational experience. This is particularly evident for those training opportunities related to adult education, where the learner is required to critically examine specific concepts, topics, and issues and to actively contribute to knowledge development. For this reason, higher education represents the key context for enhancing students’ critical skills. These should be considered a fundamental learning outcome for each discipline field in academic courses. Critical thinking has a relevant impact in higher education, since it includes several cognitive skills that are necessary for developing scientific thinking processes (Schmaltz et al. 2017), which are mainly involved in university studies for understanding theoretical concepts and contributing to the revision and improvement of scientific knowledge. But critical thinking does not only affect didactic processes in academic learning contexts: in accord with a sustainable development perspective, the need to promote these abilities is not only related to students’ academic career and professional training, but it mainly concerns, in a wider perspective, their personal growth. The general educational goal that sustains critical thinking teaching is to empower individuals’ cognitive competences for

C

352

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

academic teaching activity, but to promote a more effective achievement and development of critical thinking skills, Ennis (1989) suggested a mixed approach, where the general approach is integrated with aspects from the infusion or the immersion approach. Integrating elements from two different approaches can promote a more complete perspective on the role of critical thinking in higher education, since it addresses both the theoretical knowledge about this process and the metacognitive competence for managing it during learning activity. This also implies that the reflective activity has to put into action during curricular courses, and not simply encouraged in specific and limited “critical thinking” tasks, for stimulating a more active role of students in the whole learning process (Sterling 2001). A mixed approach, as proposed by Ennis (1989), may represent the most effective teaching methodology for enhancing critical thinking. However, it is not sufficient to teach critical thinking abilities, if students do not recognize the importance and the need to acquire these skills (Mansoor and Nima Shakouri 2012). If there are not motivated to use their cognitive skills for thinking analytically and autonomously, they may only assimilate theoretical concepts about critical reflection without understanding its impact on the learning process and, more in general, on human activity. Considering this, it becomes essential to also promote awareness and positive attitudes toward the reflective activity during higher education experiences. More specifically, higher education institutions should foster students’ intrinsic motivation to “think critically” (Facione et al. 2000), proposing many different learning tasks and situations where students have to reflect, examine multiple perspective, analyze possible costs and benefits, and take effective and reasonable decisions. Considering previous reflections, critical thinking is considered as a core element in Education for Sustainable Development, with particular reference to higher education learning contexts. Here students should find the suitable educational context for putting into practice their critical thinking skills, adopting a socioconstructive perspective (Vygotskij 1978) to knowledge development.

Critical Thinking in Education for Sustainable Development Learning to reflect critically is one of the key competences that should be empowered in the perspective of building up a more sustainable future (UNESCO 2012). The transformative learning approach recognizes critical thinking skills as a main learning outcome for higher and adult education. According to Taylor (2011), to reflect is an essential activity for understanding and transforming contents (what people perceived from the external world), processes (how people perceived external events and situations), and premises (the awareness of these perceptive processes). Sustainable development conveys many themes and issues; some of them are characterized by a multidimensional nature, and they bring with them contrasting perspectives, different possibilities, and, often, non-univocal solutions. For example, economic growth and the promotion of social well-being may be partially in contrast with the defense of the natural environment: these complex situations pose several challenges to the current society and to future generations. To think and act in a sustainable development perspective means to have in mind, at the same time, many elements and to be able to examine and compare them, integrating them in a sustainability framework and trying to find the most sustainable solution (Wals and Jickling 2002). To help people develop competences for critical thinking and to encourage them to use these cognitive abilities in the analysis of the current local and global issues is a responsibility of higher education. Educational activity for sustainable development should be focused on empowering students for becoming responsible citizens (ten Dam and Volman 2004), who could be aware of the main sociocultural, economic, and environmental issues of their time and actively involved in cooperating for creating sustainable, democratic, and equal opportunities for all. More specifically, Kearins and Springett (2003) underlined that enhancing critical thinking in students help them developing some key competences for sustainability, such as the ability to reflect and the ability to regard concepts critically and theories, with special reference to ideological principles (which are usually assimilated passively) and the social

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

353

commitment for influencing significant sociocultural and economic issues. These abilities are necessary features of the “responsible citizen,” a person who is fully engaged in working for co-creating and enhancing democracy, fairness, mutual respect, and sustainable perspectives for the future of humankind (Davies 2015). Critical thinking does not only involve cognitive skills but, as previously discussed, is also related to metacognitive knowledge and abilities (Magno 2010) and also to emotional and dispositional aspects of the individual (Mezirow 2003), as interpersonal sensitivity, empathy, listening attitudes, and an open mindset. All these elements highlight the need to design and implement specific teaching methods in higher education, in order to enhance critical thinking competence in a multidimensional perspective. Participative teaching methods can effectively be integrated in curricular activity for stimulating students’ critical reflection and active engagement in sustainability topics related to each academic discipline.

thinking are participative and learner-centered (Sterling 2001): they allow students to play an active role in the teaching activity, directing and managing their learning processes and outcomes, with the educational support of the teacher. The perspective of sustainable development and the transformative educational paradigm require to give up the traditional goal of learning for performance, namely, to “pass the final text,” for adopting a more long-term goal focused on helping students become active and responsible learners and aware citizens of the world (Snyder and Snyder 2008). In general, participative teaching methods aim to enhance high-level thinking skills; more specifically, findings from educational research studies have showed that there are some teaching methods that particularly address the enhancement of critical thinking. This has emerged for teaching strategies based on case studies methods (McDade 1995; Popil 2011), on problem-based learning (Tiwari et al. 2006; Thomas 2009), and activities that are structured on cooperative learning (Gokhale 1995; McInerney and Dee Fink 2003; Quitadamo et al. 2009). Case studies methods are based on the presentation and analysis of specific hypothetic or real situations with the aim to encourage discussion about it. Usually, the presented case focuses on events that need an effective solution for reaching particular objectives or solving problems. Methods based on case studies are particularly useful for training critical thinking skills: they require to analyze complex situations, taking into account many different (and possibly contrasting) elements in a specific context, and to define alternative and innovative solutions, critically evaluating each of them in terms of costs and benefits (McDade 1995). The case study methodology can be applied in many discipline, and it is characterized by an interdisciplinary nature (UNESCO 2012), implying a multidimensional approach to learning. For all these aspects, it is particularly suggested for exploring complex issues, as the main themes related to sustainable development. In addition, to adopt teaching strategies based on the analysis of specific cases allows to link theoretical concepts with their practical application in real-life situations

Critical Thinking Methods in Higher Education If the development of the abilities for reflecting critically has to be considered one of the key learning outcomes of education, and, more specifically, of higher education, it becomes essential to understand what the most effective teaching methods and strategies are for accomplishing this goal. As stated by Taylor (2011), critical thinking is a pattern of abilities that characterizes adult thinking, since the full development of this process required previous achievements of specific cognitive and emotional skills. For these reasons, higher education represents effective learning contexts for empowering people with critical thinking competences. This leads to the importance of rethinking and revising traditional teaching methods in academic courses: according to Paul (1990), passive and transmissive methods (like typical lectures, taught classes, quizzes) cannot sustain the development of reflecting skills, since they only involve students’ low-order thinking processes, mainly based on passive content memorization and repetition, with a minimum level of active engagement and personalization. In the approach of Education for Sustainable Development, methods for enhancing critical

C

354

Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

and to become aware and reflect upon individual beliefs and attitudes (Popil 2011), in a process of life-long learning and personal empowerment. Teaching methods based on problem-based learning particularly address the main aims of critical thinking processes, namely, the need to reflect on what to do and to believe in specific situations (Ennis 1985). This approach is particularly effective in fostering critical thinking abilities, more than traditional lectures (Tiwari et al. 2006), assuring a long-term impact on these cognitive abilities. Problem-based learning methodology can enhance students’ awareness on the complexity of the reflective process needed for finding innovative sustainable solutions for current issues: in this task, students should put into practice skills that have a key role in their professional training but also in their personal life while facing problematic situations in the real world (Thomas 2009). It can be said that the main educational aim of problem-based strategies is simply not to learn to find a solution but to learn how to think for finding the most effective solution. Cooperative learning is a pedagogical methodology that is based on proposing collective tasks, where students work in groups for pursuing a common shared learning objective (Johnson and Johnson 1988). It is not merely “working together,” but it implies a cooperation between team members, the definition of common goals, and the awareness that the final result of collective work will be more than the simple sum of individual performances (Kaye 1992). Activities based on cooperative learning are particularly useful for fostering critical thinking, since communication and group discussion are some of the core features of this methodology: students in team should examine, evaluate, negotiate, and integrate individual ideas in a shared learning project (Gokhale 1995). Learning activities that imply group working seem also to be effective in fostering creative solutions to problems and transferring learned skills and concepts, applying them to new context, different from those in which they were originally taught (McInerney and Dee Fink 2003). In this perspective, also an evolution of this method, defined Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL; Quitadamo et al. 2009), can be successfully implemented in higher education contexts for

promoting reflective and critical skills. It includes team learning tasks guided by a more expert peer, and it can stimulate critical reasoning and scientific thinking, with particular benefits in the field of the STEM disciplines (Quitadamo et al. 2009). In general, these methods can successfully integrate traditional academic teaching, with the aim to promote the achievement and empowerment of critical thinking in a sustainable development perspective. Reflective skills are not only relevant for developing scientific thinking, a competence necessary for assuring a significant learning in many disciplines, but also to help students become responsible and aware citizens, for acting, thinking, and living with the aim of creating a more sustainable future. Final Remarks The achievement of critical thinking skills and a reflective attitude can be considered two key learning outcomes of every educational system. Adopting a critical approach to reality is necessary for enhancing an active learning process and reaching significant learning outcomes, which could contribute to knowledge development. But, these skills are not only related to academic or professional career: they are involved in all the aspects of human life, when people have to decide how to think and act for facing specific events and for finding more effective solutions for controversial and complex problems (Ennis 1985; Lipman 1987; Mezirow 1990). To foster more effectively critical thinking, it becomes essential to propose a comprehensive approach, where theoretical knowledge about these competences can be linked to practical interdisciplinary activities and methods encouraging the use of reflecting abilities (Ennis 1989; Behar-Horenstein and Niu 2015). This is particularly important for pursuing the objectives defined for sustainable development, which require a critical and reflecting attitude toward current problems. Considering all these reasons, it becomes essential to integrate school and academic curricula with methods and activities that could help students to develop and put into practice critical thinking. This can be accomplished if the traditional instructional approach, based on transmission and mere memorization of contents, will be replaced with a more student-centered approach, which can foster

Cross-curricular

self-regulated learning strategies and autonomous thinking and reflective attitudes.

Cross-References ▶ Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development ▶ Participative Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development

References Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels B (1999) Conceptualizing critical thinking. J Curric Stud 31(3):285–302 Baker K (2013) Information literacy and cultural heritage, 1st edn. Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK Behar-Horenstein LS, Niu L (2015) Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: a review of the literature. J Coll Teach Learn 8(2):25–42 Davies M (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In: Paulsen MB (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 41–92 Ennis RH (1985) A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educ Leadersh 43(2):44–48 Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10 Facione PA, Facione NC, Giancarlo CA (2000) The disposition towards critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skills. Informal Log 20(1):61–84 Fisher A (2011) Critical thinking: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Gokhale AA (1995) Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. J Technol Educ 7(1):22–30 Halpern DF (2014) Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking, 5th edn. Psychology Press, New York Johnson RT, Johnson DW (1988) Cooperative learning: two heads learn better than one. Transforming Education: In Context #18, 4, 34 Kaye AR (1992) Learning together apart. In: Kaye AR (ed) Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg Kearins K, Springett D (2003) Educating for sustainability: developing critical skills. J Manag Educ 27(2):188–204 Lipman M (1987) Critical thinking: what can it be? Anal Teach 8(1):5–12 Magno C (2010) The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learn 5:137–156 Mansoor F, Nima Shakouri M (2012) Critical thinking in higher education: a pedagogical look. Theory Pract Lang Stud 2(7):1370–1375 McDade SA (1995) Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teach Psychol 22(1):9–10

355 McInerney MJ, Dee Fink L (2003) Team based learning enhances long-term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Microbiol Educ 4:3–12 Mezirow J (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco Mezirow J (1996) Contemporary paradigm of learning. Adult Educ Q 46(3):158–173 Mezirow J (2003) Transformative learning as a discourse. J Transform Educ 1(1):58–63 Paul RW (1990) Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa Popil I (2011) Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Educ Today 31:204–207 Quitadamo IJ, Brahler CJ, Crouch GJ (2009) Peer-led team learning: a prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Sci Educ 18(1):29–39 Schmaltz RM, Jansen E, Wenckowski N (2017) Redefining critical thinking: teaching students to think like scientists. Front Psychol 8:article 459. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00459. Accessed 4 May 2018 Snyder LG, Snyder MJ (2008) Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon J 8:90–99 Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education. Re-visioning learning and change. Green Books, Cambridge Taylor EW (2011) Fostering transformative learning. In Mezirow J, Taylor EW and associates (eds) Transformative learning in practice. Insights from community, workplace and higher education. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 3–17 ten Dam GTM, Volman MLL (2004) Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learn Instr 14(4):359–379 Thomas I (2009) Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education and problem-based learning in universities. J Transform Educ 7(3):245–264 Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2006) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40:547–554 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO (2012) Education for sustainable development sourcebook. Learning & training tools N 4. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0021/002163/216383e.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 Vygotskij LS (1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Wals AE, Jickling B (2002) “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):221–232

Cross-curricular ▶ Multi-disciplinarity

C

356

Cross-disciplinarity ▶ Multi-disciplinarity

Cultural Knowledge Sharing ▶ Storytelling for Sustainable Development

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education Lynn Payne1 and Joy Kcenia O’Neil2 1 The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA 2 School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA

Definition Culture is defined as both material and nonmaterial attributes of a society, as well as social organizations, oral and written literature, religion, myths, and values and norms representing the important aspects. Social practices, technologies, and tool usage (e.g., cooking, shelter, and clothing) and expressive forms of art (e.g., music, dance, rituals, and religion) are universal by nature (Macionis and Gerber 2011) and should be valued as inclusive within the higher educational setting. Cultural sustainability in higher education recognizes the need to honor and transmit culture for future generations, achieved by infusing pluralistic, transformative learning to foster socio-ecological change.

Introduction Cultural sustainability is a multifaceted term encompassing a variety of perspectives, making a clear and concise definition difficult. At the most basic level, Bekerman and Kopelitz define cultural sustainability as “an attempt to transmit culture, or particular ways of life to the next

Cross-disciplinarity

generation” where our contemporary society’s attempt to educate for cultural sustainability may appear different depending on the cultural, diaspora, ethnic minority groups (2008, p. ix). Laine et al. argue that sustainability can be conceptualized through three specific roles: culture as sustainability, culture for sustainability, and culture in sustainability (2016). Culture as sustainability emphasizes culture as the “core of sustainability, an approach which generates sustainability” (p. 52) through the humanistic role of initiating change, essential to the foundation and structure for achieving sustainable development. Laine defines culture for sustainability approach “sees culture as the glue which combines ecological, social and economic pillars” critical in influencing society (p. 54). Culture in sustainability defines culture as “having a separate, independent role as part of sustainable development, as a so-called fourth pillar in addition to ecological, economic and social sustainability” and most closely associated with the view of educational sciences (p. 54; “Sustainable Development” 2015). In his book, Earth in Mind, Orr (2004) implores society to restore “local culture” and connect with “our ties to local places” (p. 23) and further asserts the loss of vernacular knowledge amplifies the loss of culture.

Sustainability Within the Context of Higher Education According to Institute of Education Sciences (IES): The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 20.2 million students were enrolled full-time in institutes of higher education in 2014, an increase of 17% from 2004. Of the 20.2 million students enrolled, 42% are non-White students, marking a significant increase of approximately 26% of people of diverse populations and ethnic background (IES n.d.) (Drawing from three tables in the literature, the term “nonWhite” used in the literature.). Given the significant increase in diversity, postsecondary institutions have the farreaching potential to impact society through educational experiences that create, enhance, and revitalize cultural experiences for all students and the community at-large.

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education

Transformative Learning and Three Orders of Change Currently, Western education, with its Eurocentric focus, assumes functional and informational learning, emphasizing vocational goals and ultimately paying little attention to educational sustainability. This paradigm, culturally mechanistic and reductionistic by nature (Sterling 2001), is transmissive, thus providing little understanding of the issue of sustainability in our modern society. Stephen Sterling, author of Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change, defines three orders of change which may take place during the learning process (Sterling 2001): 1. First-order change comprising of daily activities and information, leaving basic values unexamined. 2. Second-order change involving critical thinking and reflection. Exploring assumptions and values. Exploration into assumptions and values often occur, requiring metacognition and self-evaluation. 3. Third-order change heightens our awareness, resulting in a new way of seeing and thinking about our world. Further, it leads to a deeper awareness of alternative ways of being and living within the world. Sterling, contends that transformative education should lead to new ways of thinking, create a “deep awareness of alternative views and ways of doing things,” (Sterling 2001, p. 15) ultimately strengthening society. Additionally, he argues that both cultural and educational systems need thirdorder change to facilitate a deeper change and there is a need to “transform in order to be transformative” (Sterling 2001, p. 15). It is only through transformative education, promoting third-order change, that we will understand the effects of “knowledge on real people and their communities” as suggested by Orr (2004, p. 13). As the university setting is critical in leading social change, this term focuses on the role of higher education in promoting cultural sustainability, critical to a pluralistic society, through education which transforms and creates thirdorder change within higher education institutions. In this entry, the authors will introduce research

357

that defines postsecondary education institutions as the focus for maintaining pluralism as one target for cultural education. Second, David Orr emphasizes ecological learning as a form of transformative education, education focusing on third-order change, focusing on values, human beings, consciousness, questions, “education of a certain kind” (2004, p. 3.), in addition, the ecological learning that can be gleaned and illuminated through indigenous cultures to sustainability, both ecological and environmental. Orr (2004) and Cajete (1994) suggest those cultures have lived sustainably for centuries and learning from them is critical for education as a means of cultural preservation. This entry will illustrate cultural sustainability through the lens of transformative education. Bezbatchenko (2010) emphasizes the need for individual perspective transformation in postsecondary education in the areas of education in environmental sustainability, environmental education, sustainable development, economic development, equity, and socio-ecological education. According to Bezbatchenko, cultural sustainability education is overlooked. Historically, sustainability planners in the mid-1990s lacked the cultural appreciation necessary for sustainability. While cultural sustainability received significant attention, the concept of cultural sustainability predominately dwelled under the umbrella of social sustainability. Little attention has been given to “cultural capital” (Duxbury et al. 2007). According to Dehghanmongabadi and Shirkanloo, in the twentieth century, “the concept of sustainable development matured, leading to an increased interconnection between the economic and social elements of development . . . sustainable development is seen as the interface between environment, economic, and social sustainability” (2013, p. 3). Cortese emphasizes higher education’s task in creating a more sustainable future can only be met through education, integrating “ways to preserve and restore cultural and biological diversity, both of which are critical to a sustainable future” (2001, p. 18). He further asserts communities will benefit from partnerships with higher education institutions through collaboration and programs to make them “socially vibrant, economically secure and environmentally

C

358

sustainable” (Cortese 2003, p. 19), further illustrating the need for higher education to focus on “individual success independent of the health and well-being of communities, cultures and the life support system” (Cortese 2003; Cortese and Hattan 2010; Dehghanmongabadi and Shirkhanloo 2013).

Sustainability Within a Context of Culture Historical Context For more than 200 years, waves of Americans arriving at the shores of the “new world” found the process of acculturation and assimilation a means of survival creating a society of “fitting in.” Norms created by the majority became those norms embodying the society’s fundamental expectations. The resulting loss of language, art, and other social practices, thereby created the American “melting pot.” The result was a continued metamorphosis of the political landscape and complexion of America. In exploring cultures, paramount are those core US values: freedom, independence, equality, selfreliance, competition-orientation, achievement, success, practicality, efficiency, and openness. The migration patterns “encountered poor housing conditions, excessive consumption of material and energy resources, instability in social and cultural values and social separation on a global level” (Dehghanmongabadi and Shirkhanloo 2013, p. 2). The proverbial “melting pot” perspective has been discounted as a myth as the dominant cultures of society dominate political and social landscape. Hogg and McComb proposed a more pluralistic educational system valuing cultural awareness and differences in a pluralistic society (1969). Cultural Sustainability within the Sustainable Development Goals The emergence of culture in the concept of sustainable development began with United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Conference on Cultural Policies for Development in Stockholm in 1998. In 2001,

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education

UNESCO provided its Global Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the cultural dimensions of sustainable development were again discussed in 2002, at the World Summit Meeting in Johannesburg. In 2004, Agenda 21 for Culture emphasized the connection stating “Sustainable development and the flourishing of culture are interdependent” (Packalen 2010, p. 119). The growth of multiculturalism research over the past three decades has been transformative, resulting from societal movements and the ever-changing needs of higher education. Sustainability has become a critical discussion over recent decades, resulting in three pillars of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental sustainability. More recently, culture has been added as a fourth pillar of sustainable development. In conjunction with the emergence of the fourth pillar, an appreciation of education “assisting in the promotion of sustainable development” has emerged and is becoming more globally widespread (Dehghanmongabadi and Shirkhanloo 2013, p. 1). Educational goals, as determined by the 2015 United Nations 2030 Agenda, resulting in Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are as follows: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development (UNESCO 2017, p. 6).

Specific targets related to cultural sustainability are also mentioned: SDG #4, Quality Education The learner understands the important role of culture in achieving sustainability (p. 17). SDG #11, Sustainable Cities and Communities The learner is able to reflect on their region in the development of their own identity, understanding the roles that the natural, social and technical environments have had in building their identity and culture (p. 31).

Creating a more pluralistic society which is supported through institutional education is gaining momentum, but is still marginalized

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education

compared to its environmental, diversity, and campus greening counterparts. Although there is significant research in higher educational institutions focusing on the need for diversity and inclusion, it may be beneficial to look further into higher education’s promoting pluralism within the community. Exploration into biocultural diversity and indigenous ways of knowing as areas connected to sustainability in teaching and learning in higher education will also be explored.

Examples of Cultural Sustainability in the Higher Education Colleges and universities are challenged environmentally, socially, and economically in working toward a more sustainable future. Within this realm, cultural sustainability and multiculturalism, two contemporary “buzz words,” have been the focus of much attention in recent years. Centers for diversity and inclusion, enhancing global awareness through higher educations, are becoming prevalent on the academia forefront. Although student affairs professionals have played important roles in addressing multiculturalism through multicultural centers, women’s centers, and diversity workshops, the research around these areas is “scant” in providing research specific to racial and ethnic diversity, illuminating the need for additional research related to the issue of culture on the population studied (Pope et al. 2009). The exploration of cultural ways of knowing explores indigenous education in connection with Eurocentric Western education. For indigenous cultures, education is a social activity involving communication from the entire education community and not only policy makers and mainstream educators. Creating Sustainable Societies Institutions of higher education are charged with core principle and task of educating students in creating more sustainable societies. In theory, creating more sustainable societies is necessary; however, the challenge lies in institutions of higher education creating educational programs focusing on cultural sustainability. Several

359

educational programs, throughout the United States, have responded to UNESCO’s task of creating more culturally sustainable communities. Five such programs will be discussed in this section focusing Building Bridges of Acceptance, Global Awareness and Participation, Connection to Community, Cultural Sustainability as Community, and Teaching and Learning as Cultural Ways of Knowing. Building Bridges of Acceptance Colorado State University, Todos Santos Center is utilizing education to “build bridges between United States and Mexico” (n.d., p. 1). The international center, located in Baja California Sur, Mexico, provides students with an opportunity to grow as global citizens through experiencing the culture of those within the Baja California Sur community as well as ecosystems while exploring the challenges and priorities of those community members (Colorado State University n.d.). Research, learning, and collaboration are enhanced between the Baja California Sur residents, the Colorado State University community, and the global learning environment through education and expertise combined with natural, cultural, and historical aspects of the community. Colorado State University’s resources and expertise, combined with Todos Center provides an opportunity for students to learn in an embodied way, in research and educational opportunities in understanding of an appreciation for other cultures. The goal of Colorado State University and their commitment to the Baja California Sur in creating a long-term place in the community will not only benefit students in the exchange, but also the community members in Baja California Sur and the global community. Global Awareness and Participation West Chester University of Pennsylvania developed a program Cultural Experience Project (CEP) in an effort to increase cultural awareness and diversity among students (Gilboy and Karpinski 2009). This project includes incorporating cultural awareness through curriculum design within nutrition and cooking courses. As part of this cultural awareness project, students are required to research cultural

C

360

components of food and nutrition, including religion and traditional remedies/treatments used in cultural food preparation where the ultimate goal is to enhance cultural competency. Future goals for the project will include interview with people form other cultures and becoming more embedded in the culture as a whole.

Connection to Community Goucher College, a liberal arts college in Baltimore, is extending their concept of cultural sustainability to include arts, dress, customs, and cuisine of inner-city neighborhoods or third world villages. Their Master of Arts programs takes “A Step Beyond Anthropology” (Navarro 2009), focusing on cultural history, policy, and festivals. Students who are typically “deeply embedded” in the communities and studying with global communities focusing on various aspects of biodiversity. According to Paul Rowland, Executive Director for the Association, for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), Goucher’s programs stand apart and are gleaned exceptional from other 200 sustainability programs throughout the country mainly because of their anthropological focus (Navarro 2009).

Cultural Sustainability as Community Eastern Mediterranean University located in Famagusta City on the coast of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus established the Institute of Higher Technology (IHT) in 1979. Through intentional design, the institute attracts faculty from 35 different countries and students from 68 different countries and is situated and connected with the 35,000 residents of Famagusta City, connecting more than 50% of Famagusta City to IHT (Dehghanmongabadi and Shirkhanloo 2013). It is through this interconnectedness of institution and community that social and cultural capital is shared, and learning is embodied in the experience. Intentional educational programs, as well as social events, are designed to bring for the various community cultural events and educational programs focusing on international social capital.

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education

Teaching and Learning as Cultural Ways of Knowing Bio-cultural diversity, as defined by Luisa Maffi, Director of Terralingua, an international NGO devoted to sustaining the biocultural diversity “comprises the diversity of life in all of its manifestations – biological, cultural and linguistic forms which are all inter-related (and likely co-evolved) within a complex socio-ecological adaptive system” (Maffi 2010; “Sustainable Development” 2015; Technology 2015). Recent research has shown that “the world areas with higher cultural diversity often overlap with the areas of higher biological diversity” (Giovannini 2009). One theory for this higher biological diversity is attributed to indigenous people living more sustainable lifestyles and acting as “stewards of biodiversity” (Giovannini 2009). A point of consideration then, is the culture of diverse populations and indigenous cultures in examining sustainable development. The knowledge of indigenous cultures has significantly impacted sustainability and is drawing attention from educators and researchers throughout the world. Indigenous cultures have living knowledge of sustainability, allowing for their cultures to continue and flourish for centuries (Giovannini 2009; Springer 2013). Formal education systems, focusing on abstract knowledge and academic learning, “have disrupted the practical everyday life aspects of indigenous knowledge,” leaving them on the peripheral of society (UNESCO n.d.). Today, there is a grave risk that much indigenous knowledge is being lost and, along with it, valuable knowledge about ways of living sustainably. Joie Springer, author of UNESCO’s Contribution to Preserving Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge focused on examining the work of UNESCO as a means to maintaining and preserving traditional and indigenous knowledge. Indigenous culture speaks to a deeper knowledge of ecosystems and their techniques for managing them (Springer 2013). According to Springer, indigenous cultures remain ever evolving through the exposure to contemporary society, mass media, and interaction with other societies. Western or Eurocentric education focusing on training and education in reading and instruction negates indigenous learning and knowledge typically transmitted through experience, observation,

Cultural Sustainability in Higher Education

and implementation – thereby a process of deculturalization of traditional knowledge. Historically, Native American Indian education, as well as other indigenous population education, has focused on indigenous population productivity and survival in a postmodern, postindustrial society.

Final Remarks .As can be seen, cultural sustainability is a multifaceted term having many perspectives considering a change in the way society respects cultural values. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization maintains cultural sustainability as a high priority as can be seen in two of the sustainable development goals, as well as identifying culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability. Cultural capital and the understanding of its place, and community and geographic location are critical to incorporate into the fourth pillar of sustainability. Sustainability lies within the interface between social justice, cultural diversity, and economic and environmental responsibility. Higher education plays a vital role in creating this interface and working toward creating pluralist educational institutions which promote a more pluralistic and globally aware society. As proposed by Sterling (2001), perspective transformation occurs through the three orders of learning and change, critical in developing and maintaining cultural sustainability. Through examining cultural sustainability through the lens of Sterling’s three orders of change, true contextualization of sustainability is possible.

Cross-References ▶ Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

References Bekerman Z, Kopelowitz E (eds) (2008) Cultural education – cultural sustainability: minority, diaspora, indigenous, and ethno-religious groups in multicultural societies. Routledge, New York

361 Bezbatchenko AW (2010) Sustainability in colleges and universities: toward institutional culture shifts, vol VI. J Stud Aff New York University, p 1 Cajete G (1994) Look to the mountain: an ecology of indigenous education. Kivaki Press, Durango Colorado State University (n.d.) Todo Santos Center. https://todossantos.colostate.edu/. Accessed 12 Nov 2017 Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(March–May):8 Cortese AD, Hattan AS (2010) Research and solutions: education for sustainability as the mission of higher education. Sustainability 3(1):48–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1089/SUS.2009.9802 Dehghanmongabadi A, Shirkhanloo N (2013) Questioning the contribution of higher education institutions to the cultural sustainability of local communities. In: Paper presented at the people and the planet 2013 conference: transforming the future, Melbourne Duxbury N, Gillette E, Pepper K (2007) Exploring the cultural dimensions of sustainability. In: Paper presented at the people and the planet: transforming the future conference, Melbourne. http://www.creativecity. ca/news/special-edition-4/index.html Gilboy M, Karpinski C (2009) Cultural experience project: expanding college students’ worldview. J Nutr Educ Behav 41(2):146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jneb.2008.06.003 Giovannini P (2009) Research and consultancy in ethnobotany: What is biocultural diversity and why is it important? (2009). http://petergiovannini.com/wh at-is-biocultural-diversity-definition-introduction.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018 Hogg TC, McComb MR (1969) Cultural pluralism: its implications for education. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/ pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196912_hogg.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2018 IES: National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.) Enrollment fast facts. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display. asp?id=98. Accessed 18 Dec 2017 Laine M (2016) Culture in sustainability – defining cultural sustainability in education. Discourse Commun Sustain Edu 7(2):52–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/dcse-2016-0016 Macionis JJ, Gerber LM (2011) Sociology. Pearson Prentice Hall, Toronto Maffi L (2010) Biocultural diversity conservation: a global sourcebook. Earthscan, London/Washington, DC Navarro M (2009) A step beyond anthropology. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/ education/edlife/03sustain.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018 Orr DW (ed) (2004) Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect, 10th anniversary edn. Island Press, Washington, DC Packalen S (2010) Culture and sustainability. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17(2):4 Pope RL, Mueller JA, Reynolds AL (2009) Looking back and moving forward: future directions for diversity research in student affairs. J Coll

C

362 Stud Dev 50(6):640–658. https://doi.org/10.1353/ csd.0.0097 Springer J (2013) UNESCOs contribution to preserving traditional and indigenous knowledge. Int Preserv News (61):6–7 Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and change. Schumacher briefing no 6. Green Books, Darlington Sustainable Development (2015) Conclusions from the COST action IS1007 investigating cultural sustainability. University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. http://www. culturalsustainability.eu/conclusions.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. In: UNESCO (ed) UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.) Teaching and learning for a sustainable future: a multimedia teacher education programme. http://www.unesco.org/ education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/mod11.html. Accessed 3 Dec 2017

Curricula Change ▶ oikos, International Student Organization for Sustainability in Economics and Management Education

Curricular Innovation for Sustainability Katrina S. Rogers Human and Organization Development, School of Leadership Studies, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Synonyms Faculty; Innovation; Sustainable Development; Teaching and Learning

Definition Innovation refers to new approaches to teaching sustainability in the college classrooms or

Curricula Change

applying traditional curricular approaches in inventive ways to advance students’ understanding and competence in sustainability.

Introduction Among the many strengths of higher education is the adaptability of faculty to create curricula in response to the changing needs of society. With the rise of the modern university in the nineteenth century, for example, departments were created around the specializations of disciplines, so important for the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge (Axtell 2016). As society shifted from an industrial to a knowledge economy in the twentieth century, entire new majors were created to offer practical curricula in such subjects as business and other professions of the twentieth century (Geiger 2014). Some of the most obvious and recent examples would be computer science, digital humanities, information systems, artificial intelligence, and media psychology. Universities also reflect the priorities of their times. Our institutions are both products of these times and vanguards for knowledge at the forefront, and they tend to embody society’s most pressing problems. They are also often the spaces for the most controversial and difficult discussions. For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a highly regarded publication that consistently features essays on a variety of topics, including how campus leaders and faculty alike are engaging in dialogue on academic freedom, race, gender, class, sexuality, and other issues of the modern world (Chronicle 2018). Sustainability fits in both of the aforementioned categories: it has become a field if not quite a discipline, often created as a multidisciplinary and overlapping set of knowledge bases. It is also one of the defining social complexities of the twenty-first century: how do people live on a planet that is finite when we have built a global economy predicated on infinite growth? This entry is an examination of how faculty and university leaders have articulated and interpreted curricular innovation for sustainability in response to the context within which their institutions operate.

Curricular Innovation for Sustainability

Sustainability Curricula Background Over the last three decades, higher education has played an important role in the development of sustainability curricula (Thomas and Sterling 2006). Part of this change may be attributed to the 1987 United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which was eventually published in book form as Our Common Future. This work was the culmination of an international commission, which put forth a definition for sustainable development that is often used to form the basis of a sustainability curriculum. In this definition, sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). This definition also forms that basis and is an important underpinning of the current UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that are included in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2017). In earlier decades, curricula development initially focused on providing students with foundational knowledge. For example, programs in political science might include global environmental politics, transboundary environmental issues, and politics and energy (Sustainability Degrees 2018). In business schools, courses in the role of business in sustainability, sections on green accounting and finance, became more prevalent in the 1990s and 2000s. In other fields and disciplines, case studies were used to broaden learning around sustainability (Weissman 2012). English classes, for example, might include environmental literature, and math classes would include examples from energy and water use for calculation exercises. Across many institutions, it became common practices for the faculty to incorporate sustainability ideas into their courses as a matter of practice. This type of innovation at the time was responding to the needs of modern society and the sensibility that college educated individuals needed to have a broad understanding of sustainability. In addition, campuses themselves began to focus on sustainability practices, such as instituting recycling, undertaking smart building, and improving energy usage and energy savings (Horan 2010). Not always connected to curricula

363

per se; nevertheless, many institutions became leaders in promoting sustainability as a value in the operation of higher education itself. The most prominent association in this regard is the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Founded in 2001, the vision of AASHE is to lead higher education to be a foundation for a thriving, equitable and ecologically healthy world (AASHE 2017). In addition to conferences and professional development opportunities, one of their most notable accomplishments has been the creation of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System™, also known as STARS. STARS is a system that operates as a self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance. AASHE is a good example of an association that represents higher educational institutions that increasingly identify themselves as fundamental actors in enacting their own course of change for long term sustainability. As curricula developed and attitudes shifted, an important conversation has emerged regarding the term “sustainability” itself. Some have argued that the term has become a cliché (Blewitt and Cullingford 2004). By defining the term so broadly, there is also discussion by scholars and practitioners about what sustainable truly means (Global Footprint 2018). While often used specific to practices that impact the natural environment, it is also used by companies regarding financial health and politicians for statesmanlike behavior—as in thinking about the future (Blewitt and Cullingford, p. 17). Another aspect of the challenge of what it means to engage in sustainable behavior, is the reality that the global environmental crisis has reached catastrophic proportions. Although the argument is highly politicized, the data is not. In many critical categories such as, biodiversity, deforestation, water, land use, soil erosion, energy emissions, the planet is losing on all these measures of environmental health every day (Worldwatch Institute 2018). Scholars, such as Elizabeth Kolbert and others, have argued that we are already in the sixth extinction of the earth, generated by human beings, in which human beings as well as other species, will suffer the direst of consequences

C

364

(Kolbert 2014). That resources are being used up faster than they can be regenerated confirms that we are on course for an environmental, and thus human, disaster. This suggests that we cannot continue to bear the burden of such environmental degradation on such a scale. As some scholars have concluded, this is why universities are so important because they are among the only institutions that share intellectual resources (Blewitt and Cullingford 2004, p. 19). They are also the places that can explicitly educate the next generation of individuals equipped with the knowledge base and the skill sets to confront these critical issues.

Sustainability on Campuses In 2004, Barlett and Chase published a work called Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change. In this work, they sought to capture early sustainability projects that were emerging across the country on colleges and university campuses. These projects were in response both to a reaction of continuing urgent environmental problems and also as a reflection that universities themselves could be leaders at the forefront of such change. As a result, many universities today invest in environmental studies program (e.g. UCSB), interdisciplinary professional development for faculty (e.g. the Ponderosa Project at Northern Arizona University), entire schools of sustainability (e.g. Arizona State University’s School of Sustainability), that now exist alongside of historically important programs as the school of Forestry at Yale University, the environmental programs at Duke University, among many others. Many institutions have also invested in green building initiatives, recycling programs, public and alternative transportation to work—all of which serve to bolster their standing as both purveyors of knowledge creation and dissemination of sustainability practices and as leaders in furthering the work of sustainability. Some examples of institutions with strong credentials as green universities include the University of Texas at Dallas for its award winning student services building, the University of Copenhagen for its renewable energy strategy, Duke University for its’ transportation incentives,

Curricular Innovation for Sustainability

and the University of Northern British Columbia for its focus on locally produced food (Top Green Universities 2017). Innovative curricula and emerging leadership in sustainability among higher education institutions and leaders are foundational to advancing sustainability more general. Noteworthy is that colleges and universities are also creating new governance structures such as sustainability councils, board level committees that review socially responsible investing, and civic engagement efforts. Important for any discussion about innovation in curricular sustainability, is to understand that the milieu in which innovation is occurring is also changing by way of governance and leadership. New forms of governance and leadership structures are improving sustainability work in the classroom as well as across campuses (University Business 2006). Also significant is that there is a growing written literature on sustainability that parallels the interest in higher education. As noted by Barlett and Chase (2013), there are interdisciplinary, project-oriented journals such as Sustainability: A Journal of Record and the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Other journals has also emerged or changed their emphasis, such as the International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability, Ecology and Society, and Conservation and Society. There are also many journals of a more disciplinary nature that routinely invite submissions on sustainability. Just to name a few of the most notable, the Journal of Social Change, OD Practitioner, Land Use and Water Resources Research, Environment, and EcoHealth are all examples of the explosion of scholarly and practitioner interest in sustainability. For a more complete listing, see learning for sustainability.net (2017), which is a resource for journals in the field.

Curricular Innovation There are three major themes embedded in contemporary sustainability curricula. First is an emphasis on obtaining and integrating knowledge across disciplines. As noted above, sustainability

Curricular Innovation for Sustainability

issues can be tackled within any disciplinary subject; simultaneously, students learn across disciplines to take into consider the multidimensional aspects of sustainability. This multidisciplinary approach has led to new ways for universities and colleges to implement learning opportunities across a number of majors. Second, many sustainability curricula have a service project, internship, or action learning components embedded into the learning process. This emphasis on learning by doing is evidence of making a link to the practical aspects of what it means to take action in service of sustainability. It provides students with hands-on experience that accelerates their personal and professional development. Third, curricula innovation today is focused on graduating students that not only have knowledge, but also have the cognitive skills that can be applied to sustainability problems. Curricula of this type generally focus on the following: design thinking, assumption testing, question framing, systems thinking, leverage points, and complexity (IISD 2017). In addition, explicit attention is paid to creating more agile thinkers that cultivate a habit of mind of flexibility. Multi-disciplinary Curricula There are a number of institutions that have embarked on innovative curricula that crosses disciplines. Liberal arts colleges, for example, that are already well known for their sustainability missions, such as Evergreen, Prescott College, Dickinson College and Green Mountain College continue to be leaders in this area (Ecoleague 2018). More generally, the rise of environmental studies as a major is another example of emphasizing the nature of studying environmental issues from multiple disciplines. There are also experimental learning environments being created for students that emphasize the breadth of knowledge needed for sustainability. For example, students that experience a number of environmental programs across the US will tackle a specific environmental issue through an examination of science, politics, economics, psychology, history, and communication (Copeland 2012). Other examples can be found in several edited volumes highlighting specific institutions (Barlett and

365

Chase 2013; Jones et al. 2010; Leal Filho 2009; Timpson et al. 2006). Service Learning John Dewey, the highly regarded philosopher of education, also wrote about the importance of practice in higher education. He once noted that most people learned best and built their knowledge base by doing. In order to achieve understanding, students must be able to interact with their environment in order to adapt and learn. The environment that is created for them is critical for students to learn well. This idea led Dewey to the assertion that teachers and students must learn together. In this way, education is essential to democratic ideals, as the classroom could and should be a place that promotes equal voice among all participants in the learning experience. In this progressive view of education, the experience of problem solving, of applying the knowledge learned in a structured way to current conditions or problems, is the fundamental task of education (Dewey 1938). Many universities and colleges anchor their sustainability curricula in this pragmatic notion of Dewey—that a successful curriculum will include experiential learning. Many of these opportunities are specifically based in the communities where the institutions of higher education are located. Some examples include the Curriculum for the Bioregion Project in the Pacific Northwest that includes faculty from many institutions in the area (Curriculum for the Bioregion 2017) and the Prairie Project, an initiative of Central College in Iowa (Zaffiro in Barlett and Chase 2013, p. 89). Cognitive Skill Building To support the acquisition of skills for students to be able to broaden their studies across disciplines and to learn from experience, many curricula are also incorporating new and time tested ways to support the development of cognitive complexity. The ability to think in complex ways—to hold paradox, contradictions, to be agile in mind and engage in lateral thinking—is a required set of thinking capabilities needed for addressing sustainability. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), hosts annual meetings that bring together participants to develop these

C

366

skills (IISD 2017). They use systems thinking methodologies to help frame larger dialogical settings to help people practice the needed cognitive skills. Other curricula, such as those noted above, also include an explicit understanding that sustainability curricula needs to include both what people need to know, as well as how they need to think about a complex issue. This development of a habit of mind is seen as critical to the success of individuals committed to this work. Supports for Curricular Innovation The realization of integrating knowledge across disciplines, implementing service learning opportunities, and providing curricula that continues to develop the reflective self-awareness needed for life-long learning, requires the twin pillars of institutional leadership and a long-term commitment of the institution towards the development of faculty. Much of the literature notes that colleges and universities that are most successful in curricular innovation in sustainability have leaders that make verbal and long-term commitments to the work of sustainability, both within the school’s curricula and in their own operations. One notable example was told by Wendy Anderson about Drury University’s President, John Sellars, who in 2006 created a President’s Council on Sustainability (Anderson in Barlett and Chase 2013, p. 24). A search of colleges and universities across the country demonstrate a growing number of such advisory groups, which is an indication of strengthening institutional and long-term commitment to sustainability. Most important of all, however, is a commitment to ongoing development of the faculty. Some of the examples noted above, such as the Curriculum for the Bioregion Project, includes support for faculty teaching and learning. There are many centers dedicated internally to such work, such as those found at Syracuse University, University of Wisconsin at Green Bay (Wisconsin’s Eco U), Vanderbilt University, University of Georgia, and Seattle Colleges. Several of these initiatives offer faculty research funds, often acknowledging the challenge of finding funds that are not based on a specific discipline, but are available for faculty to work together

Curricular Innovation for Sustainability

across their disciplines on teaching sustainability. As more institutions embed sustainability requirements into their curricula such as in general education or as part of faculty evaluation, institutional supports such as these will continue to be critical for long term success.

The Future As our thinking on sustainability continues to evolve, so too will curricula and supports for such activities. Sustainability is also highly impacted by globalization and technological innovation, and, as a result, is often called out as the defining issue of the twenty-first century. As the earth’s population is predicted to be 9 billion people by 2037, there is an urgent need to address the tough challenge of how to live more in keeping with the finite natural resources of the planet that sustains humanity. It is these challenges that sustainability curricula seeks to examine; it is at our colleges and universities where the nation’s 16 million college students are tackling the hard questions for the future. By integrating knowledge across disciplines, providing opportunities for practical experience, and developing cognitive skills all supported by leadership and faculty teaching and learning, curricular innovation will continue to occur. Such innovation provides students with what they need to be successful not just for themselves in their professions but for the greater society in which they live.

Cross-References ▶ Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level ▶ Contextual Learning for Sustainability ▶ Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Environmental Education and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Universities and Sustainable Development ▶ Higher Education and Sustainability Initiatives ▶ Higher Education Sustainability Professionals

Curriculum Integration

▶ Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development ▶ Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Role of Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Dialogues in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) ▶ Sustainability Domains in Higher Education ▶ Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Sustainability Declarations, Effectiveness

References AASHE (2017) Mission and vision of AASHE. Retrieved from http://www.aashe.org/ Axtell J (2016) Wisdom’s workshop: the rise of the modern university. Princeton University Press, Princeton Barlett PF, Chase GW (2004) Sustainability on campus: stories and strategies for change. The MIT Press, Cambridge Barlett PF, Chase GW (2013) Sustainability in higher education: stories and strategies for transformation. The MIT Press, Cambridge Blewitt J, Cullingford C (2004) The sustainability curriculum: the challenge for higher education. Earthscan, London Chronicle of Higher Education (2018) Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/ Copeland B (2012) 10 of the best environmental programs in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.mnn. com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/10-ofthe-best-college-environmental-programs-in-the-us Curriculum for the Bioregion Project (2017) Curriculum for the bioregion curriculum collection. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/bioregion/index.html Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Retrieved from http://ruby.fgcu.edu/Courses/ndemers/Colloquium/ ExperiencEducationDewey.pdf Ecoleague (2018) Consortium for sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.dickinson.edu/info/20052/sustainabil ity/2750/ecoleague/1 Geiger RL (2014) The history of American higher education: learning and culture from the founding to world war II. Princeton University Press, Princeton Global Footprint (2018) What is sustainability? Retrieved from http://www.globalfootprints.org/sustainability/ Horan K (2010) Sustainability trends on campus. University Business. Retrieved from https://www.university business.com/article/sustainability-trends-campus

367 IISD (2017) Why innovation is critical to achieving the sustainable development goals. Retrieved from http:// www.iisd.org/blog/why-innovation-critical-achievingsustainable-development-goals Jones P, Selby D, Sterling S (2010) Sustainability education: perspectives and practice across higher education. Earthscan, London Kolbert E (2014) The sixth extinction: an unnatural history. McMillan, New York Leal Filho W (2009) Sustainability at universities—opportunities, challenges, and trends. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt Learning for Sustainability (2017) Learning for sustainability.net: supporting collaboration, integration, and innovation. Retrieved from http://www.learningforsus tainability.net/research/human_dimensions_journals. php Sustainability Degrees (2018) Sustainability public policy degrees. Retrieved from https://www.sustainabil itydegrees.com/degrees/sustainable-public-policy/ Thomas I, Sterling S (2006) Education for sustainability: the role of capabilities in guiding university curricula. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1(4):349–370 Timpson WM, Dunbar B, Kimmel GM, Bruyere B, Newman P, Mizia H (2006) 147 practical tips for teach sustainability: connecting the environment, the economy, and society. Atwood Press, Madison Top Green Universities (2017) Green Universities. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/ student-info/choosing-university/green-universities United Nations (2017) Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainable development/sustainable-development-goals/ University Business (2006) Most sustainable campuses. Retrieved from https://www.universitybusiness.com/ article/most-sustainable-campuses Weissman NB (2012) Sustainability & liberal education: partners by nature. Liberal Educ 98(4). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodi cals/sustainability-liberal-education-partners-nature World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future, world commission on environment and development. United Nations, New York Worldwatch Institute (2018) Vital signs: all trends. Retrieved from http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/

Curriculum Integration ▶ Multi-disciplinarity

C

D

Decay ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Deep Ecology ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

practices surrounding subject matter that falls within the realm of deep ecology principles. The whole concept of deep learning on sustainable development challenges students to ask philosophically deep questions to penetrate the core of their most fundamental beliefs, to play with these ideas, and to make new space for learning about sustainability. In turn, this deep questioning process has educational implications for increasing sustainable knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Deep Innovation Introduction ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development Jessica Ostrow Michel Higher and Postsecondary Education Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Definition Deep learning on sustainable development is the convergence of deep learning and deep ecology. In other words, deep learning on sustainable development consists of deep learning teaching

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have a moral responsibility to help our world address present sustainability-related needs without impeding the ability of future generations to achieve their goals and lead full lives (Baker-Shelley 2016; Chase et al. 2012; Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010). Worldwide, HEIs have found a way to respond to this exigence: by integrating deep learning into students’ sustainability-related learning experiences. Deep learning in higher education is the pedagogical technique, and deep ecology is the subject matter. It is the convergence of deep learning and deep ecology in which deep learning on sustainable development manifests itself and provides students with deep, quality environmental and sustainability learning experiences that can, in turn, prepare them to become sustainably engaged citizens. First, this entry introduces fundamental

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

370

terms including environmental and sustainability education and the concept of deep learning from the broader higher education literature. In what follows, the entry offers a brief overview of the concept of deep ecology. Finally, the entry concludes with an exploration of the intersection of deep learning and deep ecology, which is in fact the concept of deep learning on sustainable development.

Environmental and Sustainability Education Higher education serves as an incubator for preparing students for democratic participation that improves our world (Stevens et al. 2008; Thomas and Hartley 2010). HEIs develop students’ citizenship through curricula that challenge them to connect classroom-learned knowledge to their lives and to the world at large and through cocurricular activities that provide them with experiences in community projects to stimulate social change (Checkoway 2001; Stevens et al. 2008; Thomas and Hartley 2010). Taken together, curricular and cocurricular learning render HEIs a powerful force in driving our world toward social change (Crossley 2008; Kezar 2010; Rhoads 2009). HEIs have great force in educating students about sustainable development (Chase et al. 2012). Environmental and sustainability education (ESE) is the process of developing students’ sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral motivations in favor of the environment and its economic and social implications, for both present and future generations (Besong and Holland 2015; Cotton and Winter 2010; Leal Filho and Pace 2016). The ultimate goal of ESE is to propel students to become sustainably engaged citizens (Blewitt 2010; Cotton and Winter 2010; Leal Filho and Pace 2016; Orr 2013; Wheeler 2007). Given the severe state of our existing sustainability challenge, simply dropping sustainabilityrelated subject matter into students’ coursework is insufficient at best and inept at worst. Instead, higher education instructors and practitioners ought to teach students deeply about sustainability in order to help students learn about sustainability.

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

Although higher education sustainability learning outcomes are a point of contention, the main consensus from the literature is that higher education should increase all students’ sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Chalkley 2006; Sipos et al. 2008; Svanström et al. 2008; Wheeler 2007) or what Sipos et al. (2008) refer to as transformative sustainability learning outcomes. The argument for including more than mere knowledge in the set of prescribed learning outcomes is that ESE aims to motivate students to practice what they learn about sustainability throughout their lives. In addition, Wheeler (2007), Chair of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commission on Education and Communication (CEC), suggests that deep learning on sustainable development is achieved when outcomes resulting in lifestyle changes, project outcomes, and societal trends are in fact deemed sustainable. Furthermore, Wheeler (2007) suggests that learning outcomes are “continuum of deep learning that begins within ourselves and extends to our relationships with others, our communities, and all of our social networks could be the ultimate goal of education for sustainable development” (p. 46).

Deep Learning in Higher Education For nearly half a century, scholars have been researching the types of pedagogical practices that facilitate students’ most productive learning; many of the findings point to deep approaches to learning (Campbell and Cabrera 2014; Entwistle 2000; Laird et al. 2014). The term deep learning itself draws from research in the social sciences on different types of learning, most notably the prominent work of psychologists Marton and Säljö (1976). In their landmark study, On Qualitative Differences in Learning, Marton and Säljö (1976) investigated students’ responses to prose and found differences in their ways of making meaning of the given information. They found that some students made meaning at a surface level, while other students made meaning at a deeper level. Surface learning refers to when students engage in rote memorization of “unrelated bits

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

of information” (Entwistle 2000, p. 3) and characteristically places emphasis on these elements: rote learning, simple description, and the substance of information. Such educational goals, however well intentioned, merely aim to avoid failure (Biggs 1989; Marton and Säaljö 1976; Warburton 2003). On the contrary, deep learning refers to when students’ learning transcends the surface by stimulating the intention to make meaning and truly understand new subject matter ideas. This differs markedly from skimming the surface or simply learning enough to pass an assessment (Marton and Säaljö 1976). Deep learning is galvanized by emphasizing principles and concepts rather than merely accumulating facts (Entwistle 2000; Hounsell 1997). This kind of learning refers to the making of connections between ideas, integrating knowledge by linking to new ideas, and engaging in metacognition (Campbell and Cabrera 2014; Entwistle 2000; Iverson 2016; Warburton 2003). Deep learning can be facilitated by pedagogical techniques that enable students to grasp key concepts, understand relationships, and transfer ideas from one circumstance to another through analytic skills, cross-referencing, imaginative reconstruction, and independent thinking. Examples of deep learning pedagogies are those that engage students in their learning process, such as class discussions, group work, problembased learning, and case studies (Beatie et al. 1997; Bowden and Marton 1998; Marton and Säaljö 1976; Warburton 2003). Prior research has evidenced concrete benefits associated with deep learning practices. Gains associated with deep learning include enjoyment of the learning process, discussion of ideas with others, syntheses of a wide array of readings, reflection on how core concepts relate to larger disciplinary ideas, application of knowledge to real-world situations, and satisfaction with the college experience (Biggs 1989, 2003; Entwistle 1991; Entwistle and Ramsden 2015). Deep learning has been correlated with advantageous educational gains such as higher grades, college persistence, and degree attainment (Entwistle and Ramsden 2015; Laird et al. 2008a,b). Additionally, acquisition of a prescribed set of

371

knowledge that students are expected to learn for citizenship in our contemporary world, or learning outcomes, is key to deep learning (Hmelo-Silver and Barrows 2015). In an increasingly complex world, higher education instructors are encouraged to guide students in deep learning that will equip them to better engage with their civic responsibilities, especially with regard to protecting the future of the environment and the future of humanity (Martinez and McGrath 2014; Orr 2013). As such, policymakers and administrators are placing the onus on instructors and practitioners for cultivating a learning environment in which students make meaning of sustainable development (Bowden and Marton 1998; Chase et al. 2012; Warburton 2003). Today, sustainabilityrelated subject matter is highly politicized and culturally sensitive. In this vein, mere rote learning is unsatisfactory; instead, teaching must engage students in deep learning practices that support them in deconstructing and reconstructing knowledge in order to shift us toward a more sustainable world.

Deep Ecology Building off the pedagogical technique of facilitating deep learning, the subject matter component of deep learning on sustainable development is deep ecology. In 1972, Arne Næss coined the term deep ecology at the 3rd World Future Research Conference in Bucharest during his lecture entitled The Shallow and the Deep, LongRange Ecology Movement. Næss (1972) argued that eco-conscious policies at the time were primarily on shallow concerns, such as pollution and resource depletion. He contended that problems associated with shallow ecology included a shortterm approach, without the capacity to create fundamental change; it promoted simplistic and unproductive solutions (such as recycling) that were based on the same consumption-oriented methods of the industrial economy, in accordance with its central objective of the health and affluence of people in developed countries (Næss 1972, 1973; Næss and Drengson 2008).

D

372

Næss (1972) disputed the then-current eco-conscious policies, which neglected what he referred to as deeper concerns, and advocated for adopting policies and practices aligned with the deep ecology movement, consisting of seven tenets: relational, total-field image; biospherical egalitarianism; principles of diversity and symbiosis; anti-class posture; pollution and resource depletion; complexity, not complication; and local autonomy and decentralization. Manifested throughout these seven tenets are the principles which undergird deep ecology. First, the concept of deep ecology involves a deep level of questioning of our positions (including purposes, values, and rationales) when parsing environmental conflicts. Second, deep ecology involves recognition of the value of all living beings and the employment of this view in informing decisions. Third, deep ecology involves questioning what is being learned, by investigating all the way down to fundamental root causes (Næss 1972, 1973; Næss and Drengson 2008). While labeled deep ecology, core ideas inherent in the understanding of this concept reflect the broader ideas surrounding the notion of sustainable development. Central themes to deep ecology and sustainable development are that both explore all levels of existence—environmental and also social, cultural, political, and economic (Edwards 2012; Iverson 2016; Smith 2014). Core ideas central to deep ecology, but also sustainable development, are living in harmony with our surroundings in ways that require rethinking our human values (such as thwarting the global extinction crisis and striving to accomplish true ecological sustainability) (Smith 2014). In this vein, ESE intends to cultivate students who understand their interconnectedness with all life (other humans, the environment, animals), to become creative problem-solvers and active citizens and to engage in all ways (personally, professionally, intellectually) in shaping our common future (Kopnina 2015; Næss and Jickling 2000; Warburton 2003). Deep learning on sustainable development means enabling students to learn about and work within the deep ecology framework (in its most broad sense, that also fits within the sustainable development paradigm).

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development It is at this juncture in which deep learning on sustainable development is the convergence of the two concepts previously outlined: deep learning and deep ecology. In other words, deep learning on sustainable development consists of deep learning teaching practices surrounding subject matter that falls within the realm of deep ecology principles. The whole concept of deep learning on sustainable development challenges students to ask philosophically deep questions to penetrate the core of their most fundamental beliefs, to play with these ideas, and to make new space for learning about sustainability (Næss and Jickling 2000). In turn, this deep questioning process has educational implications for increasing sustainable knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Chalkley 2006; Sipos et al. 2008; Svanström et al. 2008). This is meaningful in terms of understanding one’s own experiences as part of a whole (Næss and Jickling 2000).

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development Within the Higher Education Curriculum A robust body of literature reinforces the notion that facilitating students’ engagement with deep learning practices throughout all corners of their higher education curriculum benefits the quality of their learning (Laird et al. 2008a,b). Over time, this body of literature has envisioned what deep learning might approximate in particular disciplinary contexts, for example, in mathematics classrooms (Crawford et al. 1998; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Ramsden 2003). More recently, literature, surrounding the seemingly academic stepchild of the interdisciplinary field of ESE, has advocated for the incorporation of deep learning practices. As with other more traditional, and far more established disciplines, this makes sense: deep learning is an auspicious pedagogical technique for guiding students to extract both meaning and understanding from their coursework (Kopnina 2015; Orr 2013; Warburton 2003).

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

Higher education literature has revealed the correlation between students’ deep learning and their acquisition of learning outcomes (Entwistle and Ramsden 2015; Laird et al. 2008a,b). In fact, higher education sustainability literature suggests that deep learning is associated with favorable takeaways, such as students understanding their role in society and its implications for the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability (Jones et al. 2008; Orr 2013; Warburton 2003). Yet ESE scholars make a case for the particular benefits of intentionally guiding students in deep learning and further bolstering their opportunity to learn about sustainability throughout their higher education coursework. Deep learning is beneficial for ESE for two main reasons: (1) the subject matter undergirded by its interdisciplinary nature (interconnectedness of the environmental, economic, and social domains) and (2) the urgency of the subject matter. As to its relative character, Warburton (2003) contends that in the context of ESE, deep learning is uniquely important to interdisciplinary thinking and holistic insight. After all, meaning making and rigorous understanding are particularly relevant in the context of education for sustainability and important to connecting students’ sustainability learning experiences across the curriculum (Jones et al. 2008; Orr 2013; Warburton 2003). Orr (2013) reinforces this notion by claiming that deep learning is critical in the ESE landscape because students must learn to understand and make meaning of its complex and interdisciplinary nature. Orr (2013) contextualizes this importance by arguing that deep learning is essential in order to help students understand the planetary emergency. Mere rote lecture could not provide this critical meaning-making process. Additionally, Orr (2013) advocates that deep learning is important because: For young people we purport to educate, the truth of the situation can be overwhelming. . . deep environmental educators must therefore equip students with the stamina to witness ecological losses and collateral societal damages without being immobilized by despair. They will need our help to transform their grief into stronger and deeper attachment to life and a more authentic hope that lies on a farther horizon. (p. x)

373

Poised as we are on the brink of sustainabilityrelated catastrophe, deep learning on sustainable development is paramount to cultivate citizens who are committed to rectifying current sustainability-related problems. Students must transcend surface learning on sustainability and think more deeply about the implications of their actions as citizens. Surface-level learning, as noted earlier, has been deemed inadequate for sustainability (Iverson 2016; Orr 2013; Warburton 2003), for only deep learning on sustainability allows students to gain “holistic insight and an ability to organize and structure disparate types of information into a coherent whole” (Warburton 2003, p.45). One way that HEIs cultivate students’ citizenship is through a curriculum that challenges them to connect classroom-learned knowledge to their lives and to the world (Checkoway 2001; Stevens et al. 2008; Thomas and Hartley 2010). It thus stands to reason that deep learning for sustainable development ought to be orchestrated in all corners of learning spaces within higher education— including the formal learning that occurs within the classroom. Prior literature has found that effectively educating students about sustainability has myriad effects: it stimulates students and encourages them to reflect on their learning, which in turn, leads to changes in their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Fien 1997). Thus, in order to stimulate changes in behaviors, students must gain knowledge and awareness of critical environmental and sustainability issues. However, they must also acquire skills of analysis and investigation and develop a profound understanding of underlying concepts (Hungerford and Volk 1990). Deep learning on sustainable development can effectively enable this.

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development Within the Higher Education Co-curriculum In addition to the subject matter within the confines of the formal classroom, ESE also occurs within the co-curriculum where students have space to learn through engaging with the broader

D

374

community (Cortese 2003; Tilbury 1995). Cocurricular experiences are essential in overall higher education learning—they push students beyond general awareness and toward the active engagement which changes their everyday lives. In fact, prior higher education, research has found that out-of-class experiences are associated with developing critical thinking, relational and organizational skills, peer interactions, and leadership skills (Astin 1993; Kuh 2009), all vital proficiencies for sustainably engaged citizens. Furthermore, deep learning stems from more than teaching, as it provides students to explore problems for the future of themselves, but also for organizations and societies (Wheeler 2007). As such, in addition to deep learning being facilitated in the classroom, it is important for it to take place out of the classroom as well. Cocurricular activities within the realm of ESE range from transitory initiatives, such as recycling competitions between residential halls, to more permanent sustainable development student clubs and organizations. Past research has investigated the role of cocurricular activities toward increasing students’ behaviors in areas such as resource consumption (Schoolman et al. 2016), energy reduction (Marans and Edelstein 2010), and recycling (Pike et al. 2003). In addition, involvement in student-run campus environmental groups (Grady-Benson and Sarathy 2016; Walton et al. 2009) leads to awareness-raising, development of leadership skills, and opportunities to practice responsible civic life. These organizations also serve as mobilization structures to facilitate the recruitment of students to social activism. Although prior literature has revealed that cocurricular learning experiences can stimulate students’ deep learning, few studies have explored the relationship between cocurricular experiences and deep learning; scarcely any studies have investigated this relationship within the sustainability landscape. One hopeful exception is Iverson’s (2016) Beyond Recycling: Developing “Deep” Sustainability Competence. Iverson (2016) analyzed data from over 500 undergraduate residents’ responses to 7 open-ended questions about sustainability initiatives in the residence halls and found that respondents’ understanding of sustainability

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

was overwhelmingly environmental (recycling and reducing waste), and thus habits did not extend beyond individual actions—meaning students had a shallow, not deep, understanding of sustainability. As such, Iverson (2016) advocates that, within cocurricular spaces, such as residence halls, sustainability initiatives must develop the individuallevel competencies characterized by awareness of personal consumption, reduction of personal waste, and energy usage. Students must also be equipped to act at institutional and structural levels (i.e., advocating for changes in policy and practices). Only these deep sustainability competencies will develop “innovative change agents that the world needs today and in the future” (Dungy 2011, p. 272). Deep learning’s importance, to that end, is profound both in the classroom and out of it, especially in the case of ESE.

Conclusion Educating students about sustainability development in higher education is widely cited as the leading intervention for preparing future generations to engage in the sustainable living which will save the planet (Edwards 2012; Orr 1991, 2013; Sterling 2004). While a noble goal, merely educating students about this deeply complex subject matter is insufficient on its own. Therefore, the challenge is not just to teach ESE but to foster a learning environment that provides a pathway for students to transform their lives and become sustainably engaged citizens (Gunnell and Dyer 1993; Smith and Williams 1999). There are several roads to achieving this. For one, the literature points to deep learning on sustainable development. This entry elaborated on that concept by showing how deep learning consists of deep learning teaching practices within subject matter that falls within the realm of deep ecology principles. While defining and understanding deep learning for sustainability is good, it is insufficient to stop here. Only by emphasizing this deep learning, educating students about sustainability development in higher education can truly be a vehicle for preparing future generations to engage in the sustainable living fundamental to our planet’s survival.

Deep Learning on Sustainable Development

References Astin AW (1993) What matters in college? Four critical years revisited, vol vol 1. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Alexander_Astin/publication/242362064_What_Mat ters_in_College_Four_Critical_Years_Revisited/links/ 00b7d52d094be57582000000.pdf Baker-Shelley A (2016) Gauging universities for sustainability: action research as a tool for assessing and influencing organisational transformation. In: The contribution of social sciences to sustainable development at universities, pp 127–141. Springer Cham. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3319-26866-8_8 Beatie V, Collins B, McInnes B (1997) Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dicotomy. Acc Educ 6(1):1–12 Besong F, Holland C (2015) The dispositions, abilities and behaviours (DAB) framework for profiling learners’ sustainability competencies in higher education. J Teach Educ Sustain 17(1):5–22 Biggs JB (1989) Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. High Educ Res Dev 8(1):7–25 Biggs J (2003) Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teach Learn Higher Educ New Trends Innov 2:13–17 Blewitt J (2010) Deschooling society? A lifelong learning network for sustainable communities, urban regeneration and environmental technologies. Sustainability 2(11):3465–3478 Bowden J, Marton F (1998) The University of Learning: beyond quality and competence in university education. Kogan Page, London Campbell CM, Cabrera AF (2014) Making the mark: are grades and deep learning related? Res High Educ 55(5):494–507 Chalkley B (2006) Education for sustainable development: continuation. J Geogr High Educ 30(2):235–236 Chase G, Barlett P, Fairbanks R (2012) Sustainability, leadership, and the role of the chief academic officer. The sustainable university. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 148–163 Checkoway B (2001) Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. J High Educ:125–147 Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(3):15–22 Cotton D, Winter J (2010) It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs. a review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In: Sustainability education: perspectives and practice across higher education. Earthscan, London, pp 39–54 Crawford K, Gordon S, Nicholas J, Prosser M (1998) Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learn Instr 8(5):455–468 Crossley N (2008) Social networks and student activism: on the politicising effect of campus connections. Sociol Rev 56(1):18–38

375 Dungy GJ (2011) Ripening the time: Learning from the past to prepare the future. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 48(3):265–278 Edwards KE (2012) Moving beyond green: sustainable development toward healthy environments, social justice, and strong economies. New Dir Stud Serv 2012(137):19–28 Entwistle NJ (1991) Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. High Educ 22(3):201–204 Entwistle N (2000) Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. In: TLRP conference, Leicester. Citeseer, pp 1–12. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.9429&rep=rep1& type=pdf Entwistle N, Ramsden P (2015) Understanding student learning (Routledge revivals). Routledge, New York. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl= en&lr=&id=CcJmCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1& dq=Entwistle+%26+Ramsden,+1983&ots=UrOuR 139ff&sig=c38BHQP8HDFPvLJs0U9jk_ZAhwM Fadeeva Z, Mochizuki Y (2010) Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development. Sustain Sci 5(2):249–256 Fien J (1997) Stand up, stand up and be counted: undermining myths of environmental education. Aust J Environ Educ 13:21–26 Grady-Benson J, Sarathy B (2016) Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: student-led organising for climate justice. Local Environ 21(6):661–681 Gunnell P, Dyer K (1993) Environmental studies: lessons from a quaternary perspective. Aust J Environ Educ 9:33–52 Hmelo-Silver CE, Barrows HS (2015) Problem-based learning: goals for learning and strategies for facilitating. In: Walker A, Leary H, Hmelo-Silver CE, Ertmer PA (eds) Essential readings in problem-based learning: exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. barrows. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 69–84 Hounsell D (1997) Contrasting conceptions of essaywriting. Exp Learn 2:106–125 Hungerford HR, Volk TL (1990) Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J Environ Educ 21(3):8–21 Iverson SV (2016) Beyond recycling: developing “deep” sustainability competence. In: The contribution of social sciences to sustainable development at universities. Springer, Cham, pp 55–71 Retrieved from http://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26866-8_4 Jones P, Trier CJ, Richards JP (2008) Embedding education for sustainable development in higher education: a case study examining common challenges and opportunities for undergraduate programmes. Int J Educ Res 47(6):341–350 Kezar A (2010) Faculty and staff partnering with student activists: unexplored terrains of interaction and development. J Coll Stud Dev 51(5):451–480

D

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

376 Kopnina H (2015) If a tree falls and everybody hears the sound: teaching deep ecology to business students. J Educ Sustain Dev 9(1):101–116 Kuh GD (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. J Coll Stud Dev 50(6):683–706 Laird TFN, Garver AK, Niskodé-Dossett AS, Banks JV (2008a) The predictive validity of a measure of deep approaches to learning. In: Annual meeting of the association for the study of higher education, Jacksonville. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.5705&rep=rep1& type=pdf Laird TFN, Shoup R, Kuh GD, Schwarz MJ (2008b) The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Res High Educ 49(6):469–494 Laird TFN, Seifert TA, Pascarella ET, Mayhew MJ, Blaich CF (2014) Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. J High Educ 85(3):402–432 Leal Filho W, Pace P (2016) Teaching Education for Sustainable Development at University Level. World. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/ 10.1007/978-3-319-32928-4.pdf Marans RW, Edelstein JY (2010) The human dimension of energy conservation and sustainability: a case study of the University of Michigan’s energy conservation program. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(1):6–18 Martinez M, McGrath D (2014) Deeper learning: how eight innovative public schools are transforming education in the twenty-first century. The New Press, New York Marton F, Säaljö R (1976) On qualitative differences in learning—II Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. Br J Educ Psychol 46(2):115–127 Næss A (1972) The pluralist and possibilist aspect of the scientific enterprise. Universitetsforl, Oslo Næss A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Summ Inq 16(1–4):95–100 Næss A, Drengson AR (2008) Ecology of wisdom: writings by Arne Næss. Counterpoint Press, Berkeley Næss A, Jickling B (2000) Deep ecology and education: a conversation with Arne Næss. Can J Environ Educ (CJEE) 5(1):48–62 Orr D (1991) What is education for. Context 27(53):52–58 Orr D (2013) Foreword: shallow versus deep environmental education. In: Boring WP, Forbes W (eds) Teaching sustainability: perspectives from the humanities and social sciences. Stephen F. Austin State University Press, Nscogdoches, pp ix–xiii Pike L, Shannon T, Lawrimore K, McGee A, Taylor M, Lamoreaux G (2003) Science education and sustainability initiatives: a campus recycling case study shows the importance of opportunity. Int J Sustain High Educ 4(3):218–229 Prosser M, Trigwell K (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. McGrawHill Education, UK Ramsden P (2003) Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge, New York. Retrieved from https://books.goo gle.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AsIK_4wAJz4C&oi= fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Ramsden,+2003+deep+learning&

ots=XK0APPKbOp&sig=0Wa9On0lU-lrmjSXKWOz I4iOxjk Rhoads RA (2009) Learning from students as agents of social change: toward an emancipatory vision of the university. J Chang Manag 9(3):309–322 Schoolman ED, Shriberg M, Schwimmer S, Tysman M (2016) Green cities and ivory towers: how do higher education sustainability initiatives shape millennials’ consumption practices. J Environ Stud Sci 6(3):490–502 Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86 Smith M (2014) Deep ecology: what is said and (to be) done? Trumpeter 30(2):141–156 Smith GA, Williams DR (1999) Ecological education in action: on weaving education, culture, and the environment. SUNY Press, Albany Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 49–70 Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/ 10.1007/0-306-48515-X_5.pdf Stevens ML, Armstrong EA, Arum R (2008) Sieve, incubator, temple, hub: empirical and theoretical advances in the sociology of higher education. Annu Rev Sociol 34:127–151 Svanström M, Lozano-García FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9(3):339–351 Thomas NL, Hartley M (2010) Higher education’s democratic imperative. N Dir High Educ 2010(152):99–107 Tilbury D (1995) Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environ Educ Res 1(2):195–212 Walton J, Helferty A, Clarke A (2009) Student-led campus climate change initiatives in Canada. Int J Sustain High Educ 10(3):287–300 Warburton K (2003) Deep learning and education for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 4(1):44–56 Wheeler KA (2007) Learning for deep change. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(1):45–50

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability Renata Buriti Institute for Technology and Resources Management in the Tropics and Subtropics, TH Köln/University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany

Synonyms Critical natural capital; Natural capital stock; Substitutability

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

Introduction Sustainable development has been described as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own demands” (WCED 1987). This conceptualization as presented in the report Our Common Future (ibid.), has been widely used as a standard definition (Barr 2008). It is the result of efforts to integrate social, economic, and environmental considerations into a new concept of development as a response to ideas of progress and growth which gained popularity in the 1970s. (See Du Pisani (2006) for a historical overview of the concept.) Under this rationale, sustainable development should allow for poverty alleviation and inequality reduction while ensuring intra- and intergenerational equity. Accordingly, future generations should be entitled to the same level of social and economic opportunities as available for present generations (Barbier 2003). Furthermore, sustainable development should allow for preservation of the integrity of ecosystems and their life-supporting functions. This would require the determination of limits to growth based on technological development, social organization of environmental resources, and the “ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities” (WCED 1987). Such a broad definition appealed to a large audience and gathered groups with different worldviews under a common umbrella (Kates et al. 2005). At the same time, it allowed for multiple and diverging interpretations of the implications and operational aspects of sustainable development, especially concerning the compatibility of goals for economic growth and environmental protection (Hediger 1999). Different notions emerged as to how natural resources in their economic function as natural capital should be handled in a way to create welfare for the present and future generations. From this debate, two opposing economic concepts of sustainability emerged: weak sustainability (WS) and strong sustainability (SS), also labeled, respectively, the substitutability and non-substitutability paradigms. These are considered the most influential paradigms within the debates on sustainable development (Neumayer 2013, p. 22).

377

While the WS approach had several critics and did not seem to fit in with ongoing concerns about environmental limits to economic growth (Dietz and Neumayer 2007), several studies in the field of ecological economics have been undertaken aiming to define, operationalize, and apply the SS concept. These efforts culminated in a worldwide implementation of innovative measures to achieve development without depletion of essential environmental assets. This entry introduces the concept of SS in comparison to the WS approach. It outlines the key elements that define both paradigms and briefly describes the theoretical foundations underlying the two perspectives. In addition, it describes methods and tools used to assess and evaluate natural capital as fundamental steps in concretizing SS. Finally, it discusses key management principles and policy implications concerning SS.

Weak Versus Strong Sustainability Commonly, economists assume that generation of wealth results from the combined contribution of different kinds of capital stocks to the productive system (Barbier 2003). Capital can be defined as “the stock that possesses the capacity of giving rise to flows of goods and/or services” (Ekins et al. 2003, p. 166). From an economic perspective, a basic condition for sustainable development is therefore, the maintenance of levels of capital stock capable of providing “non-declining utility” (Neumayer 2013, p. 8). The capacity of a productive system to generate “utility” (human wellbeing) is dependent on four main types of capital (some categories are often merged and several authors refer to a three-key capital stocks model (see Costanza and Daly (1992), and Barbier (2003)) (Ekins et al. 2008): • Manufactured capital corresponds to manmade material goods that produce or contribute to the production of other goods and services. They can be embodied in the output (e.g., metals, plastics, components) or consumed over a longer or shorter period of time (e.g., machines, buildings, and infrastructure). • Human capital relates to all the individuals’ capacities and skills that in the form of a

D

378

productive workforce contribute to production processes and therefore to improvement of economic opportunities. They include inter alia, mental and physical health, education, motivation, and work skills. • Social and organizational capital operates at a societal level and encompasses networks and organizations that mobilize and coordinate individuals’ contributions. It contributes to an efficient and cohesive society by facilitating social and intellectual interactions. Examples of social capital are neighborhood associations, civic organizations and cooperatives, political and legal structures that promote political stability, democracy, government efficiency, and social justice. • Natural capital encompasses the components of nature that contribute directly and indirectly to human welfare. They include natural resources that are directly relevant to the production process such as wood, water, and mineral reserves, which become raw materials for production of food, fuels, metals, timber, etc., and natural assets such as biodiversity, endangered species, and ecosystems, which provide life-supporting functions (e.g., water and air purification) and amenity services (e.g., landscape, beauty, and recreation) and are therefore the basic conditions for human welfare. Although there is a consensus that welfare derives from the aggregation of the abovementioned capital stocks, large disagreement exists concerning the proper combination of the capital stocks necessary to generate wealth in the long term (Barbier 2003; Neumayer 2013). While some advocate that it is the total value of aggregated capital stocks, i.e., the total capital stock, that must be maintained over time with possible substitution between the natural capital and the man-made and human capital (Pearce and Turner 1990), others argue that the natural capital stock must be maintained at least at the current level, since some forms of the natural capital are nonsubstitutable by the other capital types, but rather complementary (Daly 1992; Costanza and Daly 1992). These opposing views led to differentiation

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

between four degrees of sustainability ranging from “very weak” to “very strong” (Turner 1993). In the following section, the moderate concepts of WS and SS will be discussed, and the differences to their extreme forms mentioned above will be addressed. Weak Sustainability The notion of WS, also called “Solow–Hartwick sustainability” as it is based on the work of Nobel Prize winners Robert Solow (1974) and John Hartwick (1977) (see Neumayer 2013), is rooted in the premise of perfect substitutability between the different types of capital including natural capital. WS has its theoretical foundations in the neoclassical theory of economic growth and capital accumulation and is extended to include nonrenewable resources as a factor of production (Dietz and Neumayer 2007). According to the WS approach, in order to avoid decline in consumption due to the scarce nature of nonrenewable resources (see Dasgupta and Heal 1974), early generations are allowed to use resources in an optimal way as long as they add optimally to the stock of reproducible capital (Solow 1974, in Neumayer 2013). Based on the standard economic presumption that welfare is not dependent on a specific type of capital - since the welfare produced by the different parts of capital is essentially the same type - the WS approach assumes that natural capital can also be substitutable by other forms of capital. Essential for long-term welfare, according to this view, is the maintenance of an economy’s productive capacity (Neumayer 2013), i.e., the total capital stock over time, and the transmission of this maintained capacity across generations as to enable a constant consumption level. A requirement for this is an initial stock of total capital – including the initial endowments of natural resources, large enough to support a decent standard of living (Hediger 1999). The concept of WS is regarded as an extension of the “very weak” sustainability approach, as it adds some conditions to the substitution between capital forms. The proponents of WS advert that for a development to be sustainable, savings from nonrenewable resource use should be invested in

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

man-made and human capital to an extent that allows for compensation for the depreciated natural capital (Pearce and Turner 1990). In this case, there is no need to implement supplementary policies for sustainable development, as this will be guaranteed automatically. The WS paradigm presupposes that natural resources are abundant and that technical progress can overcome resource constraint by increasing the productivity of the natural capital faster than its depletion (Dietz and Neumayer 2007). The main criticism of the WS approach concerns the assumed substitutability of natural resources by man-made capital. This type of sustainability is often acknowledged as a condition for economic growth over time rather than a condition for sustainable development (see Hediger 1999). Strong Sustainability The SS approach requires maintaining different kinds of capital intact separately. Its proponents argue that substitutability of natural capital through other capital forms is largely limited due to the essential and unreproducible contribution of some elements of natural capital to human wellbeing (Daly 1992). While some functions are essential (critical) to the maintenance of the natural capital itself (e.g., regulation and habitat functions), others are essential for providing goods and services that directly benefit human society (e.g., wood, food, water) (Costanza and Daly 1992). This so-called critical natural capital (CNC) is responsible for important environmental functions that cannot be substituted in the provision of these functions by manufactured capital, and should thus be considered complementary to the other forms of capital, and maintained intact over time (Daly 1992). Daly (1995) points out that SS does not corresponds to the belief that “no species could ever go extinct, nor any non-renewable resource should ever be taken from the ground, no matter how many people are starving” (ibid, p. 49); this idea is discarded by him and referred to as “absurdly strong sustainability” (ibid). With this differentiation, the SS paradigm distinguishes itself from the “very strong sustainability” approach, which is often advocated by deep ecologists who call for

379

absolute conservation of all natural capital (Dietz and Neumayer 2007). Deep ecology is based on an ecological philosophy that focuses on planets’ needs, in the first place “valuing the intrinsic rights of organisms” (Conesa-Sevilla 2006: 26). Later supporters of deep ecology have started to develop the idea of “deep sustainability” based upon “ethical, philosophical, and spiritual foundation upon which authentic ecological, social, and economic sustainability can be built” (Ikerd et al. 2014). This movement calls for moving beyond resource efficiency and substitution of natural resources through the development of a worldview that is different from the present one and which redefines the status of human beings in the world in relation to nature (see Foster 2002). Several theoretical, ethical, and methodological rationales are advocated by SS proponents in the defense of the SS approach. Firstly, due to lack of knowledge about how certain natural cycles work (i.e., global carbon and biogeochemical cycles), there is considerable uncertainty about risks that might be irreversible and therefore not reproducible by other capital forms. Secondly, societies might be highly averse to losses of natural capital functions that directly provide us with wellbeing. From an ethical viewpoint, increased consumption might not be considered an appropriate substitute for losses of environmental assets (Dietz and Neumayer 2007). From a methodological perspective, the SS approach also appears to offer an advantage in comparison to WS, since in SS the different types of capital are distinct from one another; it enables examination of their specific contribution to welfare in terms of monetary value. In contrast, numbers from a WS analysis can only inform whether the overall welfare has been maintained, but they do not reveal to what extent the natural capital was responsible for welfare generation in comparison to other forms of capital. By choosing WS in the first place, it is not possible to verify whether its assumption is justified. However, by choosing the SS approach, it is possible to differentiate in which cases substitutability of the natural capital would be adequate (Ekins 2003). Table 1 summarizes the key differences between the WS and SS concepts.

D

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

380 “Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability, Table 1 Weak versus strong sustainability Weak sustainability Natural, human, and reproducible capital can be substituted for each other Natural, human, and reproducible capital are an aggregate, homogeneous stock Natural capital should be used efficiently over time As long as depleted natural capital is replaced with even more valuable reproducible and human capital, then the value of the aggregate stock will increase Maintaining and enhancing the value of this aggregate capital stock is sufficient for sustainability

Strong sustainability Natural capital cannot always be substituted with reproducible or human capital Natural, reproducible, and human capital cannot be viewed as a homogeneous stock Certain environmental sinks, processes, and services are unique and essential and subject to irreversible loss; and there is uncertainty over their future value and importance Maintaining and enhancing the value of the aggregate capital stock is necessary but not sufficient Sustainability also requires preservation of unique and essential natural capital

Source: Barbier and Burgess 2017.

Assessing the Critical Natural Capital Functions of natural capital have been defined and classified in many different ways (see Fisher et al. (2009) for an overview). De Groot (1992) defines environmental functions as “the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly and indirectly.” The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005; see De Groot et al. (2010) for a concise overview of the services, processes, and state and performance indicators of ecosystems assessed by the MEA) describes environmental functions in terms of “ecosystem services” and classifies them into four main categories. Provisioning services are the products from ecosystems including food, fuel, fiber, fresh water, and genetic resources; regulating services are the benefits from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality maintenance, climate regulation, erosion control, regulation of human diseases, and water purification; cultural services are the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences; and supporting services are services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, such as primary production, production of oxygen, and soil formation. Changes in ecosystems that affect their capacity to provide these products and services have impacts on several aspects of human wellbeing, including access to basic material for a good life, health, good social relations,

security, and freedom of choice and action (ibid.). As shown in Fig. 1, ecosystem services is the stage where biophysical and socioeconomic contexts overlap (Small et al. 2017). According to De Groot et al. (2003), the criticality of parts of natural capital can be determined by assessing its importance (or “value”) in ecological, sociocultural, and economic spheres of human society and by identifying threats to ecosystems driven by changes in their conditions through human activities. Brand (2009) identified six major domains in which natural capital can be considered critical: sociocultural, ecological, sustainability, ethical, economic, and human survival (Fig. 2). Benefits societies derive from each of the mentioned domains can be classified into three types of aggregable values: ecological, social, and economic (TEEB 2010). Methodologies to assess these values (valuation) include ecological techniques, which focus on sustainability aspects and aim to determine sustainable levels of use of ecosystem goods and services; economic techniques, which assert monetary values to ecosystems and focus on efficiency aspects (see Farber et al. 2002); and noneconomic techniques, which provide information about the importance of ecosystem aspects to people (Christie et al. 2008). Ecological Valuation Ecological value refers to the health of a system and is measured by physical parameters related to ecological indicators such as diversity, integrity, and resilience criteria (De Groot et al. 2010).

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

381

Biophysical type (natural context)

i Ecosystem organisation

ii Ecosystem functioning

Beneficiary type (Socio-economic context)

iii Ecosystem services

iv Benefits

v Value

(actual use)

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability, Fig. 1 Cascade model showing key aspects linking ecosystems and derived benefits. (Source: Small et al. 2017)

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability, Fig. 2 Criteria for identifying the criticality of natural capital elements. (Source: Brand 2009)

Some ecological measurement criteria for measuring the criticality of natural capital are the degree of human disturbance in an ecosystem, biodiversity, uniqueness (i.e., the level of rarity of ecosystem and species), fragility to human disturbance, life support value, and renewability of ecosystems (see De Groot et al. 2003). The measurement of threats proposed by De Groot et al. (2003) to determine the criticality of the natural capital is a further ecological measurement. It is based on changes in quantity and quality of the remaining natural capital in a region. Changes in quantity are measured through land-cover databases, which determine the percentage of a region that is covered by a given ecosystem. Quality refers to changes in concepts of integrity and vulnerability estimated by changes

in species richness or pressures on ecosystems (ibid). A further criterion for measuring threat to natural capital is the estimation of ecological resilience in terms of determining the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain important ecosystem services in the face of changes (see Brand 2009) (Fig. 2). Economic and Noneconomic Valuation Economic values can be divided into two broad types: use values and non-use values. Use values are goods for which market prices usually exist and are often divided into two categories: (1) direct consumptive use value of “provisioning services,” which are directly consumed by people such as food and raw materials, and (2) direct

D

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

382

nonconsumptive values from “cultural services” such as recreation and aesthetic appreciation. Indirect use values are usually associated with “regulating services,” such as air quality regulation or erosion prevention, which are generally not included in market transactions. Non-use values reflect the importance attributed to an aspect of the environment and do not involve direct or indirect uses of a related ecosystem service. They are related to values attributed to the simple existence of an ecosystem or its service (i.e., existence value) or associated with satisfaction that people derive from knowing that a given ecosystem is maintained (i.e., altruistic value concerned with intragenerational equity) or will be maintained in the future (i.e., bequest value concerned with intergenerational equity). A type of value in between use and non-use is the notion of option value, which reflects the value placed on keeping the option open to use ecosystem services in the future. The sum total of use and non-use values associated with a resource or an aspect of the environment is called total economic value (TEV) (see TEEB 2010, Chap. 5, p. 15). Several tools exist to determine monetary values of economic and certain sociocultural values. Table 2 shows major valuation tools for economic valuation of tradable goods and for values that are not directly tradable in markets. They may be applied separately or jointly according to the requirements of the valuated ecosystem service. However, due to the complexity of the relations between ecosystems and societies and limitations of the existing methodologies, the real value of some ecosystem services may not be captured by economic valuation tools. This is especially the case for sociocultural values (e.g., amenity, health, education and symbolic meaning, etc.), which may require valuation techniques

other than the ones based on a society’s willingness to pay for an environmental service (WTP) or its willingness to accept abstention from that service (WTA) (see Chiesura and De Groot 2003). In this case, noneconomic techniques may provide complementary information such as consultative methods (e.g., questionnaires and in-depth interviews); more deliberative and participatory approaches such as focus groups, in-depth groups, citizen juries, health-based valuation approaches, Q-methodology, Delphi surveys, rapid and participatory rural appraisal, and participatory action research; and methods for reviewing information such as systematic reviews (Christie et al. 2008).

Implementation of Strong Sustainability Implementation of strong sustainability has implications at both management and policy levels. At the management level, a key principle applicable for renewable resources is to limit exploitation of renewable resources so as to avoid degradation of their stock and sink functions over time. This could be achieved by adoption of harvesting rates that do not exceed regeneration rates and waste emissions that do not exceed the absorptive capacity of the environment (Daly 1990; Contanza and Daly 1992). For nonrenewable resources, a general approach is to minimize the maximum possible loss through the application of safe minimum standards that demand not crossing uncertain thresholds that could lead to potential irreversible results. Such an approach is especially recommendable when considering the uncertainties and difficulties in determining the critical elements of natural capital precisely (Farley 2008). A concept in line with this approach that has gained attention in the literature is the concept of “planetary boundaries”

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability, Table 2 Tools for economic valuation for use and non-use ecosystems values Use value Direct use Market analysis Cost methods Production function

Indirect use

Hedonic pricing Contingent valuation

Source: modified from TEEB (2010)

Option values Replacement cost Mitigation cost Avoidance cost

Non-use value Legacy/existence/altruism Contingent valuation Contingent election

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability

(Barbier and Burgess 2017). The approach suggests defining environmental limits or a “safe operating space” for sustainable economic activities through determination of limits to nine damaging processes resulting from human activities on a global scale: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater use, biochemical flows, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and novel entities (Rockström et al. 2009). In the field of ecosystem management, the concept of green infrastructure (or natural infrastructure) has been promoted in many countries. The idea behind the concept is to complement man-made with natural infrastructure in order to increase sustainability at different scales (see Al-Saidi and Dos Santos Buriti in press). Green infrastructure works as natural areas that capture several benefits through the services provided by ecosystems such as habitat provision, flood protection, cleaner air and water, and water storage (US Environmental Protection Agency 2016). For communities, one of the advantages of investing in natural capital is the improvement of people’s capabilities and eventually their wellbeing (see Pelenc and Ballet 2015). Natural infrastructure can also improve economic efficiency. A prominent example of such is provided by New York City (NYC). The city has the largest unfiltered surface-water supply worldwide, providing about 5 billion liters of water daily to over 9 million consumers in NYC and several suburban countries. Its watershed restoration program was launched in the 1990s as an alternative to investing in a new water filtration plan. The program included a mix of regulatory and nonregulatory approaches as well as participatory initiatives (Pires 2004). A market-based instrument that has been increasingly implemented to incentivize the finance of natural infrastructure projects and the preservation of natural capital is payments for environmental services (PES) to local landholders and users made by stakeholders who wish to benefit from the adoption of practices that secure ecosystem conservation and restoration. Four such often-traded services are carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity protection, watershed protection, and landscape beauty (Wunder 2005).

383

The creation of incentives at the policy level has been regarded as a key step toward SS. Policies associated with green economic activities are likely to promote environmental stewardship and preserve the safe operation space determined by planetary boundaries, and market-based instruments to promote adequate pricing of pollution and natural resources are being largely prioritized (Barbier and Burgess 2017). However, complementary implementation of policies that promote technological innovation, such as public investments, protection of intellectual property, and investments in research and development, is also of equal importance (ibid.).

Conclusion The SS approach states that critical parts of the natural capital must be preserved as to guarantee present and future human wellbeing. This understanding of sustainable development differentiates from the WS approach, which assumes that the natural capital is substitutable by man-made and human capital in the production of welfare. A major argument of critics of the WS approach is that by assuming substitution of the natural capital, society would be taking unbearable risks due to uncertainties about the effects of environmental degradation in natural cycles and the danger of depleting the natural capital to an extent to which compensation for future generations might not be possible due to potential irreversible losses. The protection of the CNC instead allows for preservation of environmental goods and services that are essential to human life, such as provision of food and freshwater, regulation of ecosystem processes such as climate and erosion, provision of cultural services such as recreation, and provision of supporting services needed to sustain all the other services such as oxygen and soil formation. Several methods and tools have been developed to operationalize the SS approach. They include measures to identify, characterize, and evaluate the degree of criticality of natural capital features. An important element of analysis is the assignment of values to the CNC in the different domains in which societies operate, e.g., ecological, social,

D

384

and economic dimensions. However, while there seems to exist several tools to assess the ecological importance and economic values of several CNCs, methods of properly asserting sociocultural values linked to ecosystem services still need to be further developed (see Chiesura and De Groot 2003). Further remaining open issues in need of clarifying research include a better understanding of how environmental services are produced and its quantification, the use of ecosystem services in trade-off analysis and decision-making, and the financing of sustainable use of ecosystem services (see De Groot et al. 2010). Concerning the implementation of the SS approach, the idea of determining a “safe operating space” in which natural resources can be explored has gained increasing attention, as also have measurements to build green or natural infrastructure to complement technological solutions. In terms of policy incentives, there has been a growing trend toward market-based instruments as complementary to command-and-control measures. Of equal importance are incentives toward technological innovation and investments in research and development (ibid.).

Cross-References ▶ Economic Equity and Sustainable Development ▶ Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

References Al-Saidi M, Dos Santos Buriti R (in press) Ecosystem infrastructure for sustainability. Revaluating nature through community-based water and land policies in Brazil. In: Heikkurinnen P, Bonnedahl K (eds.) Strong sustainable societies Barbier EB (2003) The role of natural resources in economic development. Aust Econ Pap 42(2):253–272 Barbier EB, Burgess JC (2017) Natural resource economics, planetary boundaries and strong sustainability. Sustain For 9(10):1–12 Barr S (2008) Environment and society: sustainability, policy and the citizen. Ashgate, Aldershot

“Deep” or “Strong” Sustainability Brand F (2009) Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecol Econ 68:605–612 Chiesura A, De Groot R (2003) Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 44:219–231 Christie M, Fazey I, Cooper R, Hyd T, Deri A, Hughes L, Bush G, Brander L, Nahman A, de Lange W, Reyers B (2008) An evaluation of economic and non-economic techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity to people in developing countries. Defra, London Conesa-Sevilla J (2006) The intrinsic value of the whole: cognitive and utilitarian evaluative processes as they pertain ecocentric, deep ecological, and ecopsychological “valuing”. Trumpeter 22(2):26–42 Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46 Daly HE (1990) Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1–6 Daly HE (1992) From empty world to full world economics. In: Goodland R, Daly HE, El Serafy S (eds) Population, technology, and lifestyle: the transition to sustainability. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 23–37 Daly HE (1995) On Wilfred Beckerman’s critique of sustainable development. Environ Values 4:49–55 Dasgupta P, Heal G (1974) The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources. Rev Econ Stud 41:3–28 De Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature, evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen De Groot RS, Van der Perk J, Chiesura A, van Vliet A (2003) Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecol Econ 44:187–204 De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7: 260–272 Dietz S, Neumayer E (2007) Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: concepts and measurement. Ecol Econ 61(4):617–626 Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development: historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3(2):83–96 Ekins P (2003) Identifying critical natural capital: conclusions about critical natural capital. Ecol Econ 44: 277–292 Ekins P, Simon S, Deutsch L, Folke C, De Groot R (2003) A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital an d strong sustainability. Ecol Econ 44:165–185 Ekins P, Dresner S, Dahlström K (2008) The four-capital method of sustainable development evaluation. Eur Environ 18:63–80 Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392 Farley J (2008) The role of pricing in conserving critical natural capital. Conserv Biol 22(6):1399–1408

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development Fisher B, Turner KR, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653 Foster J (2002) Deep sustainability and the human future. The Trompeter 18(1). Available at http://trumpeter. athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/118/125 Hartwick JM (1977) Intergenerational equity and investing of rents from exhaustible resources. Am Econ Rev 67:972–974 Hediger W (1999) Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability. Int J Soc Econ 26(7/8/9):1120–1143 Ikerd J, Gamble L, Cox T (2014) Deep sustainability; the essentials. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/ sustainabilitydeep/ Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values and practices. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21 MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well being. Island Press, Washington, DC Neumayer E (2013) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 4th edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Pelenc J, Ballet J (2015) Strong sustainability, critical natural capital and the capability approach. Ecol Econ 112:36–44 Pires M (2004) Watershed protection for a world city. The case of New York. Land Use Policy 21(2):161–175 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin AS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Foke C, Schellnhuber HJ (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475 Small N, Munday M, Durance I (2017) The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Chang 44:57–67 Solow RM (1974) Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Rev Econ Stud 41:29–45 TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington. Available at http://www. teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecolo gical-and-economic-foundations/ Turner RK (1993) Sustainability: principles and practices. In: Turner RK (ed) Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice. Belhaven Press, New York/London, pp 3–36 US Environmental Protection Agency (2016) What is green infrastructure? Available at https://www.epa. gov/green-infrastructure/policy-guides WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available at http://www.un-documents. net/our-common-future.pdf Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper 42. Available at https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_ files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf

385

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development Alexandra Ershova, Denis Alexeev, Mikhail Shilin and Tatjana Bagrova Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Definition A study program (SP) on sustainable development (SD) is a set of educational and methodological materials regulating the educational process, aimed at the formation of appropriate competencies in the field of sustainable development. In general, the study program includes a general description where the main mission (idea) of the program is disclosed, a curriculum defining the sequence and a list of disciplines and modules studied, programs (plans) of each discipline, and the conditions for implementing the program.

Introduction Education for sustainable development (ESD) is considered to have a significant influence on environmental awareness, everyday lifestyles, and consumer behavior. The system approach to solving complex sustainability issues requires different disciplines and social actors to meet, learn from each other, communicate, and search for common creative solutions. The university system should respond to these challenges and change from being highly specialized to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and in the last stage transdisciplinary to ensure that students gain knowledge not only within their particular disciplines but become aware of the consequences of human actions in other fields and are able to view them from both a short- and long-term perspective (Dlouhá and Burandt 2015). Study programs in universities should stretch and challenge students, prepare them for adulthood, and support their progression into work or

D

386

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development

further study, i.e., to develop certain competencies. The concept of competences is based on a combination of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are appropriate to particular situations; they combine anticipated results in the cognitive domain with desirable results in other domains (Dlouhá and Burandt 2015). Competencies are cognitive abilities and skills which individuals have or can acquire to solve given problems (Weinert 2001). Study programs on sustainable development (SPsSD) give a basic understanding about the idea of sustainability to the interdisciplinary students followed by the possibility to get specific methodological competences of methods and tools being used in several professional fields. In the field of sustainable development, an important learning outcome is not only theoretical knowledge and its application in practice but also an understanding of the context of a particular situation and development of such competences as critical thinking (Filho 2000). SPsSD also aim to give the general overview of careers in the field of sustainability. They prepare students to apply skills of sustainable development and respond to the needs and possibilities of societal transformation. It opens up potential careers in governmental ministries and other public sector organizations concerned with policy analysis in the fields of sustainable development and environmental planning, NGOs concerned with the sustainable dimensions of economic change, research institutes with applied research, and teaching in institutions of research and higher education. In the private sector, many job possibilities exist in consulting agencies and established companies worldwide. The process of designing SPsSD is based on a systems approach and aims at developing appropriate competencies to prepare the student for not only tackling the current socioeconomic and environmental problems but rather the problems of the next generation that humanity will encounter in the future. For example, for many decades, the changing climate was the topic of most of the discussions in terms of sustainable living; however, now another threat to the environment – the problem of plastic pollution – is discussed in parallel attracting more and more research efforts.

Thus, ideally SPsSD aim at the development of such competencies that will allow to address not only the existing but also possible environmental threats.

Formation of Competencies and Skills on Sustainable Development A competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes). Each key competency must contribute to valued outcomes for societies and individuals, help individuals to meet important demands in a wide variety in a particular context, and be important not just for specialists but for all individuals. Sustainable development and social cohesion depend critically on the competencies of all of the population – with competencies understood to cover knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values (OECD 2005; UNECE 2012). The main competencies formed during the training on SD may include (rev. from Barth et al. 2007; Cebrián and Junyent 2015; Karlin et al. 2012; Segalàs et al. 2009; Shilin and Eremina 2015; UNECE 2012; Weik et al. 2011): 1. Visioning of the future or alternative development scenarios for humanity. 2. Contextualizing: taking into account the different dimensions of a problem or action, the spatial dimension (local-global), and the temporal dimension (past, present, and future). 3. Ability to identify and connect the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of problems. Generate the conditions for systems thinking in the school environment. 4. Critical thinking: creating the conditions to question assumptions and to recognize and respect different trends and views in different situations, systems thinking competence, anticipatory competence, and strategic competence. 5. Decision-making, problem-solving competencies, and participation and acting for change: moving from awareness to action; sharing

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development

387

responsibilities and engaging in joint action; ability to solve complex problems in cooperation with several societal actors. 6. Clarification of values and strengthening behavior toward sustainability thinking, mutual respect, and understanding of other values. 7. Developing teaching and learning approaches based on innovation and interdisciplinarity. 8. Promoting reflection on one’s own emotions and as a means to reach a deeper understanding of problems and situations.

one must possess good communicative and cognitive skills in order to master the required knowledge on SD and to know how to deal with and transfer information to various experts, politicians, public, etc. Thus, when developing an SPsSD, one should focus on training a specialist with systems thinking and capable of analyzing various sources of information (environmental, social, economic, cultural) that should provide interaction between specialists from related fields. The need for critical thinking comes first as there are uncertainties under different scenarios of development and it is not known in advance which challenges may be encountered in the future. One can argue that SPsSD can be introduced at all levels of study – from bachelor to PhD level. However, due to their complexity and learning capacity, the SPsSD might be more suitable for the master level of study, when the study period is shorter (2 years) than at bachelor level (3–4 years, depending on a country) and the program is more adaptable to the fast-changing requirements of modern labor market, societal needs, etc. At this level the students with very broad and diverse backgrounds are welcomed, and the selection of modules is given to enable the leveling of the lack of knowledge in one or another area of social, economic, or environmental sciences. The MSc program usually serves as good preparation for the continuation of PhD studies in socio-ecological systems and sustainability. The process of design and development of the study program can be split into six stages based on the concept of Competency-Based Training in Natural Sciences (Guide to Competency 2018; Guidelines for Trainers in Meteorological, Hydrological and Climate Services 2013):

Common skills gained from a SP on sustainable development may include (rev. from Barth et al. 2007; Cebrián and Junyent 2015; Karlin et al. 2012; Segalàs et al. 2009; Shilin and Eremina 2015; Weik et al. 2011) problem-solving; communication skills; organizational skills and time management; independent research; ability to interpret and analyze data; ability to combine theory and practical application; knowledge of moral and social issues relating to sustainability; ability to critically analyze facts and figures; and understanding of relevant political and economic factors. During the study on the SD courses, students are encouraged to discuss many issues (alternative ways to promote sustainable development in different settings and sectors, etc.) which should lead to the development of excellent communication skills, as well as a range of persuasion techniques and leadership strategies. Together with developing the theoretical understanding of the subject, the students can also be taught how to conduct their own research.

The Process of Designing a Study Program on Sustainable Development The overall goal of SPsSD is to introduce students to the complexity of interactions between humans and nature, to learn various approaches to managing socio-ecological systems, and to manage the real-world problems. To become experts in SD, one does not necessarily need to be an expert in environmental sciences in particular; however,

1. Development of a concept of the study program (SP) that includes the identification of learning needs and the audience of the program: this can be both bachelor- and masterlevel students, depending on the aim of the program and the university focus. 2. Formation of a list of competencies in SD that will be formed during the training. At this stage, it is important to analyze the labor

D

388

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development

market, to interview prospective employers, and to analyze the socioeconomic development of the region (country) and the scientific achievements in this area of SD. 3. Identification of learning outcomes in order to be sure that the graduates of this program will be able to implement the key principles of SD in the particular sphere. An assessment of the necessary resources for the implementation of the study program (pedagogical, material and technical, etc.) is very important together with the possible constraints of delivering the courses. The initial knowledge requirements of prospective students are also identified at this stage. 4. Curriculum development. At this stage it is necessary to determine the list of disciplines and practical exercises that will enable the formation of the necessary competencies and their learning sequence. Programs of disciplines and practical exercises (syllabi) are being prepared. At this stage the elective part of the course must be foreseen and developed too. In the field of SD, the lectures often are interdisciplinary collaborations of different departments, faculties, or even universities. Most of them contain a wide range of lessons across different aspects and sciences. The program should offer the exchange possibilities among students by offering innovative e-learning lectures and also among interdisciplinary and interfaculty lecturers. 5. Learning solutions for the particular courses. In frames of SPsSD, it is recommendable to have so-called “blended” solutions: selfdirected learning with classroom activities. During the classroom phase, general knowledge and concepts on SD are given, and students study the material more in depth during their self-study at home, using online resources recommended by the teacher and other resources they can find. The lectures should motivate the students to become engaged in self-contained group work. The results of the work are presented at seminars, discussed in groups, etc. (work in teams). Online tests and a course forum can be made available for students’ performance assessment. An important

learning solution for the SD courses are case studies. This method is based on the description of real environmental, economic, and social situations. Students analyze the situation, understand the essence of the problems, propose possible solutions, and choose the most appropriate one. Cases are based on real-life material; however, this method allows the students to simulate the situations and provides an opportunity to develop a critical analysis to solve possible problems of the future. Another important stage is the practical training of students, which ensures the connection of a theoretical course of study with practical activities. The training/internship allows students to test the assimilation of theoretical knowledge gained in the process of study, to determine professionally important competencies for the future specialist, and, as a result, to evaluate and propose possible changes to the study program. 6. Reviewing. In order to update and sustain the SP, the interaction between the participants of a study process must be enabled: students, teachers, and employers. The peer review of the SP can be both internal and external. In the first case, the review process can be conducted directly by the educational organization (HEI), and in the second case, it will be the representative of the employer. Major comments and recommendations are collected in order to make appropriate adjustments to the curriculum and syllabi. These procedures should not only be carried out during the development of the program but also during its implementation. The courses must be evaluated regularly to provide information on student competence mobilization in a context close to their professional practice, so an important part of this stage is the survey of students and former graduates.

Structure of the Study Program on Sustainable Development The SD is an interdisciplinary program which focuses on the principle that human welfare should advance without exhausting essential

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development

389

resources, without posing risks to upcoming generations, and without causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and the Earth’s resources. It usually focuses on the worldwide development and environmental challenges that have been recognized in international agreements. It explores ways of finding solutions to those challenges by promoting sustainable development. A wide range of specializations is available in the field of sustainable development, allowing to tailor the degree and to begin exploring which careers in sustainability might appeal the most. Elective course modules may overlap with a range of subjects in the natural sciences, geography, sociology, and even psychology. In general the study program can be divided into two main blocks/modules, Module I giving the general introduction to the concept of sustainability and the Module II focusing on special application fields of sustainability, giving an interdisciplinary perspective and the possibilities to obtain knowledge on a special topic. The typical structure of the SP on SD can include the following directions/modules (based on authors’ expertise and a review of European universities’ curricula available online) that according to the specialization of the university/school can be both compulsory and elective:

students an understanding of the underlying scientific principles, focusing on the interaction between humans and the environment, combining aspects of physical geography, hydrology, landscape ecology, toxicology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Students may also learn the approaches to managing the pollution – innovative technologies of clean air, water, and soil. A special focus is usually given to the climate change topic with an overview of basic concepts in the field of climate mitigation or adaptation processes, including a discussion of IPCC Reports and present scenarios of climate change. The topics of the module may include the following: European and international climate policy; modelling and scenario techniques on climate change; economic analysis on emission trading; renewable energy technologies and policy aspects; ocean and climate – flood risks and hydrological mapping; and adaptation and mitigation strategies in coastal areas. This module is a good example of how to train students on interdisciplinary exchange and to handle complex items. Switching to other perspectives and transferring findings to other non-experts are important skills for future managers governing the transition to a sustainable society. The IPCC assessment acts as a case study and an information pool for solving societal challenges on different aspects (Hergert et al. 2011). – Energy and Materials: focuses on the production and consumption of energy and materials in society. This subject focuses on strategies to maintain the plentiful supply of energy needed to support our modern lifestyles in the developed world, without damaging or draining the environment. The module introduces basic technologies of renewable energy supply, including physical principles and applications of different technologies. Climate change aspects may be added to the discussion of energy aspects in a broader perspective. In the end students should develop the understanding of a range of technical, regulatory, and financial perspectives on the challenges related to transitioning to alternative energy systems.

– Introductory Module: historical prerequisites of the SD concept, theories of biosphere and noosphere in works of various philosophers and naturalists (J.-B. Lamarck, E. Suess, É. le Roy, P. Teilhard de Chardin, V.I. Vernadsky, J. Lovelock, etc.), projects of artificial biospheres (Biosphere-2, Bios-3), concepts and theories of sustainable development, global and EU policies, international environmental agreements, etc. The module should give a broad overview of the development of the sustainable development concept: the basic idea, history, environmental strategies, laws, norms, and audits. – Environmental Change and Ecosystems: global environmental problems (depletion of resources, pollution, climate change, biodiversity change, etc.) and sustainable use of land and water. This module should give the

D

390

Design of Study Programs on Sustainable Development

– International Development, Global Governance, and Environmental Ethics: focuses on sustainability issues and living conditions in the global scale with an approach based on social sciences. This module focuses on understanding the root causes of poverty and inequality and examining the ways in which poverty can be overcome. It studies the social changes required to achieve an environmentally accountable society. It also covers the issues of environmental ethics expanding the traditional boundaries of ethics from humans to the nonhuman world, discussing the questions of moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on earth and the preservation of biodiversity as an ethical goal. – Sustainable Development in Practice: focuses on a range of topics including current issues in various economic sectors, the nature of their sustainability and their sustainable development, and examples of emerging applications, innovations, and patterns of sustainable management of these sectors. These include sustainable industry, sustainable energy sector, sustainable transport, spatial planning, sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, etc. Students are taught sustainable innovations as a key component of the competitiveness of a modern enterprise and the existing environmental technologies: environmental protective technologies, organizational environmental innovations, innovative products and services, and ecosystem innovations. This includes both innovations in technologies (resource-saving and zero-waste) and regional nature management innovations, improvement of the system of financial (resource) provision of environmental activities and the system of environmental education of population, development of environmental entrepreneurship, and rehabilitation of agricultural lands, chemically contaminated due to extended use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides. Special attention is given to the process of urbanization and the concept of a sustainable city. The module should also discuss the personal contribution of a single resident/student to SD: the concept of a “green” workplace, home, etc. Several

careers can be developed depending on a focus of the course: A sustainable development officer – promotes a particular employer’s sustainability practices in the local area A conservation officer – works to protect a natural environment and raise awareness of the ways in which the local community can enjoy its settings without having a negative impact A recycling officer – aims to reduce waste by promoting recycling in their local area and planning and developing environmental and waste reduction policies and schemes An ecologist – studies the relationship between ecosystems and their environment and often specializes in a certain area, such as marine life, carrying out fieldwork to assess the impact of human activity in the area and then advising on relevant sustainability practices, such as monitoring pollution and waste management – Ecological Economics: focuses on sustainability from the perspective of economics, developing an understanding of how economic activity can contribute to environmental and social problems, and various tools and strategies by which to lessen or resolve these problems. The module can offer the skills of sustainability analytics: gathering data and research to help companies address their environmental responsibilities. This includes analyzing what environmental impacts the company is having and how these can be improved, for example, by promoting recycling or encouraging more ethical purchasing, or an energy efficiency analytics of a project or building with recommendations for improvement. Also, students can be taught selected concepts, methods, and tools of corporate sustainability management like environmental and social accounting, environmental reporting, and auditing. In the end, the skills students gain during their bachelors/masters in sustainable development should equip them for a range of careers in sustainability, spanning the sectors of clean energy,

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

technology, education, management, political science, business, and more – with high demand in many industries for graduates in this subject.

References Barth M, Godeman J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 8:416–430 Cebrián G, Junyent M (2015) Competencies in education for sustainable development: exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability 7:2768–2786. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su7032768 Dlouhá J, Burandt S (2015) Design and evaluation of learning processes in an international sustainability oriented study programme. In search of a new educational quality and assessment method. J Clean Prod 106:247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014. 09.096 Filho LW (2000) Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 1(1):9–19 Guide to Competency (2018) World Meteorological Organization (WMO). WMO-No. 1205. 63 pp. ISBN 978-92-63-11205-7 Guidelines for Trainers in Meteorological, Hydrological and Climate Services (2013) World Meteorological Organization (WMO). WMO: No. 1114. 96 pp. ISBN: 978-92-63-11114-2 Hergert R, Barth V, Klenke T (2011) Interdisciplinary and interfaculty approaches in higher education capable of permeating the complexity of climate change. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Universities and climate change: introducing climate change to university programmes. Springer, Heidelberg Karlin L, Shilin M, Eremina T, Ershova A, Suzyumov A (2012) Studying sustainability through the research with the floating university project. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Sustainable development at universities: new horizons. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp 723–731. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-65302283-4. ISBN 978-3-631-62560-6. hb. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2012. 994 pp OECD (2005) The definition and selection of key competencies: executive summary. Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2018 Segalàs J, Ferrer-Balas D, Svanström M, Lundqvist U, Mulder KF (2009) What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European Universities. Sustain Sci 4:17–27 Shilin MB, Eremina TR (2015) Achieving sustainability in applied marine science education: using European experiences in Russia. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L,

391 Kuznetsova O, Paço A (eds) Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 397–409. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10690-8_28 UNECE (2012) Learning for the future: competences in education for sustainable development. UNECE, Geneva. Available online: http://www.unece.org/ fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_Publications/Compe tences_Publication.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2018 Weik A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218 Weinert FE (2001) Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen – eine umstrittene Selbstverstandlichkeit. In: Weinert FE (ed) Leistungsmessungen in Schulen. Beltz, Weinheim, pp 17–31

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development Violeta Orlovic Lovren Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Definitions Didactic reorientation

Teaching strategy

The process of transforming teaching strategies and practice toward integration of sustainability in higher education and learning. Used here interchangeably with “teaching approach,” referring to the carefully planned, systematic design of the teaching process by selecting the content and diversity of methods and techniques which will meet learners’ needs as well as desired outcomes. While the strategy generally reflects teachers’ personal philosophy and beliefs (Zinn 2004), their perspectives on teaching (Pratt et al. 2016), their preference of theoretical concepts underpinning learning and teaching, as well as their teaching styles and

D

392

Didactic reorientation

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

experience, in this context it would in addition, rely on their understanding of philosophy and principles of sustainability and the ways it should be integrated into higher education. One of the important aspects of reorientation of education, which is a wider process of changes in all segments of educational systems. It is closely linked to reorientation of education of teachers, which makes precondition for successful didactic and education reorientation.

Introduction Starting from the agreement that education for sustainable development (ESD) involves “inclusive and integrative approaches to learning and teaching, using applied, futures-oriented, critical and participatory pedagogies” (Tillbury and Ryan, http://efsandquality.glos.ac.uk/user_quide_ to_this_resource.htm), didactic reorientation toward sustainability may be seen as the application of ESD into curriculum and teaching practice of higher education. The process of applying ESD is seen today as a contribution to “a new culture of education and a new direction in teaching and learning of content and methods” (Dannenberg and Grapentin 2016, p. 8). “ESD is holistic and transformational education that addresses learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment” (UNESCO 2017, p. 7) or “content, context, pedagogy, global issues, and local priorities” (UNESCO 2005, p. 16). Thus, didactic reorientation refers not only to renewal of higher education curricula but also to rethinking and changing of teaching strategies and methods while “supporting the acquisition of competencies that enable people to live and act in a sustainable way” (Dannenberg and Grapentin 2016, p. 8). Following the concept of didactics which comprises both content and various forms of teaching and highlights the “importance of what

is taught, how it is taught and why it is taught, and the question of what you educate for” (Schnack, according to Madsen 2013, p. 3772), in considering didactic reorientation, we will start from briefly addressing the question “why” (we need reorientation of education and teaching) and continue looking at aspects of changes required in curriculum (“what”), then at issues related to teaching approaches and strategies (“how”), and getting finally to competences that should be the outcome of the teaching and learning for sustainability (“what for”). Innovations brought by application of ESD into higher education are inevitably interlinked with general innovations in education, teaching, and learning and, in such interconnections, should contribute to quality of education in universities. One of the important elements of this process is assuring access to quality professional development and enabling climate for teachers to participate in transformation of their teaching strategies within the “whole institution” reforms, supported by the policy at the global, national, and local level.

Why Do We Need Didactic Reorientation Describing general trends existing in education nowadays, authors rightly recognize the following: “(1) the development and diffusion of ICTs, (2) the increasing demand for new educational approaches and pedagogies that foster transformative and lifelong learning, and (3) the reorientation of educational curricula to address sustainable development (SD)” (Makrakis 2012, p. 90.). Among the core requirements brought to education by the widely accepted concept of sustainability is the need to contribute to the transformation of lifestyles and perspectives. It is being formulated in key documents reflecting the global policy in the field of education for sustainable development (ESD), from the preparations for the World Decade on the Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005–2014), through the Global Action Program (GAP) for ESD (https://en.unesco.org/gap), to the documents following the latest adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

Participants of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development held in Aichi Nagoya, Japan (2014a), in particular, “emphasize the potential of ESD to empower learners to transform themselves and the society they live in by developing knowledge, skills, attitudes, competences and values required for addressing global citizenship and local contextual challenges of the present and the future, such as critical and systemic thinking, analytical problemsolving, creativity, working collaboratively and making decisions in the face of uncertainty, and understanding of the interconnectedness of global challenges and responsibilities emanating from such awareness” (UNESCO 2014a, p. 1). Facing the big question of the quality of education which would meet the needs of the society now and in the future responses of the global policy led to the agreement on necessity for “reorientation of education,” placing “reorienting teacher education. . .at the heart of this task” (UNESCO 2005, p. 59). While large participation in transformative processes is expected and supported by formulation of all SDGs, one of it, the Goal 4, directly sets requirements for quality, lifelong, and inclusive education for all (UN 2015). Following those expectations, the role of education systems and educators is not anymore in providing knowledge only, but, as suggested, “to focus on learning environments and on new approaches to learning” (UNESCO 2015, p. 3). In universities which play particular role in transformation toward sustainability, teachers should be the “facilitators and enablers of learning” rather than “dispensers of information and knowledge” (UNESCO 2012, p. 10.) In such a global context, growing efforts of integrating sustainability in universities are taking place, directed not only toward acquiring and transmitting knowledge but also at reflecting on “further effects and the complexity of behavior and decisions in a future-oriented and global perspective of responsibility” (Barth et al. 2007, p. 416). Results of studies looking at teachers’ perspectives of barriers in integrating sustainability in HE show how they are aware of their responsibility for this (their own lack of time and

393

awareness) but that they also feel the lack of institutional strategy and support (Orlovic Lovren 2017). All those requirements and barriers put high demands on teachers, who now should not only develop their own competences for “sustainable thinking and living (learning to live sustainably)” (Makrakis 2012, p. 91) but also to actively contribute to establishing of an “enabling didactic” (Barth et al. 2007, p. 419), by creating learning environments in which there will be enough space for initiating development of sustainable competences of others.

Transforming Curriculum Toward Sustainability Integrating sustainable development into curriculum may be understood as infusion of its core (and extended) dimensions – environmental, economic, social, cultural, and political (Lang, according to Badjanova et al. 2014) – not only in terms of its content but also “in terms of their objectives and with the aim to develop interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary understanding and knowledge of social, cultural, economic and environmental sustainability” (Makrakis 2012, p. 91.). Global policy efforts to promote importance of incorporating ESD into curricula of education at all levels and to support teachers and institutions along that process may be recognized and followed in continuity during the first two decades of the twenty-first century. Under the auspices of UNESCO, the Chair in Reorienting Teacher Education Toward Sustainability (UNESCO Chair) was established in 1999, with the aims to provide guidelines on reorienting teacher education to address sustainability (UNESCO 2005), to initiate research in this field, and to foster networking of teachers and teacher education institutions. It resulted in creating of the International Network of Teacher Education Institutions (IN), now covering hundreds of teacher education institutions in more than 60 countries (http://unescochair.info.yorku.ca). In reorienting curriculum toward sustainability, the UNESCO Chair and the IN use a framework

D

394

of five components: knowledge, issues, skills, perspectives, and values and their interrelationship (McKeown et al. 2002; UNESCO 2005). As defined in the UNESCO documents following the UN DESD, “Education for sustainable development (ESD) is not a particular programme or project, but is rather an umbrella for many forms of education that already exist, and new ones that remain to be created” (https:// en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-dev elopment). It is recommended to incorporate ESD approach in curricula of formal education at all the levels. As further elaborated, ESD is not just one more subject or “an add-on to existing curriculum” (UNESCO 2014b). Integrating ESD in higher education also aims “not just to alter certain courses or to set up new courses, but to influence core educational practices” (Tilbury and Ryan, http://efsandquality.glos.ac.uk/user_ quide_to_this_resource.htm). Teaching strategies and practices are therefore mutually interrelated with reviewing and changing of curricula using the ESD approach(es). While each institution for HE and education of teachers may decide about its own criteria to be used in developing curricula and programs, it is important to consider local specificities and, at the same time, as recommended, to provide opportunities for exchange of best practice that can be used and modified to another cultural and social context around the world (UNESCO 2005). Focusing on HE institutions and its curricula, authors call for considering relations between the quality and reorientation toward sustainability, emphasizing the transformative potential of ESD. Therefore, they urge for necessity to consider the implications of ESD as “an overarching quality agenda for the curriculum” and to “understand the potential of ESD for their contribution, role and position in the future HE system” (UE4SD 2015, p. 33).

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

Transforming Teaching/Learning Processes Toward Sustainability

and content into curricula. It also asks for “an action-oriented, transformative pedagogy, which supports self-directed learning, participation and collaboration, problem-orientation, inter and transdisciplinarity and the linking of formal and informal learning” (UNESCO 2017, p. 7). Planning of the teaching process and teacherslearners interaction in higher education, as in any other segment of educational system, makes one of the core responsibilities of teachers. Having in mind autonomy of universities as institutions as well as higher level of freedom characteristic for university teachers in terms of planning, programming, and incorporating changes in curricula, it may be expected that in higher education, teachers might have stronger feeling of ownership over the content and the learning process and opportunity to response faster, adjusting it to requirements toward “didactic reorientation.” Developing of both – whole curriculum reform and stand-alone courses – has been recognized as combination of strategies applied in different HE nowadays, reflecting flexibility of approaches within different institutional and social environments (Mulder et al. 2012; Leal Filho et al. 2018). While there is sometimes huge discrepancy between requirements and developments in practice, in the era of global reconceptualization of teaching approach, there is extensive agreement in the literature on transformative role of learning and competences that should be developed through that process (Orlovic Lovren 2018). In order to design their strategies to meet these complex needs and requirements, teachers should understand and successfully apply those “critical, futures-oriented and inclusive pedagogies” in accordance with “new educational principles based on active and participative approaches to learning and teaching” (Ryan and Tilbury, according to UE4SD 2015, p. 30). Such “pedagogies” are dominantly influenced today by the following theoretical ideas and policy concepts found in literature in both education and sustainability fields:

As stressed in the literature and in the policy documents, integrating ESD into education means more than just infusing certain issues

Humanistic and Value-Based Approach Humanistic approach has been strongly reflected in UNESCO global policy of education, which is

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

particularly influenced by the Faure’s (1972) and Delors’ (1996) reports. Despite the rapid changes that took place since that period, it is rightly recognized today that sustainability requires respect for basic humanistic values, which make foundation of the approach to education, including “respect for life and human dignity, equal rights and social justice, cultural and social diversity, and a sense of human solidarity and shared responsibility for our common future” (UNESCO 2015, p. 39). As seen by authors, the goal of ESD is based on “the need to ensure human dignity in all aspects of life and to build respect for other cultures and next generations in a context specific way” (UE4SD 2015, p. 30). If there is wide agreement to lead the world toward the rapid change, it is necessary for teachers to relate to both individual and group values, its contextualization and cultural specificity, in the larger context of global humanistic values as listed above. The “paradigm shift,” “radical change,” and “critical perspective” of citizens in the twenty-first century are not possible to develop through education and teaching efforts if personal, cultural, and humanistic values are not seriously taken into consideration. Integrated Approach The 1996 Delors’ Report is also often considered as foundation of an integrated vision of education based on two key concepts, “learning throughout life” and the four pillars of learning – to know, to do, to live together, and to be (UNESCO 2015, p. 40). In the recent analysis of the learning pillars within the sustainability framework, Makrakis claims that those should be extended with another one – “learning to transform oneself and society” (Makrakis 2012, pp. 85–86). Integrated approach to education may be also interpreted in terms of covering multiple dimensions – social, economic, ethical, cultural, civic, and spiritual (UNESCO 2015, p. 39) – as well as environmental dimension in learning and teaching for sustainability. Following principles of sustainability as well as of quality education, integration may be also seen as building of mutual connections between theory and practice (Orlovic Lovren 2017). It is one of the teachers’ important roles to ensure

395

these connections, not only while designing the teaching process but also in planning cooperation with practitioners or visits to the “real-life” institutions while involving community. Holistic Approach In line with global trends in theoretical and research studies of learning and teaching, the approach to education for sustainability needs to be holistic, addressing the whole person, while overcoming “the traditional dichotomies between cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects” (UNESCO 2015, p. 40). One of the essential characteristics of various “pedagogies” supporting the implementation of ESD nowadays is exactly orientation toward the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective (“head, hands, and heart”) domains of learning, “. . .resulting in profound changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes related to enhancing ecological, social and economic justice” (Sipos et al. 2008, p. 68). Participatory Approach Within this approach, there is variety of principles and concepts, derived from Freire’s critical pedagogy (active learners, learners’ voice) (Freire 2005), inspired by various constructivists’ theories seeing learners as participants in creation of meaning and co-constructors of knowledge (learner-centered approach) or by experiential learning theory, mostly related to Kolb’s model of the learning cycle (Kolb 1984.). Those theories and approaches make foundations for design and application of collaborative, cooperative, actionoriented, problem-based, or problem-centered teaching strategies and methods. Active learning also includes “. . .the engagement of a student at a new level of awareness of their own learning, or metacognition” (Robertson 2018). Learning from the experience through case studies, simulations, and scenarios as well as reflecting on meaning which such a learning process has for students supports development of critical thinking (Brookfield 2013), as one of the abilities of essential importance for understanding and practicing sustainability. Another important point of “active engagement” of the learner is that with rapid progress in learning and communication technology used in

D

396

education nowadays, it becomes generally, as well as in application of ESD, “virtual” (Tilbury 2011, p. 28), demanding from teachers’ improvements in using ICT opportunities and skills. Transformative Approach Education and teachers are invited to contribute to processes of “transforming our world,” thus influencing critical perspectives of people. It necessary touches upon our values and grows the need to question and evaluate our perspectives. It is therefore not surprising that transformative learning theory makes significant impact on authors in higher and adult education as well as on teachers in various institutions and programs. This approach is originally influenced by the Mezirow’s (1991) theory with critical reflection as one of the main concept. Among many concepts born on those ideas, there is one called “transgressive learning,” emphasizing that one of the roles of ESD is to “overcome the status quo and prepare the learner for disruptive thinking and the co-creation of new knowledge” (Lotz-Sisitka et al., according to UNESCO 2017, p. 55). Application of transformative approach requires good knowledge of methods and flexible strategies of teachers, having in mind that this is not linear process in which a certain set of methods of teaching can guarantee transformation (Cranton 2002). Not one but entire set of pedagogies “that promote critical self-reflection that lead to transformed habits of the mind” (Leal Filho et al. 2018, p. 287) may be used by teachers in developing strategies contributing to reorientation of learning toward sustainability. While there are plenty of individual theories and concepts behind each of the above briefly presented approaches, it may be recognized that all of them are affecting changes in the role of teachers – from being an educator to becoming a facilitator of learning (Barth et al. 2007). The variety of (social, cultural, and institutional) contexts as well as of teachers’ perspectives creates specific environment for performing teaching, applying sometimes significantly different strategies and methods – with the same educational purpose in mind.

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

What for: Competences for Sustainability In the current literature, competences are generally understood as “a complex combination of knowledge, skills and abilities/attitudes needed to carry out a specific activity, leading to results” (Buiskool et al. 2010, p. 10). Overcoming an instrumental approach which defines desired learning outcomes in terms of changing behavior, in general education as well as in ESD, emancipatory concept seems to prevail in the current literature (Vare and Scott 2007; Wals 2015; Rieckmann 2018). Instead of focusing on “fixed aims of developing responsible and environmentally friendly behavior,” teaching process should be directed at supporting development of capacities for participation and critical thinking (Madsen 2013, p. 3774). As expressed by Wals, competences should not be understood anymore “as an analytical term that cuts up human behaviour into smaller pieces” but “. . .as a relational, contextual and emergent property” (Wals 2015, p. 11). While ability to apply knowledge is an important element in the concept of competences, within the sustainability framework there are actions, future-oriented thinking, and decisionmaking components that are particularly stressed. As seen by authors, “the competences combine the demand for ability to act (a desired educational goal) with the understanding of why and how to act so that crucial problems of today are addressed (desired societal goal)”(UE4SD 2015, p. 32). Competences for sustainability are described as “the specific attributes individuals need for action and self-organization in various complex contexts and situations,” including “cognitive, affective, volitional and motivational elements” (UNESCO 2015; Dannenberg and Grapentin 2016, according to: UNESCO 2017, p. 10). Key competences for sustainability are defined as the “transversal, multifunctional and context-independent” attributes (UNESCO 2017, p. 10). There is a variety of sets of key competences outlined by authors today, to serve as a guiding framework in teaching and learning for sustainability (see more in Rieckmann 2018, pp. 42–46).

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development

Despite the notions that competences cannot be simply thought, there is teachers’ responsibility and important role in enabling its development through carefully planned teaching process and reflection, leading learners toward autonomy and success in its using. In order to meet those complex demands, it is necessary that teachers continuously improve their own competences, through different forms of professional development. In various circumstances, within higher education institutions and in their surrounding environments, there are quite different opportunities to meet the desired standards of teachers’ competences and to assure enabling conditions for their work and professional development.

What Next: Professional Development of Teachers Contrary to forecasts that teaching profession will slowly disappear with the development of technology, it is widely agreed today that investments in professionalization of teachers should be priority of education policies (UNESCO 2015, p. 53). There is also considerable agreement in literature and global policy documents that teachers are key agents in transforming education and in particular of didactic reorientation for sustainability. In addition to general teaching competences, they are required to develop key competences for sustainability, as well as to be prepared to integrate ESD into their teaching strategies and delivery of programs. Defining ESD competences as “a teacher’s capacity to help people develop sustainability competencies through a range of innovative teaching and learning practices” (UNESCO 2017, p. 51), the list of learning objectives for teachers is also provided, as a guideline for developing those competences (see UNESCO 2017). Despite the global awareness of the need for teachers’ professional development as a “prerequisite for reorienting educational processes and educational institutions” (UNESCO 2017, p. 52), recent studies, such as that done within the European project “University Educators for

397

Sustainable Development” (UE4SD) in 33 countries and 53 HE institutions, reveal that such mandatory programs exist only in few countries comprised by this analysis (UE4SD 2015). The need for professional development of teachers aimed at developing their ESD competences is even stronger, considering the fact that this has not been provided to many of them around the world within their pre-service education (UNESCO 2017). In accordance with global policy guidelines, “reorienting teacher education involves transforming institutional programs, practices, and policies” (UNESCO 2005, p 71). Therefore it far exceeds responsibility of teachers only. The whole institution approach, policy support, and inter-university and international cooperation make important elements of the enabling climate for improving teachers’ ESD competences and innovation in teaching. Participatory approach in creating professional development programs for enhancing capacities of teachers to contribute to didactic reorientation for sustainability is needed, at the local as well as international level. Innovating teaching approach and practice through integration of ESD principles in higher education may also be considered as a contribution to quality of education. These quality criteria should be incorporated in creating and assessing of programs aimed at professional teachers’ development in this field, as well as in models of their promotion and awarding (UE4SD 2015; http://efsandquality.glos.ac.uk/user_quide_ to_this_resource.htm). Collecting and exchanging of best practice examples of teachers’ development programs as well as establishing of networks of those active in this field are valuable sources and channels for learning to integrate ESD into the teaching in HE (see more at http://www.ue4sd.eu/). While studies show that there are growing attempts of higher education teachers to introduce sustainability into curricula, there is still high demand for empirical evidence on application of active, participatory, and transformative learning strategies and its effectiveness on implementing Sustainable Development Goals (Cotton and Winter 2010; Tillbury 2011).

D

398

Growing number of associations and programs promoting research and strengthening collaboration in higher education sustainability at interuniversity and international level are therefore of tremendous importance for providing empirical evidence and findings which would support improvements in learning and teaching for sustainable development (visit, e.g., https://www. haw-hamburg.de/en/ftz-nk/programmes/iusdrp.ht ml;https://www.haw-hamburg.de/en/ftz-nk/progr ammes/essr.html; http://www.aashe.org/).

Cross-References ▶ Curricular Innovation for Sustainability ▶ ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) e-Learning ▶ Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development ▶ Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development ▶ Participative Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development ▶ Professional Development and Sustainability ▶ Role of Teachers on Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Transferring Knowledge for Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development

References Badjanova J, Iliško D, Drelinga E (2014) Holistic approach in reorienting teacher education towards the aim of sustainable education: the case study from the regional university in Latvia. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 116:2931–2935 Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430 Brookfield SD (2013) Powerful techniques for teaching adults. Jossey – Bass, San Francisco Buiskool BJ, Broek SD, van Lakerveld JA, Zarifis GK, Osborne M (2010) Key competences for adult learning professionals. Final report. Research voor Beleid, Zoetermeer Cotton DRE, Winter J (2010) It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs: a review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In: Jones P,

Didactic Re-orientation and Sustainable Development Selby D, Sterling S (eds) Sustainability education: perspectives and practice across higher education. Earthscan, London Cranton P (2002) Teaching for transformation. In: Ross-Gordon JM (ed) Contemporary viewpoints on teaching adults effectively, vol 93. Jossey– Bass, San Francisco, pp 63–73 Dannenberg S, Grapentin T (2016) Education for sustainable development – learning for transformation. The example of Germany. J Futur Stud 20(3):7–20 Freire P (2005) Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. The Continuum Publishing Group, New York Kapitulčinová D, Dlouhá J, Ryan A, Dlouhý J, Barton A, Mader M, Tilbury D, Mulà I, Benayas J, Alba D, Mader C, Michelsen G, VintarMally K (eds) (2015) Leading practice publication: professional development of university educators on education for sustainable development in European countries. Charles University, Prague. UE4SD Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Leal Filho W, Raath S, Lazzarini B, Vargas VR, de Souza L, Anholon R, Quelhas OLG, Haddad R, Klavins M, Orlovic VL (2018) The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. J Clean Prod 199:286–295 Madsen KD (2013) Unfolding education for sustainable development as didactic thinking and practice. Sustainability 5:3771–3782 Makrakis V (2012) Reorienting teacher education to address sustainable development through WikiQuESD. In: Jimoyiannis A (ed) Research on e-Learning and ICT in education. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, pp 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-14614-1083-6_7 McKeown R, Charles H, Regina R, Maryanne C (2002) Education for sustainable development toolkit, version 2. Waste Management Research and Education Institution, Knoxville Mezirow J (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Mulder KF, Segalas J, Ferrer-Balas D (2012) How to educate engineers for/in sustainable development. Ten years of discussion, remaining challenges. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(3):211–218. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676371211242535 Orlovic Lovren V (2017) Promoting sustainability in institutions of higher education – the perspective of university teachers. In: Leal Filho W et al (eds) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 475–490 Orlovic Lovren V (2018) Learning for sustainability through community involvement in protected area governance. Andragogical Stud 11(2/2018):9–28 Pratt DD, Smulders D et al (2016) Five perspectives on teaching: mapping a plurality of the good, 2nd edn. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development Rieckmann M (2018) Learning to transform the world: key competencies in education for sustainable development. In: Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (eds) Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO, Paris, pp 39–60 Robertson L (2018) Toward an epistemology of active learning in higher education and its promise. In: Misseyanni A, Lytras MD, Papadopoulou P, Marouli C (eds) Active learning strategies in higher education. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 17–44 Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86 Tilbury D (2011) Education for sustainable development-an expert review of processes and learning. UNESCO, Paris Tillbury D, Ryan A. Guide to quality and education for sustainability in higher education. Retrieved from http:// efsandquality.glos.ac.uk/user_quide_to_this_resource.htm UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www. un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1& Lang=E UNESCO (2005) Guidelines and recommendations for ReorientingTeacher education to address sustainability. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000143370 UNESCO (2012) Education for sustainable development sourcebook. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000216383 UNESCO (2014a) Aichi-Nagoya declaration on education for sustainable development. Retrieved from https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/58 59Aichi-Nagoya_Declaration_EN.pdf UNESCO (2014b) Roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on education for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf UNESCO (2015) Rethinking education:towards a global common good? Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000232555 UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. Retrieved from https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 Vare P, Scott W (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191–198 Wals AEJ (2015) Beyond unreasonable doubt. Inaugural address held upon accepting the personal chair of transformative learning for socio ecological sustainability at Wageningen University. Retrieved from https:// arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/841210 0972_ rvb_inauguratiewals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf Zinn LM (2004) Exploring your philosophical orientation. In: Galbraith MW (ed) Adult learning methods, 3rd edn. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, pp 39–74

Web Sites Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development (GAP). https://en.unesco.org/gap

399 IUSDRP. https://www.haw-hamburg.de/en/ftz-nk/program mes/iusdrp.html The European School of Sustainability Science and Research (ESSSR). https://www.haw-hamburg.de/en/ ftz-nk/programmes/essr.html UNESCO Chair in Reorienting Teacher Education towards Sustainability. http://unescochair.info.yorku.ca/

D Difficulty ▶ Sustainability Barriers

Digital Game-Based Learning ▶ Serious Games and Sustainability

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development Sara Becker1,3 and Daniel Otto2,3 1 Faculty of Cultural and Social Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany 2 Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany 3 Interdisciplinary Distance Studies of Environmental Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Synonyms Augmented reality; Blended learning; E-Learning; E-Learning 2.0; Gamification; Mobile learning; Online Learning

Definition Digital Learning: In the literature, there is quite a variety of definitions and conceptualizations of teaching and learning with the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the internet: E-Learning, Online-Learning, Blended

400

Learning, and Mobile Learning – at first sight, all these notions seem to be more or less synonyms. But it is useful to differentiate between these different concepts in order to understand all the facets of digital learning: E-Learning: The early understanding of E-Learning (nowadays called: E-Learning 1.0) is the provision of digitalized learning materials (e.g., PDFs) by teachers via a Learning Management System (e.g., Moodle or Blackboard). Learners use digitalized learning materials for their rather isolated learning process. Communication and collaboration are not constitutive for this very basic form of using ICT for the learning process (Kumar 2009: 2; Bernhard and Kirchner 2007: 21). Online-Learning: In contrast to (the early understanding of) E-Learning, the concept of Online-Learning puts more emphasis on interaction. Communication and collaboration tools evolved from online fora that allowed for asynchronous written communication towards more sophisticated tools like video conferencing system (e.g., Adobe Connect) that also allow for synchronous face-to-face (or rather: webcam-towebcam) communication and interactive seminars in a virtual classroom. Online-Learning can thus be considered as an enhancement of E-Learning 1.0 making learning a social process which takes place online (Kumar 2009: 2). E-Learning 2.0: The development of “social software” has further extended the possibilities of online learning. The influence of new practices on the web (Web 2.0) has resulted in new ways of E-learning (E-Learning 2.0): Nowadays, internet users do not only appear as mere consumers of contents but increasingly as producers and sharers of content (e.g., blogs, wikis, podcasts, social networks, or media sharing platforms). The concept of E-Learning 2.0 stresses the shift from a teachercentered learning approach towards a self-regulated learning process. In a self-regulated learning setting, the learning process is managed by the students themselves and only supported or facilitated by teachers who take the role of mere learning coaches (Bernhard and Kirchner 2007: 21 ff.). Mobile Learning: Mobile Learning means learning processes based on mobile, mostly wireless electronic devices (smart phones, tablets,

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

netbooks, new generation of E-book-readers that allow for internet use, etc.) that merge the functions of several electronic devices (Personal Computer (PC), camera, dictating machine, calculator etc.). Mobile electronic devices allow for a ubiquitous access to learning resources at any time and any place. They offer new contextsensitive learning opportunities, allow for new ways of designing learning materials with the help of application software (short: Apps) and open up ways to easily include user-generated learning contents into the learning process (e.g., through the use of location-based services or the possibilities for audio-visual recording) (de Witt and Gloerfeld 2018). Because of its opportunities for using learning resources generated by the students, mobile learning is one major element of E-Learning 2.0. Blended Learning: Whereas the learning and communication in E-Learning and OnlineLearning settings solely take place in the virtual sphere without meeting physically, Blended Learning means a combination of E-Learning and Online-Learning with learning in a classical face-to-face classroom (Arnold et al. 2011: 18). Against this background, what is Digital learning though? Digital learning is the superordinated concept that includes all the before-mentioned forms of learning. Digital learning transcends the boundaries between online- and physical presence learning as well as the boundaries between formal and informal learning. Digital learning makes use of kinds of technological possibilities to enhance the quality of learning processes. We therefore follow the very broad definition of Ifenthaler (2017) who understands digital learning “as any set of technology-based methods that can be applied to support learning and instruction” (Ifenthaler 2017: 401).

Introduction Evaluations of digital learning have demonstrated a number of positive effects that are relevant to academic teachers and campus administrators: According to these studies, digital learning produces learning outcomes comparable to those

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

from face-to-face instruction, it achieves similar student satisfaction levels, better accessibility for nontraditional and disabled students, higher flexibility, increased participation levels of shy students, or decreased cost for facilities (Campbell and Campbell 2011). In this article, we focus on findings that suggest an additional positive aspect of digital learning: Digital learning seems to be a helpful tool on the way towards a sustainable society. The idea of Sustainable Development, defined as a “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987), has always been closely interlinked with education and learning. The United Nations (UN) proclaimed the “ensurance of quality education for all and the promotion of lifelong learning” as one of their most important Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4) and consider education as the “key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved” (United Nations 2017: 1). The concept of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is a holistic and transformative model of education which aims at empowering “learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society” (UNESCO 2018). To achieve that, ESD must not only foster a change of the actual learning contents (integrating issues such as climate change, biodiversity, sustainable lifestyles, and global equity into the curriculum); it also has to transform the underlying pedagogical concepts and learning environments. This is where digital learning comes in: Digital learning contributes to a sustainable development of our societies as it offers various opportunities to support new kinds of learning which enable students to become agents of a sustainable development. It supports self-directed, collaborative, and problem-oriented learning processes. It is thus built on learning principles that largely overlap with those of ESD and it helps to develop competences in learners that prepare them to think, decide and act sustainably. In addition to this, digital learning is per se a more sustainable of learning as it helps to save resources and emissions.

401

In this article, we demonstrate that digital learning and sustainable development are closely interlinked. In a first step, we point out that the use of digital learning tools offers chances to reduce environmental externalities. In a second step, we show that digital learning offers manifold opportunities to put into effect the postulate of Education for Sustainable Development and illustrate this argument with concrete examples. In a last step, we come to a conclusion linking digital learning to the achievement of the SDGs.

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development Digitalization is increasingly affecting our societies and our individual lives. The increased use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the internet has become an integral part of our everyday lives. The area of teaching and learning is at the core of this fundamental transformation process. The digitalization process changes the media upon which learning processes are based so far. The classical modes of teaching and instruction are being supplemented or even replaced by digital learning methods. Educational scientists have diagnosed a “digital turn” leading from the book-based Gutenberg universe to a technology- and internet-based Digital Age (Kergel et al. 2018: 7). The development and rapid spread of mobile devices and mobile internet (smart phones, tablets etc.) has opened up even more opportunities for an incremental multimedialization of learning resources and processes (de Witt and Gloerfeld 2018: 61). In the following, we describe that the ongoing process of digitalization of teaching and learning can be beneficial from the perspective of sustainability.

Digital Learning as a (More) Sustainable Way of Learning The educational sector also contributes to the consumption of energy and resources as well as the production of CO2 emissions and waste. For

D

402

example, the British NGO Waste Watch showed that further and higher education institutions in the United Kingdom (UK) produce half a million tons of waste per year which is about 3% of all UK commercial waste – some 100 kg per student (Waste Watch 2005 cited in Roy et al. 2008: 117). A main source of CO2 emissions is commuting between students’ homes and the campus. Despite efforts to promote the use of bicycles and public transportation, there are still a relevant number of students and university teachers that commute to the campus using their private cars. Unfortunately, studies on the environmental impact of higher education institutions often do not include student and staff commute as one of the sources of carbon emissions (Versteijlen et al. 2017). The study of Ozawa-Meida et al. (2013) is one of the few exemptions including indirect emissions due to student and staff commute, business travel, students’ trips home, and visitors travel in their calculations for a UK university: The authors report that for this specific university the travelrelated emissions add up to 15,000 t CO2e which is about 30% of the overall emissions of the university. A carbon survey of the University of Bradford showed that emissions from commuting traffic to the university almost reach the same level as emissions from the building stock of the university (Hopkinson and James 2005 cited in Roy et al. 2008: 117). As another important – and growing – source of emissions, Davies and Dunk (2016) point to the inflow of international students in higher education institutions – especially those entering and leaving the country by plane. They calculate that by 2020/2021, emissions from student flights could reach about 2.31 MtCO2e which is equivalent to 111% of estates emissions. There are several studies suggesting that digital learning is a way of learning that helps to save resources and CO2 emissions. Campbell and Campbell (2011) found out that offering online courses leads to a relevant reduction of student commute trips to campus which results in a reduction of carbon dioxide emitted into the environment. Their calculations suggest that offering online teaching formats leads to 5–10 t in reduced emissions for a class of about 100 students per semester. Roy et al. (2008)

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

conducted a study comparing the environmental impacts of full-time on-campus study programs on the one hand and distance study programs (mainly based on digital learning resources) on the other. They find that “distance learning reduces the energy and emissions involved in studying a higher education course dramatically to only 13–15% of those arising from an equivalent full-time, face to face campus-based course” (Roy et al. 2008: 126). These efficiency gains are due to the elimination of much of the travel and built infrastructure required for campus-based systems. This is “because distance learning systems produce eco-efficiency gains by the greater utilization of existing infrastructure, such as students’ own homes and ICT equipment” (Roy et al. 2008: 127). The authors come to the conclusion that, although online courses account for twice as much energy consumption from computing than full-time campus courses, their overall environmental footprint is much better because of paper savings as well as energy savings in travel and infrastructure (Roy et al. 2008: 125). Transport, campus site, and residential energy are the three key factors that “account for most of the almost 90% difference in energy and emissions between the full-time campus based and the distance-taught higher education courses” (Roy et al. 2008: 125). The findings of Caird et al. (2015) support these results. They identified five emission sources in higher education courses namely student and staff commute, use of ICT, use of paper and print, use of residential energy (that is: energy used by studying at home), and campus site operations. For each of these sources, they calculated the CO2 emission per student in higher education courses with differing levels of ICTuse. They find that the overall CO2 emissions of campus-based courses are much higher than those of distance-based courses using ICT. According to their calculations, courses with high ICT-intensity achieve a reduction of carbon emissions of up to 85% in comparison to courses based on face-to-face instruction. Digital learning – in the form of virtual mobility – can also help to reduce emissions stemming from international student (air) travel.

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Virtual mobility – which is “the use of ICT to enable students to collaborate and communicate across borders of space and time” (Bell et al. 2007: 59) – has the potential to be an alternative or at least to be used complementary to real student mobility. Virtual mobility opens up possibilities to connect learners from different cultural contexts while, at the same time, minimizing the harmful side effects for the environment. In their evaluation of the virtual mobility project “LECH-e,” Pérez Salgado et al. (2012) suggest that students participating in virtual mobility projects may obtain the same benefits as they would have with physical mobility, but without the need to travel. In the LECH-e-project, modern ICTs are used to build up an integrated virtual learning environment based on the principles of virtual learning which enables students coming from all over Europe to develop transboundary competence which is the ability to think, communicate, collaborate, and learn across the boundaries of the different perspectives. Moreover, the students gain intervention competence which is the ability to transform academic knowledge into one or more sustainable solution(s) with respect to a climate change problem. Both competences are being developed using a virtual learning environment with open access to the learning materials. Virtual mobility does not only help to further save CO2 emissions but also to democratize student mobility as, in fact, “the numbers of students who benefit from ‘real’ mobility are relatively small due to financial and linguistic constraints” (Bell et al. 2007: 59). Notwithstanding its potential for saving carbon emissions, it should still be kept in mind that digital learning is also not a carbon-neutral way of learning. Following Avgerinou et al. (2017), the ICT sector generates up to 2% of the global CO2 emissions. Especially data centers are of growing importance as they “are estimated to have the fasted growing carbon footprint from across the whole ICT sector, mainly due to technological advances such as the cloud computing and the rapid growth of the use of Internet services” (Avgerinou et al. 2017: 1). Against this background, it becomes clear that digital learning can only stay a sustainable way of learning if it is

403

combined with policy actions to improve the energy efficiency of data centers and of electronic devices and to limit the energy consumption growth. Moreover, the sustainability of digital learning also depends on how the electronic devices are charged, e.g., by using solar-powered battery chargers, the carbon emissions can be further reduced.

Digital Learning as a Means to Realize Education for Sustainable Development The concept of Sustainable Development has always been interlinked with education and learning. From the very beginning, it has been stated that such a fundamental transformation of all parts of society has to be based on a process of societal learning about how to find ways out of unsustainability (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2610). It became clear that Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has to be a significant component of general education to make societies ready for sustainable development. The aim of ESD is to foster the competences for anticipatory and systemic thinking, for autonomous planning of one’s actions, for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, for intercultural dialogue, for dealing with conflicting goals, and for empathy and solidarity. In a nutshell, ESD points to competencies, which “can be learnt but hardly be taught” (Weinert 2011: 63 cited in Barth and Burandt 2013: 2611). To support the development of those key competences, learning processes have to turn away from the traditional instructivist teacher-oriented pedagogies based on mere knowledge-transmission, towards a more socio-constructivist approach which understands learning as a self-regulated, learnercentered process based on experience-oriented and problem-based learning (Bjørke 2011: 80 ff.; Barth and Burandt 2013: 2611). Digital learning has the potential to foster this new kind of self-directed, interdisciplinary, intercultural, collaborative, problem-oriented, value-driven and social learning through innovative learning settings and methods supported by ICT. Digital learning is driven by the concept

D

404

of open learning environments which “acknowledges that learning takes place in manifold forms and depends of a variety of factors” (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2612). The design of such open learning environments is ideally guided by the three following key principles that overlap largely with the abovementioned principles of ESD: selfdirected, collaborative, and problem-oriented learning. Self-Directed Digital Learning for Sustainable Development The principle of self-directed learning expresses that the design of digital learning environments should follow the aim to stimulate a learning process in which learners may construct their knowledge base independently. By steering their own learning paths, learners acquire one of the essential competencies demanded by ESD which is the competence to structure and plan their projects autonomously and to take responsibility for their actions (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2612 f.). However, how can digital learning foster selfdirected learning? As a kind of standard tool for digital learning, Learning Management Systems (LMS) help to structure working and learning processes while, at the same time, allow learners to keep control over their learning processes (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2613). In the LMS, learners find different kinds of learning resources (e.g., PDFs, videos, podcasts, links, and quizzes) as well as forums as asynchronous tools to interact and communicate with teachers and with each other. As an enhancement of LMS, Atwell (2007) has proclaimed the model of Personalized Learning Environments. In contrast to LMS (e.g., Moodle) they are not limited to a specific educational institution such as universities and can be used for lifelong self-directed learning processes (Atwell 2007 cited in Heidkamp and Kergel 2018: 40). Special forms of LMS are platforms that host so-called Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). MOOC platforms host online courses (didactically based mostly on video lectures and interactive user forums) which are open to an unlimited number of participants all over the

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

world. McAuley et al. (2010) define MOOCs as “a significant departure from [. . .] the ‘walled gardens’ of conventional learning management systems” (McAuley et al. 2010: 40). Although it is controversially debated whether MOOCs are truly meeting the high expectations associated with them, it is undisputed that they have the potential of democratizing education and learning – which is one of the essential claims of SDG 4. Collaborative Digital Learning for Sustainable Development The principle of collaborative learning points to the fact that effective learning processes should involve collaborative elements (collaboration between teachers and learners or between learners). Collaboration is more than cooperation as it is not merely about dividing and sharing tasks but about joint learning processes based on participation and empathy to integrate different opinions and approaches, to develop common understandings, and to create a new shared knowledge base collaboratively (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2612). Collaborative learning “takes both cognitive and social-effective aspects into account and integrates an additional dimension of critical reflection” (Barth and Burandt 2013). Freire (2010) also underlines the importance of dialogue for critical thinking: “Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking. Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true education” (Freire 2010: 92 cited in Bjørke 2011: 83). How can digital learning stimulate dialogue, communication and collaboration? Video conferencing (e.g., with Adobe Connect) is one common digital way to integrate communication and collaboration into the learning process. Video conferencing software allows for collaboration through synchronous communication (chatting, microphone, and webcam), sharing content, taking notes on the virtual whiteboard, polling, etc. A second way to foster collaboration in digital learning processes is to mix online learning and face-to-face interaction, i.e., Blended

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Learning. The meta-analysis by Means et al. (2013) found that students in blended learning settings performed significantly better than in purely face-to-face conditions. It is argued that it is the combination of different kinds of learning activities as well as different kinds of learning settings that increases the learning success (Means et al. 2013: 36). A third way to stimulate collaborative learning or, more precisely, intercultural collaborative learning is Virtual Mobility. Virtual mobility uses digital learning tools (LMS, video conference software) to connect learners from different countries in a joint learning experience that enhances intercultural understanding and exchange of knowledge. In some cases, virtual mobility is combined with short phases in which the learners physically meet so that it becomes a kind of Blended Mobility. Both virtual and blended mobility are particularly suitable for ESD as “the dialogue between different cultures, especially the north and the south is regarded as a necessity that will facilitate the development of competencies for the challenges of a complex globalized world and diverse cultural perspectives and their implications” (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2613). Problem-Oriented Digital Learning for Sustainable Development The principle of problem-oriented learning stipulates that digital learning environments should embed learning processes into real-world situations for which learners have to find creative and interdisciplinary solutions. This kind of learning is supposed to go beyond the mere memorization of factual knowledge by developing actionrelevant procedural knowledge and skills (Barth and Burandt 2013: 2612). Following Lombardi and Oblinger (2007), connecting learning processes to real-world experiences (authentic learning) has a strongly motivating effect for learners (Lombardi and Oblinger 2007: 2). Which digital learning tools are capable of supporting problem-oriented learning? Mobile Learning enables new forms of situational learning. The use of smart phones makes it possible to connect learning processes in

405

educational institutions (e.g., universities) to experiences and observations in the daily lives of the learners. For example, in a university seminar on environmental and social policy, Loer and Brockmann (2016) demanded the students to document with their smart phones examples from their respective life contexts that can be connected to the theoretical contents of the seminar. In the end, the students reported that this task strongly motivated them, raised their attentiveness and deepened the learning experience (Loer and Brockmann 2016: 89). To further enhance the learning experience, mobile learning can be embedded in an Augmented Reality which is “a type of virtual reality in which synthetic stimuli are registered with and superimposed on real-world objects” (Sherman and Craig 2003: 18 cited in de Witt and Gloerfeld 2018: 64). While in virtual reality, the user acts in a totally artificial environment, in augmented reality the physical world is visible and just enhanced with virtual objects (e.g. a memorial enhanced with information about its history). Another means to implement problem-oriented learning is to make use of Digital Storytelling. Storytelling means the transfer of experiences and knowledge via the narrative tool of a personal story. The add-on “digital” in Digital Storytelling points to the use of digital tools (mobile phones, dictation machines, video cutting software etc.) in the storytelling process. Otto and Becker (2016) disclose very positive experiences with using digital storytelling for the purpose of education for sustainable development. In their blended learning project “Living with Climate Change – A digital story,” students from two different cultural contexts (Germany, Tunisia) and from interdisciplinary backgrounds worked together virtually and face-to-face in small group over a period of 3 months with the aim to produce a digital story about Tunisian and German individuals experiencing climate change. The evaluation of this digital learning project demonstrated that it enhanced the students’ knowledge about climate change, strengthened their intercultural competences, their competence of critical reflection and their ability to work together in interdisciplinary teams (Otto and Becker 2016: 107 ff.).

D

406

Another possibility to foster digitally supported problem-oriented learning is to make use of Simulation Games. Otto (2017) presents findings from the incorporation of a simulation game into a university course on climate change in the run-up to the Climate Summit in 2015. The course was offered in a blended learning format combining a virtual collaboration phase in which small groups of German and Portuguese students prepared their respective roles and argumentative strategies for the simulation of the international climate negotiations with a face-to-face workshop in which the actual negotiation took place. The evaluation of the project confirmed that simulation games can stimulate experimental learning and deepen the learning experience. Student interaction played a pivotal role for the increased learning motivation and the high learning success (Otto 2017: 1319 ff.). It would also be imaginable to do such simulations games fully online by using video conferencing software for the negotiation sessions. Finally, problem-oriented learning can be fostered through Gamification which is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (de Witt and Gloerfeld 2018: 64). Serious games allow learners to experience virtually a situation that would be difficult or impossible to experience in the real world for reasons of safety, cost, time, etc. Nowadays, a lot of serious games have been developed that deal with the issue of sustainable development. For example in the game “Climate Challenge” a single player takes the perspective of the president of the imaginary European Nations (BBC 2014). He has to tackle climate change while, at the same time, has to stay popular enough to stay in office. A second example is the game EnerCities in which the player serves as a mayor and has to build a sustainable city with a good score in economy, environment, and human well-being until the year 2100 (Katsaliaki and Mustafee 2013). Similar to digital storytelling and simulation games, serious games make it possible that learners do not only acquire theoretical knowledge about a topic from the field of sustainable development but actually experience the issues, problems, and dilemmas connected to that topic which strongly deepens their learning experience.

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Conclusions The world is experiencing increasing pressures from climate change, extreme weather events, change of ecosystems, and conflicts over natural resources. The idea of Sustainable Development is considered as one of the central answers to these challenges. Sustainable Development has always been interlinked with the issue of education and learning. It demands a “quality education system that builds generic and problem-solving skills, creativity, innovation and critical approaches to established ‘truths’” (Bjørke 2011: 80). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) thus plays a key role to enable sustainable development. From its didactical foundations, ESD turns away from the classical teacher-oriented model of instruction because traditional education is considered inadequate to meet the challenges of a global environmental crisis. Instead, ESD builds on a learner-oriented model of self-regulated knowledge construction which is more likely to enable learners to become sustainable change-makers. The didactical concepts behind digital learning overlap largely with those of ESD. Thus, digital learning has a high potential to foster sustainable learning processes. This short overview about different ways of digital learning has demonstrated that digital learning tools are well-suited to develop competencies such as intercultural understanding, interdisciplinary and holistic thinking, communication or dealing with dilemma situations, and uncertainty. Digital learning can help to achieve the SDGs: It saves resources and CO2 emissions, thus contributing to the protection of the climate (SDG 13) and to the goal of responsible consumption and production (SGD 12). First and foremost, it helps to achieve SDG 4 (which is connected to all of the other SDGs): it democratizes the educational sector by making learning resources more easily accessible to learners all over the world; it helps to connect people from different cultures by allowing for intercultural exchange among students without additional travelling; fourth, it facilitates a selfregulated learner-centered style of learning that is well-suited to empower learners to become agents of a sustainable development.

Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

But what’s about the technical requirements in developing countries? Due to decreasing costs for ICT, better internet connections and the widening of digital infrastructures, usage of ICT has increased worldwide; mobile phones have been disseminated rapidly all over the world in recent years. Following Bjørke (2011), it “should be possible to implement the state of the art online education technology in large parts of Africa and Asia, almost as rapidly as it happened with the mobile phones” (Bjørke 2011: 83). Of course, power supply and broadband capacities are still issues in many developing countries but “weak infrastructures are not necessarily absolute obstacles” (Bjørke 2011: 84). There are pedagogical solutions to make digital learning possible despite outages (e.g., asynchronous modes of collaboration instead of the technically more demanding synchronous modes). Anyway, “the reality in the field is rapidly catching up with the pessimists who have been arguing against offering higher online education to Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Statistics show that [. . .] usage growth is the highest in the so-called developing countries. It is thus reasonable to believe that “access to Internet will be widespread also in the developing world in the near future” (Bjørke 2011). Digital learning has the potential to contribute to sustainable development worldwide. But technology itself is not the solution. It is important to keep in mind that “pedagogy must drive technology and not vice versa” (Handke 2015: 14). Digital learning has to be embedded in a didactical concept driven by the socio-constructivist ideas of ESD. It is the combination of learner-oriented transformative pedagogies and ICT that can become a vehicle for sustainable change.

Cross-References ▶ Blended Learning ▶ Constructivism and Sustainable Development ▶ Education for Sustainability ▶ E-Learning ▶ Environmental Education and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Education and Sustainable Development ▶ Soft Competences

407

▶ Online Classes and Sustainability ▶ Serious Games and Sustainability ▶ Technology Enhanced Learning

References Arnold P, Kilian L, Thillosen A, Zimmer G (2011) Handbuch E-Learning. Lehren und Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld Avgerinou M, Bertoldi P, Castellazzi L (2017) Trends in data centre energy consumption under the European Code of Conduct for data centre energy efficiency. Energies 10(1470):1–18 Barth M, Burandt S (2013) Adding the “E-” to learning for sustainable development: challenges and innovation. Sustainability 5(6):1609–2622 BBC (2014) Climate challenge. Why make a game about climate change? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/ climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml Accessed 27 Feb 2019 Bell F, Keegan H, Zaitseva E (2007) Designing virtual student mobility. Paper for the Education in a changing environment conference, University of Salford, September 2007, pp 59–67 Bernhard T, Kirchner M (2007) E-Learning 2.0 im Einsatz. Verlag Werner Hülsbusch, Boizenburg Bjørke SA (2011) E-Learning for sustainable development – rationale, strategies and actions. Int J Media Technol Lifelong Learn 7(2):79–93 Brundtland GH (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 05 Mar 2018 Caird S, Lane A, Swithenby E, Roy R, Potter S (2015) Design of higher education teaching models and carbon impacts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16(1):96–111. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-06-2013-0065 Campbell JE, Campbell DE (2011) Distance learning is good for the environment: savings in greenhouse gas emissions. Online J Dist Learn Adm 14(4). Retrieved March 27, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/76605/ Davies JC, Dunk RM (2016) Flying along the supply chain: accounting for emissions from student air travel in the higher education sector. Carbon Manag 6(5–6):233–246 de Witt C, Gloerfeld C (2018) Mobile learning and higher education. In: Kergel D, Heidkamp B, Kjærsdam Telléus P, Rachwal T, Nowakowski S (eds) The digital turn in higher education. International perspectives on learning and teaching in a changing world. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 61–79 Freire P (2010) Pedagogy of the opressed. New York and London: continuum. Retrieved from http://web.msu.ac. zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_ the_oppresed.pdf Graham Attwell (2007) Personal Learning Environments the future of eLearning? Elearning Papers 2

D

408 (1):1887–1542. Retrieved from http://digtechitalia. pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/88358195/Atwell2007.pdf Handke J (2015) Handbuch Hochschullehre Digital. Tectum, Marburg Heidkamp B, Kergel D (2018) From E-learning to eBologna in an augmented reality. In: Kergel D, Heidkamp B, Kjærsdam Telléus P, Rachwal T, Nowakowski S (eds) The digital turn in higher education. International perspectives on learning and teaching in a changing world. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 37–45 Ifenthaler D (2017) Designing effective digital learning environments: toward learning analytics design. Technol Knowl Learn 22(3):401–404 Katsaliaki K, Mustafee N (2013) Serious games for sustainable development. J Manag Educ 37:889–894 Kergel D, Heidkamp B, Kjærsdam Telléus P, Rachwal T, Nowakowski S (2018) Introduction to the book: the digital turn in higher education. Multi-disciplinary and international perspectives. In: Kergel D, Heidkamp B, Kjærsdam Telléus P, Rachwal T, Nowakowski S (eds) The digital turn in higher education. International perspectives on learning and teaching in a changing world. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 7–12 Kumar RA (2009) E-Learning 2.0.: learning redefined. Libr Philos Pract 2009:1–5 Loer K, Brockmann N (2016) Was nützt Seamless Learning als neues didaktisches Konzept in der Politikwissenschaft? Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 11(4):79–91 Lombardi MM, Oblinger DG (2007) Authentic learning for the 21st century: an overview. EDUCause Learning Initiative Paper. http://m.alicechristie.org/classes/530/ EduCause.pdf. Accessed 06 Mar 2018 McAuley A, Stewart B, Siemens G, Cormier D (2010) The MOOC Model for digital practice. http://www. elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf. Accessed 04 Mar 2018 Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Baki M (2013) The effectiveness of online- and blended learning. Teach Coll Rec 115:1–47 Otto D (2017) Students’ interaction for enhancing learning motivation and learning success: findings from integrating a simulation game into a university. In: Proceedings of INTED2017 conference, pp 1316–1324 Otto D, Becker S (2016) Lernkulturen im (Klima-)Wandel. Digital Storytelling zur Kompetenzvermittlung in interkulturellen Lehr-Lernsettings. In: Dörner O, Iller C, Pätzold H, Robak S (eds) Differente Lernkulturen – regional, national, transnational. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 101–112 Ozawa-Meida L, Brockway P, Letten K, Davies J, Fleming P (2013) Measuring carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montford University case study. J Clean Prod 56:185–198 Pérez Solgado F, de Kraker J, Boon J, Van der Klink M (2012) Competences for climate change education in a virtual mobility setting. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 2012(1):53–65

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education Roy R, Potter S, Yarrow K (2008) Designing low carbon higher education systems: environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(2):116–130 UNESCO (2018) What is ESD? https://en.unesco.org/ themes/education-sustainable-development/what-is-esd. Accessed 07 Mar 2018 United Nations (UN) (2017) Sustainable Development Goal 4. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ education/. Accessed 06 Mar 2018 Versteijlen M, Pérez Solgado F, Janssen Groesbeek M, Counotte A (2017) Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 28:80–89

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education Walter Leal Filho1 and Eric Pallant2 1 Faculty of Life Sciences, World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany 2 Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA, USA

Synonyms Frameworks; Ideologies; Perspectives; Settings; Variables

Definition Sustainability dimensions refer to the variety of perspectives used or followed by universities for pursuing and implementing sustainability. Higher education institutions undertake a diversity of activities in the field of sustainable development, which may include the integration of sustainability into disciplines, the execution of sustainability research projects, and the management of their campuses.

Introduction Higher Education Institutions have the societal responsibility of providing guidance to students,

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education

faculty, staff, and administration (Viebahn 2002; Bantanur et al. 2015), and their decisions affect the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of the communities and regions around them (Katiliute et al. 2014). Therefore, they have been considered significant contributors to the promotion of sustainability and the pursuit of regional sustainability (Karatzoglou 2013). The level of integration of sustainability can range from formulations of policy statements to integration into curricula and other campus activities (Sammalisto and Lindhqvist 2008). Sustainability initiatives require undergoing dramatic changes, which could concern institutions’ mission, focus areas, emphasized disciplines, core external partners, key projects, and operational functions (Beynaghi et al. 2016). Many universities have become engaged with sustainability over the past few decades, yet there is still a lag between the number of universities and the number of companies that have published their sustainability reports or are helping societies become more sustainable (Lozano et al. 2013). What Is Sustainability and How Is It Implemented in Higher Education? In recent years, several definitions of sustainable higher education institutions have emerged (Jorge et al. 2015). Velazquez et al. (2006) defined a sustainable university as “A higher educational institution, as a whole or as a part, that addresses, involves and promotes, on a regional or a global level, the minimization of negative environmental, economic, societal, and health effects generated in the use of their resources in order to fulfil its functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society make the transition to sustainable lifestyles.” These could be implemented through sustainable curricula and/or green campus initiatives, where the first implies full integration of sustainability into all disciplines, and the second, developing and managing campuses through efficient use of renewable resources and other green practices (Bantanur et al. 2015). Cole (2003) defined a sustainable campus community as “the one that acts upon its local and global responsibilities to protect and enhance the health and well-being of

409

humans and ecosystems. It actively engages the knowledge of the university community to address the ecological and social challenges that we face now and in the future.” There is a common understanding that a sustainable university campus should implement an efficient environmental management system (e.g., energy and resource conservation, waste reduction), and promote equity and social justice in its activities at community, national, and global levels (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). The various dimensions of sustainability in higher education were explored in the Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainability in Higher Education (Leal Filho et al. 2017). In general, in higher education, sustainability issues can be categorized into three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic, following the main pillars (e.g., Rusinko 2010; Madeira et al. 2011). Even within these three dimensions, however, there are multiple interpretations and the complex nature of the term “sustainability” makes it difficult to define one single set of sustainability dimensions in higher education. One reason higher education institutions may not be successfully implementing sustainability initiatives may be a result of the lack of clarity with respect to precisely what constitutes sustainability (Bantanur et al. 2015; Velazquez et al. 2006). Nevertheless, one or more pillars are always included as main or subcategories. In 1999, Clugston and Calder discussed the following seven critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education: 1. Including sustainability issues in the written statements of the mission and purpose of an institution, the descriptions of learning objectives and public relations materials of various schools, departments, programs, or offices. 2. Appropriate incorporating of the sustainability concept into academic disciplines, liberal arts, professional education requirements, and faculty and student research. 3. Reconsidering a reflection of the role of an institution in its social and ecological systems. 4. Rewarding faculty members’ activities contributed to sustainability as well as providing

D

410

significant staff and faculty development opportunities to enhance understanding, teaching, and research in sustainability. 5. Integrating sustainable policies and practices in institutions’ production and consumption. 6. Providing institutional support and campus student life services that emphasize sustainability practices. 7. Engaging in outreach and forming partnerships both locally and globally to enhance sustainability. (Clugston and Calder 1999) Based on the analysis of an extensive number of articles presenting university experiences in the field of sustainability, Karatzoglou (2013) formed the following dimensions of sustainability: • • • • • •

Educational Educational and Environmental Educational and Integrative Educational and Networking Educational and Social Integrative

Dimensions of sustainability could also be defined based on directions addressed in international declarations signed by academic institutions. These declarations commit institutions to implementing sustainability through environmental literacy initiatives; curriculum development; research for sustainable development; collaborating with local communities, government, and nongovernmental organizations, industries, “greening” residential life, faculty development, and administrative policies (e.g., Wright 2002; Barlett and Chase 2004). Lozano (2011) addresses four dimensions of sustainability, namely: economic – focusing mainly on income and expenditure; environmental – on energy, water usage, waste generation and emissions; social – on employment, diversity, and opportunity; and educational – on curriculum, service, and research. Waas et al. (2010) suggest that university research should consider economic, environmental, social, particularly, social justice, and institutional dimensions of sustainable development. In addition to the aforementioned categories, various studies discuss political, cultural,

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education

and inter /intragenerational dimensions of sustainability in higher education (e.g., Kagawa 2007; Venkataraman 2009). But Sammalisto and Lindhqvist (2008) discuss a relative shortage of broader, more general frameworks for integrating sustainability into curricula in higher education (Sammalisto and Lindhqvist 2008). Therefore, sustainability in higher education is still far from being integrated in a consistent and holistic manner by university executives (Lee et al. 2013). Barriers and Problems Despite a significant number of universities implementing sustainability initiatives through changing teaching paradigms, developing social competencies, communication skills, and community relations (Karatzoglou 2013), there is evidence suggesting that sustainable development has not yet been fully integrated in all spheres of universities’ activities. Previous studies address the following factors obstructing the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions. Low Importance to Communicate Results Many universities that effectively cope with the complex nature of sustainability give low importance to communication and the distribution of achieved results (Karatzoglou 2013; Katiliute et al. 2014). For instance, the information on sustainable development issues is frequently placed in the lowest hierarchical level of the universities’ webpages and often the section with the title “sustainable development” is not mentioned directly on websites (Katiliute et al. 2014). Different Perceptions Research findings also indicate significant differences of how the process of introducing sustainability across university’s curricula is addressed by faculty from various disciplines, including their attitude to departmental perceptions, training received, interpretations, and performance of sustainability-related teachings (Aznar Minguet et al. 2011). Universities perceive and interpret sustainability based on their different academic traditions and contexts, and, as was discussed above, on the myriad definitions of sustainability and its implementation (Sammalisto et al. 2015).

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education

Resistance to Change From the operational perspective, universities prefer to stay within their zones of comfort (Velazquez et al. 2005), are unwilling to be innovative (Huyuan and Yang 2012), and demonstrate academic conservatism, meaning a reluctance to innovate. Yet, as learning organizations, universities should engage in undertaking more action-oriented research, and link theory to practical collaborative projects (Karatzoglou 2013). Among other barriers that compromise sustainability initiatives in higher education, some authors name a lack of solid support from university administrators (Velazquez et al. 2005; Huyuan and Yang 2012), a generalized lack of performance indicators, and a lack of interest, awareness, and involvement (Velazquez et al. 2005). When performance indicators do exist they usually measure environmental rather than social or economic variables. When there is a lack of incentives, according to Lee et al. (2013), without sustainability policies or declarations, it is very difficult to encourage or motivate members of universities to participate in sustainability initiatives. There is also uncertainty of the efforts required to engage with and incorporate sustainability initiatives (Lozano 2010). In addition, in many higher education institutions there is a lack of training on sustainability. Thus, professors are learning and teaching about sustainability at the same time, and not all educators are being taught how to teach about sustainability (Velazquez et al. 2005). A lack of interdisciplinary research teams capable of providing solutions from economic, environmental, and social perspectives often makes it very difficult to implement sustainable practices (Velazquez et al. 2005; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008). Professors are further hampered by highly dense curricula (Lozano et al. 2013), unable or unwilling to teach more subjects in the same period of time (Velazquez et al. 2005). Also, restricted organizational structures characterized by decentralized management, excessive bureaucracy, student and faculty turnover, and many non-standardized processes inhibit faculty attempts to implement sustainability in their curriculum (Velazquez et al. 2005).

411

Finally, financial constraints (Wright 2002; Velazquez et al. 2005; Huyuan and Yang 2012) are a significant factor in limiting sustainability in higher education institutions. Unfortunately, when financing of projects has been reallocated, sustainability is not considered to be a first priority for many universities. In addition, initial costs for many sustainability innovations can be very steep, making them prohibitively expensive even if returns on investment are substantial. Aspects to Be Considered to Implement Sustainability in Universities There are a significant number of studies analyzing factors influencing the implementation of sustainability in universities. Among these factors are: Nature of University: Public vs. Private There is a difference in means used by private and public universities in promoting sustainability issues. Previous studies demonstrate that private universities may present higher engagement with the implementation of sustainability practices in comparison with public universities (Jorge et al. 2015). Size According to a number of studies there is a positive relationship between organizational size and the implementation of sustainability initiatives (e.g., Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). In other words, larger universities are more likely to implement sustainability practices than smaller universities (Jorge et al. 2015). Perception of a Sustainable University A variety of definitions and issues covered by the term “sustainability” impels each university to define its own ways of conceptualizing a sustainable university in their formal documents, e.g., a master plan, environmental plan, environmental guidelines, environmental statement, etc. (Velazquez et al. 2006). Role of Government Government could play a critical role in the implementation of sustainability in higher education,

D

412

particularly, in terms of offered funding (Ryan et al. 2010) and development of new related legislation (Jorge et al. 2015). Participation Communication between stakeholders both on and off campus, engagement and commitment of all members of the university community, including senior administration as well as extensive collaboration among diverse partners are essential for successful implementation of sustainability initiatives (Karatzoglou 2013; MüllerChrist et al. 2014; Jorge et al. 2015). Such partnership could help to share information, develop collaborative projects, and create social learning networks for local sustainability (Ryan et al. 2010; Pallant et al. 2012). Integration of Sustainable Development in Curricula Barriers to the integration of sustainability into already overcrowded curricula could be overcome by offering additional, elective courses, rather than attempting to modify core modules (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Sustainability Audit To measure the performance of sustainability initiatives, a sustainable university model should include properly defined instruments for their monitoring, analyzing, and controlling (Velazquez et al. 2006). Such instruments include: People and Planet 2016, STARS 2015, Sierra Club 2016, Princeton Review 2016, Times Higher Education 2016, and UI Green Metric 2015. Capacity Building Training opportunities with an embedded special set of incentives will provide lecturers with the additional time necessary to develop subject matter and didactical competencies that are needed for teaching sustainability (Rusinko 2010; MüllerChrist et al. 2014). Training programs also create interest for additional learning and are seen as a crucial phase for continuous sustainability development (Sammalisto et al. 2015).

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education

Signing a Declaration, Charter, or Initiative The findings highlight strong relationship between the institution’s commitment to sustainability, implementation, and signing a declaration, charter, or initiative. They also suggest that academic leadership’s commitment leads to signing these types of documents and implementing sustainability (Lozano et al. 2015).

Conclusion Achieving sustainability often implies a review of the sustainability dimensions of a university and also means radical restructuring from a cultural, social, economic, and political perspective (Seiffert and Loch 2005). Higher education institutions need to become more proactive in making sustainability an integral part of their systems, in order to help both themselves and the community surrounding them to become more sustainable.

Cross-References ▶ Sustainability on Campus ▶ Sustainability Perceptions ▶ Sustainability Policies ▶ Transdisciplinary

References Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16:1777–1785. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002 Aznar Minguet P, Martinez-Agut MP, Palacios B, Piñero A, Ull MA (2011) Introducing sustainability into university curricula: an indicator and baseline survey of the views of university teachers at the University of Valencia. Environ Educ Res 17(2):145–166. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.502590 Bantanur S, Mukherjee M, Shankar R (2015) Emerging dimensions of sustainability in institutes of higher education in India. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 4:323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijsbe.2015.03.004 Barlett PF, Chase GW (eds) (2004) Sustainability on campus stories and strategies for change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education Beynaghi A, Trencher G, Moztarzadeh F, Mozafari M, Maknoon R, Leal Filho W (2016) Future sustainability scenarios for universities: moving beyond the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. J Clean Prod 112:3464–3478. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.117 Clugston RM, Calder W (1999) Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Sustainability and university life. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Cole L (2003) Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. pp 1–66. Available at: http://neumann.hec.ca/humaniterre/campus_durable/ campus_memoire.pdf Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CI, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A, Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M (2008) An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):295–316. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907 Huyuan L, Yang J (2012) Overcoming organisational resistance to sustainability innovations in Australian universities. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual Australasian campuses towards sustainability. Presented at the 12th Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, Brisbane Jorge ML, Herrera Madueño J, Calzado Cejas MY, Andrades Peña FJ (2015) An approach to the implementation of sustainability practices in Spanish universities. J Clean Prod 106:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2014.07.035 Kagawa F (2007) Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability implications for curriculum change. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(3):317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710 817174 Karatzoglou B (2013) An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to Education for Sustainable Development. J Clean Prod 49:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012. 07.043 Katiliute E, Daunoriene A, Katkute J (2014) Communicating the sustainability issues in higher education institutions World Wide Webs. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 156:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.129 Leal Filho W, Brandli, Castro P, Newman J (eds) (2017) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 9783319478685 Lee K-H, Barker M, Mouasher A (2013) Is it even espoused? An exploratory study of commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision, mission, and graduate attribute statements in Australian universities. J Clean Prod 48:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.01.007 Lozano R (2010) Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J Clean Prod 18:637–644. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005

413 Lozano R (2011) The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12:67–78. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098311 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011. 10.006 Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, Lozano FJ, Waas T, Lambrechts W, Lukman R, Huge J (2015) A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. J Clean Prod 108:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048 Madeira AC, Carravilla MA, Oliveira JF, Costa CAV (2011) A methodology for sustainability evaluation and reporting in higher education institutions. High Educ Pol 24(4):459–476. https://doi.org/10.1057/ hep.2011.18 Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Rieckmann M (2014) The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable development – a conference report. J Clean Prod 62:134–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.029 Pallant E, Boulton K, McInally D (2012) Greening the campus: the economic advantages of research and dialogue. In: Leal WF (ed) Sustainable development at universities: new horizons. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp 373–382 People & Planet (2016) How sustainable is your university? [online]. Retrieved from https://peopleandplanet. org/university-league. Accessed 11 April 2016 Princeton Review (2016) Guide to 361 Green Colleges, 2016 [online]. Retrieved from https://www.princeton review.com/college-rankings/green-guide. Accessed 28 Dec 2016 Rusinko CA (2010) Integrating sustainability in higher education: a generic matrix. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(3):250–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011 058541 Ryan A, Tilbury D, Corcoran PB, Abe O, Nomura K (2010) Sustainability in higher education in the Asia-Pacific: developments, challenges, and prospects. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(2):106–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011031838 Sammalisto K, Lindhqvist T (2008) Integration of sustainability in higher education: a study with international perspectives. Innov High Educ 32:221–233. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10755-007-9052-x Sammalisto K, Sundstrom A, Holm T (2015) Implementation of sustainability in universities as perceived by faculty and staff e a model from a Swedish university. J Clean Prod 106:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.10.015 Seiffert MEB, Loch C (2005) Systemic thinking in environmental management: support for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 13:1197–1202. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.07.004

D

414 Sierra Club (2016) 2016 Cool Schools Full Ranking. Sierra Magazine [online]. Retrieved from https://sierraclub. org/sierra/2016-5-september-october/cool-schools-2016/ full-ranking. Accessed 30 Dec 2016 STARS (2015) STARS Overview [online]. Retrieved from https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/stars-overview.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2016 Times Higher Education (2016) World University Rankings [online]. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighere ducation.com/world-university-rankings. Accessed 29 Dec 2016 UI Green Metric (2015) Overall Ranking 2016 [online]. Retrieved from http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/overallranking-2016/. Accessed 29 Dec 2016 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions. An appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370510623865 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, Taddei J (2006) Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J Clean Prod 14:810–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008 Venkataraman B (2009) Education for sustainable development. Education 51(2):8–10 Viebahn P (2002) An environmental management model for universities: from environmental guidelines to staff involvement. J Clean Prod 10:3–12 Waas T, Verbruggen A, Wright T (2010) University research for sustainable development: definition and characteristics explored. J Clean Prod 18:629–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.017 Wright TSA (2002) Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):203–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676370210434679

Diminution ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Divestment and Sustainable Development Chance Lamberth Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Diminution

as the closing or sell-off of units in foreign locations. Divestment in this manner has allowed firms to focus on core operations and strategically focus on growth. An alternative form of divestment is centered around firms liquidating financial positions in response to some harm, injustice, or political unrest.

Introduction Divestment practices have occurred in numerous industries and in some countries. What does it mean to divest from a given industry or country? Divestment is the ability of the investing entity to withdraw its financial investments in a particular company or country due to perceived changes in the investment; for example, the investment has become ambiguous in relation to the core strategy of the company or may be unethical with respect to corporate operating parameters or mission statement. However, divestment as defined lacks boundaries in application; to delineate the intention of divestment, the firm or entity divesting must establish principles before initiating a divestment campaign. The most significant entities with respect to the impact of divestment are investors with large portfolios. For example, in the United States, this would include university endowments, state mutual and pension funds, and institutional investors or a global scale; these would be sovereign wealth funds and insurance companies. For the majority of investment funds, the investment policy statement (IPS) guides the fiduciary responsibility of the investment process by establishing the goal of the fund, the types of investments that can be held, and the conditions for portfolio rebalancing. In this manner, an IPS can be restrictive to making an investment change based on ideology. The IPS given its focus on investment returns for the stakeholders may require the investor to exhaust other channels of remedying the situation before having the option of divestment.

Definition Divestment has multiple meanings. From a business perspective, divestment creates opportunity through elimination of business operations, such

Investment Policy Statements and Divestiture Harvard Management Group and Stanford Management Group both oversee their respective university’s endowments and have established

Divestment and Sustainable Development

and published their fiduciary responsibilities and guidelines for divestment (Deeks 2017). In the 1970s, Harvard and Stanford were the first institutions to adopt socially responsible investing (SRI) policies in response to student protests over the perceived endowment complicity in civil rights violations and the Vietnam war (Deeks 2017). In the decades that followed, the Harvard endowment divested its funds by selectively exiting positions in companies operating in apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, and similarly, the fund retired positions in tobacco in the 1990s. Stanford divested from assets connected to apartheid in South Africa, tobacco, as well as genocide in the Sudan (Deeks 2017, p. 358). Both of these endowments made the decision that their investments in certain industries and countries were not aligned to their university’s mission statement. Abiding by their IPS, these funds were able to divest when other options, such as trying to change the firm’s or country’s behavior, were pursued and exhausted. Many universities, notably Harvard’s and Stanford’s endowments have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold their university’s mission statement by investing in return maximizing investments while making sure the university’s investments are not socially detrimental to the university. To enable speed of action, endowments and institutional investors can augment their IPS to include a list of requirements that determine when divestiture is the default action. This plan on the Stanford side is known as the APRIL policy which requires that proxy voting and a range of other remedies to be attempted first before divestment is considered (Deeks 2017). The Harvard Management Group, similar to that of Stanford’s APRIL policy, has a committee in place to decide when it should divest from given investments. Both endowments view divestment as a last resort and would rather go through the process of using their shareholder rights to change a firm’s or a holding’s behavior. This stance toward divestment is largely related to balancing fiduciary responsibility and sustainability, which is inclusive of environmental and social justice and economic equity. Preference for sustainability objectives can be problematic to the extent that the

415

attribution is not explicit in the IPS and is stated as an investment characteristic that supersedes financial performance in investment allocation decisions. Ethical investment has financial implications that bear directly on the fiduciary’s duties of prudence (Hall 1986). Sustainable Investing The most widely cited definition of sustainability is that stated in the Brundtland Report (Brundtland 1987): “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” However, the implementation of sustainability with this definition is vague and subject to interpretation as well as subjective bias. The question then arises, given the limited delineation in accounting for sustainability, how do social movements, investors, universities, and people who want the earth to become more sustainable achieve their goals through divestment? It is easy for an investor or institution to claim that it invests in sustainable companies, but defining of what constitutes as a sustainable investment is often at the discretion of the portfolio manager relative to the IPS. There is no consistent or official definition of what defines sustainability (Woods and Urwin 2010). From this perspective sustainability objectives may differ between funds and even between fund managers for a given fund. To the extent that an IPS defines the characteristics of sustainability, there may be greater potential for within fund portfolio manager alignment.

Social Pressure and Divestment: Apartheid in South Africa Apartheid was more than strict racial segregation in South Africa. It was a system that protected white privilege and exploited cheap black labor all in the name of economic growth. Countries around the world did not like what was happening in South Africa, and they wanted to change the country’s behavior. However, the limitations of promoting change in a sovereign nation are significant. Foreign countries are at a

D

416

disadvantage when they are working to change the domestic polices of another country. However, punitive pressure is one option. In the case of South Africa, the US government in particular posed legislative investment sanctions that brought about corporate disinvestment of South African emplaced assets (Kaempfer et al. 1987). Furthermore, US citizens encouraged domestic firms, pension funds, and university endowments to divest from South Africa as well. When the United States imposed financial sanctions on South Africa, it had to consider the economic structure of South Africa and determine if divestment and disinvestment would ultimately achieve its intended goals. Specifically, for the sanctions to work, there would have to be a limited market for South African assets, otherwise the sanctions would be immaterial. “When divestment occurs in countries with well-developed stock markets, shares will probably change ownership without large changes in price, as long as the total volume divested is not too large. In thin capital markets, fungibility may weaken, and even a relatively small amount of divestment can powerfully impact share prices. Fungibility, or substitutability, also helps determine the effectiveness of disinvestment by gauging the international pool of potential owners of those disinvested assets emplaced in the target country” (Kaempfer et al. 1987). The capital structure of the targeted country has a direct impact on the success of divestment and disinvestment. The US government sought punitive measures to catalyze its anti-apartheid interest but initially assumed that the pressures citizens put on US firms would be enough to establish divestment. Instead, the United States observed that firms were reluctant to divest from South Africa. As a result, the US government took the initiative and circumvented firms’ actions (inactions) by way of a law that mandated all US firms to disinvest from South Africa. This represented a direct channel to achieve disinvestment (Kaempfer et al. 1987). The sanctions the US government imposed on South Africa were limited in impact. Sanctions are fairly ineffective in changing the target country’s behavior. Unless they are faced on a universal basis and directly affect the country’s trade. “In the case of South Africa, the ability to circumvent

Divestment and Sustainable Development

sanctions was enhanced by its capacity to redirect trade through alternative channels, including certain Southeast Asians re-exporters” (Kaempfer et al. 1987). Additionally, some countries were unable to impose sanctions because the cost was too high; highlighting that the trade-off in action may be between the welfare of the domestic economy and social justice elsewhere. Overall, “the apartheid divestment campaign led to greater awareness in the United States of the problem in South Africa but cannot be said to have ended apartheid by itself” (Deeks 2017). Regulatory intervention through the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (CAAA) “legitimated the anti-apartheid movement and fueled shareholder activism” (Broyles and Aflatooni 1999). However, the legislation passed by the US government lacked the call for corporate divestment in South Africa which led to the rise in shareholder activism. “Shareholders activists were able to get firms that had no interest of disinvesting to agree to review, monitor or modify their operations in South Africa” (Broyles and Aflatooni 1999, p. 25). “Divestment is not an economic argument; it is a social one. A Harvard study showed that the South Africa apartheid divestment movement in the late 1970s and 1980s had negligible financial impact, and yet still contributed to the dissolution of the South African regime” (Evans 2015). Context separates the South Africa divestment campaign from other divestment campaigns – like that from oil and tobacco. The focus in South Africa was targeted to social justice but was limited to specific geographic borders. The social issue at hand focused on a moral obligation that was understood on a global scale. In the United States, the anti-apartheid movement mobilized tens of thousands “against a particularly odious form of racism” (Harris and Pulmpp 1985).

Shareholder Activism and Divestment: Climate Change Shareholders do have power when it comes to making changes in a public company. The changes at the shareholder level impact both a

Divestment and Sustainable Development

company and through the company’s operations and society as a whole. As a result, shareholder strategies, given the potential for financial signaling, are “generally more successful at influencing corporate behavior” since “corporations are more likely to respond to shareholders than reputational pressures from the public” (Deeks 2017). This attribution is primarily related to the potential impact of the loss of multiple large shareholders; this action could be significant to the share price enough to garner both corporate attention and action (MacLeod 2010, p. 49) to preempt it. Present shareholder activism, given the globally widespread concern related to the speed of climate change, centers around socially responsible investing (SRI). “Modern SRI began with small groups of investors motivated by moral (often religious) or financial concerns – for example, avoiding investment in companies that produced weaponry for the U.S. military as a way to protest American involvement in Vietnam” (MacLeod 2010, p. 49). Investor activism related to environmental issues has its roots in the environmental movements of the 1960s. Environmental responsibility was surfaced by a series of environmental “focusing events” that drew attention to the environmental damage tied to corporate activity” (Deeks 2017). For environmental activists, divestment is an act of moral leadership, building political agency from the “bottom up.” Where political leaders are perceived as failing on climate change, communities are taking the lead. In its least compromising form, the environmental activism asserts: “if it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage” (Denniss and Swann 2015). As noted by Rubin (2016), “Divestment campaigns were originally motivated by concerns that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens human civilization with potentially catastrophic consequences arising from a wide range of impacts, including the increased incidence of extreme weather events, threats to world food production, widespread island and coastal flooding from rising sea levels, and the migration of diseases” (Rubin 2016). One counter argument against divestment is that divestment is not effective at changing

417

corporate behavior or country behavior. Unless divestment and the stance toward the company is universally accepted, the results of divestment may result only in a change of share ownership. When a shareholder sells his or her assets, a neutral party then buys the assets because the high profitability in the industry is attractive. This outcome is common when shareholders divest from fossil fuels because fossil fuel companies generally have a high rate of return. Furthermore, shareholders choose to divest and sell their assets, they lose the right to push for a change by exercising their shareholder rights. “The direct financial impacts on share price from divestment are thought to be inconsequential; this may be true if every university endowment divested. Large companies and whole industries are resilient to public outrage” (Deeks 2017). However, evidence suggests that the impacts of climate change may be modifying this pattern. As noted by Rubin (2016), “More recently, many divestment decisions, in particular among institutional investors such as pension plans, are being based on a recognition that efforts to mitigate climate change will profoundly impact future fossil fuel use and hence the sustainability of the carbon fuel industry as we currently know it. The growing likelihood that climate change will severely limit future fossil fuel consumption not only renders much of today’s fossil fuel reserves unburnable, and hence of no value, but suggests that even current production levels are unlikely to remain economically viable. That concern has taken the divestment movement from its initial adherents of activist funds and organizations to more mainstream institutional investors, who fear that a potentially massive devaluation of the share prices of fossil fuel firms could severely impact the performance of their portfolios. Those concerns have grown in response to both the rapidly rising economic cost of climate change and the increasing urgency to reduce global emissions.” In this case, the social responsibility and climate policy have impacted the perceived long-term financial return of fossil fuel companies, leading to investor fiduciary responsibility that is aligned to divestiture without the inclusion of sustainability parameters in the IPS. In other words, social

D

418

orientation toward sustainability may directly impact a company’s viability as an investment, if the company’s growth strategy is not aligned with the consumer market.

Drama

making, which in turn will change consumption behavior and ultimately influence the strategy of the firm.

References Conclusion Shareholders feel a sense of responsibility to tackle social and environmental issues consistent with the perception that not all actions are inspired by financial motive. “Shareholder activist lobby corporate leaders and seek changes in corporate behavior by working through existing legal structures to modify, rather than radically challenge, corporate structure and practices” (King and Gish 2015). Divestiture is likely to be a last response after internal communications with the firm have been exhausted. With the recent rise of popularity of shareholder activism and the increase demand of responsible investment products such as SRI, large financial firms have started to issue sustainability aligned products for investors. “Shareholder activists and advocates of responsible investing have helped to create a new market and a hybrid form of investing that melds social and environmental concern with financial profit” (King and Gish 2015). The market place will always adapt to what the consumer wants, and financial investments are no different, but the shareholders must voice what they want to create more sustainable investment products. With respect to public companies, though most shareholder resolutions are voted down, filers “believe the process may still contribute to the overall goal of pressuring the company to change its policy or practice by sparking a dialogue with management” (King and Gish 2015, p. 716). The biggest success filers gain from exercising their shareholder rights is that the issues will sometime gain public support, which to some degree is more powerful. Public support for a cause will create a social change that influences consumer decision-

Broyles PA, Aflatooni A (1999) Opposition to south African apartheid: the impact of shareholder activism on U.S. Corporations (1980–1988). Peace Res 31(3): 13–27. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/23607549 Brundtland G (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. United Nations General Assembly document A/42/427 Deeks LE (2017) Discourse and duty: university endowments, fiduciary law, and the cultural politics of fossil fuel divestment. Environ Law 47(2):335–427. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/26491778 Denniss R, Swann T (2015) Strand or be stranded: the growing case for divestment. Aust Q 86(2):16–40 Evans W (2015) Doing better than divestment. Consilience 13:247–265 Hall JPIII (1986) Ethics in investment: divestment. Financ Anal J 42(4):7–10 Harris V, Pulmpp SD (1985) Divestment hits apartheid in the pocketbook. Black Scholar 16(6):12–17. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/41067218 Kaempfer WH et al (1987) Divestment, investment sanctions, and disinvestment: an evaluation of antiapartheid policy instruments. Int Organ 41(3): 457–473. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/2706752 King L, Gish E (2015) Marketizing social change: social shareholder activism and responsible investing. Sociol Perspect 58(4):711–730. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/ 44290137 MacLeod M (2010) Private governance and climate change: institutional investors and emerging investordriven governance mechanisms. St Antony’s Int Rev 5(2):46–65. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/26227053 Rubin J (2016) The Case for divesting from fossil Fuels in Canada (pp 2–4, Rep). C. Hurst and; Company Woods C, Urwin R (2010) Putting sustainable investing into practice: a governance framework for pension funds. J Bus Ethics 92:1–19

Drama ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

E

Eco-campus ▶ Green Campuses and Sustainable Development

Ecocentric Education Helen Kopnina The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, Netherlands

Introduction: What Is Ecocentric Education? Ecocentrism has roots in environmental philosophy, which questions the conceptual dichotomy between humans and the environment, acknowledging nonhuman species’ right to flourish independently of human interest (Naess 1973). Generally, ecocentrism refers to a planet- and nature-centered as opposed to the human-centered (anthropocentric) system of values. Inspired by this philosophy, ecocentric education focuses on intrinsic values of the ecosystem, environment, and individual living beings and habitats in environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). Originally, ecocentrism has played a large part in how environmental education was conceived. In part inspired by The Limits to Growth publication (Meadows et al. 1972), EE attempted to

develop the necessary skills to address the challenges and foster knowledge, attitudes, motivations, and commitments for the protection of the environment, as expressed in the Belgrade Charter (UNESCO-UNEP 1976). Ecocentrism in this type of environmental education applies to all types of environmental problems, from climate change to biodiversity loss, and is relevant for fields ranging from sociology, political science, and economics (as they explore social, political, and economic causes of climate change, for example) to conservation biology. Ecocentrism dictates that a truly inclusive and lasting rationale for biodiversity conservation ought to maintain the recognition of the intrinsic value of all species (Piccolo et al. 2018), including humans and ecosystems. Indeed, ecocentric thought has inspired many initiatives across the world granting legal status and protection to rivers or mountains, as well as to certain species, based on Earth jurisprudence (Burdon 2014). Earth jurisprudence is a philosophy of law and human governance that is based on the idea that humans are only one part of a wider community of beings and that the welfare of each member of that community is dependent on the welfare of the Earth as a whole. Ecocentric thought stressed the duty to protect biodiversity for its own sake as well as for ours – we ought to conserve biodiversity not only because it is right for us but also simply because it is right (Piccolo et al. 2018). In relation to climate change, ecocentrism is opposed to technocratic, neoliberal, and “ecological modernization” values stressing

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

420

solutions that address the root causes of climate change (Bailey and Wilson 2009). Often, ecocentrism is mentioned in close connection with another concept, ecological justice, otherwise known as eco-justice or ecojustice (Schlosberg 2004), a concept that refers to justice between all species (Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina 2015). Ecological justice supports nonhumans’ entitlement to their living environment and condemns human-induced extinction as a moral wrong (Cafaro and Primack 2014). Ecojustice refers to the need to provide justice for nonhuman nature (concurrent with social justice for humans). It seeks the creation of legal frameworks to uphold the “rights of nature.” It needs to be noted here that the rights view of nature, as well as the concept of animal rights, faces the question regarding the boundary of moral concern (Sun 2018). One of the discussions within the larger field of environmental ethics is where is the boundary of the moral community lies – with individuals within the species, the species, or larger “wholes” such as ecosystems or habitats (Kopnina and Gjerris 2015) and how ought we to treat the objects of moral concern near the boundary (Sun 2018). For example, within animal rights theory, the issue of predation is controversial as animal rights appear to require or permit interfering in nature to prevent predation (Kapembwa 2018). Ecocentric education tries to reconcile all levels of moral consideration of nonhumans, stressing that these various perspectives basically critique anthropocentrism and support recognition of intrinsic value attributed both to nonhumans (Waldau 2013). Since ecocentrism and ecojustice require values change, as well as knowledge, skills, and motivation to achieve this change, ecocentric education has many purposes, applications, and methodologies. A number of questions, discussed in this encyclopedia entry, as well as open for future research, start to emerge. What is the prevalence and characteristics of ecocentric education? Does EE/ESD positively influence environmental knowledge and attitudes in school children and help develop competencies and skills necessary for transition to a sustainable society in students of higher education? What are the most effective

Ecocentric Education

forms of EE/ESD taking environmental sustainability as an ultimate goal? How can contextspecific studies of EE/ESD contribute to the scholarship of social change that contributes to environmental sustainability? In response to these questions, and in order to outline directions for future research and practice, different existing types and new and emerging ideas in relation to ecocentric education will be discussed below.

Existing Types of Ecocentric Education First, it is important to point out that no distinct school, department, or didactic strategy entitled “ecocentric education” presently exists. Ecocentric education is related to inspiring education for biological conservation applied in Western contexts (e.g., Norris and Jacobson 1998) or in other countries such as Africa (Goodall 2015). Most akin to ecocentrism is deep ecology (Naess 1973), thus education for deep ecology literally by that name started developing in the early 1990s involving outdoor experiences (LaChapelle 1991) and inspired for recent initiatives (Glasser 2004). So-called post-humanist education (e.g., Bonnett 2013) has embraced not just humanism but also biophilia, or love of all life (Wilson 1984). Perhaps a bit more controversially, as at times ecosystem-based ethics are contrasted to individual species’ or individuals within the species in terms of importance, education for animal rights (e.g., Ortiz 2015), attitudes to animals (Grant and Jungkunz 2016), and animal welfare education (e.g., Gorski 2009) trace their roots in ecocentric tradition. These types of education typically focus on unity between ethical (e.g., the inclusion of nonhumans in moral concerns) and environmental sustainability (e.g., more pragmatic ways of dealing with environmental problems) (Kopnina 2011, 2012, 2014a, b, 2016; Kopnina and Meijers 2014). More holistic values and understandings, such as “education for wonder” (Washington 2018) have recently emerged. Environmental education and education for sustainable development have attempted to develop critical ability in students to address

Ecocentric Education

sustainability challenges, yet little of it was devoted to the discussion of concrete ecologically benign models of production (Webster 2007). In terms of education that takes ecocentric values into account in order to advance pragmatic sustainability aims, such as addressing largely wasteful production and consumption processes, the so-called closed-loop (circular) production frameworks, Circular economy and Cradle to Cradle are helpful. These circular frameworks are based on understanding and appreciation of nature’s ability to use “waste as food” and basically avoid endless make-use-waste cycles of industrial production (McDonough and Braungart 2010). What differentiates circular production from conventional recycling and the concept of ecoefficiency is that these frameworks attempt to reach beyond minimizing damage (e.g., as recycling can be seen as a form of downcycling, and eco-efficiency can make “bad” things, like fossil fuels, last longer) but eliminate damage altogether (McDonough and Braungart 2010). Emphasizing possibilities for decoupling of resource consumption from the economy, circular frameworks stress eco-effectiveness and goes beyond conventional sustainability tools and approaches. One of the central premises of circular production is that products should be conceived from the very start with ecologically informed design and the intention that they will eventually be reused (rather than merely recycled with the loss of quality), as either “technical” or “biological” nutrients. The circular economy requires a radical reevaluation of the methods of production toward the goal of a waste-free system. Advancing these aims, one of the largest promoters of a circular economy, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, stimulates the possibilities inherent in a transition from today’s predominately linear “throughput” economy to a circular or “roundput” economy (Webster 2007). Natural restoration, also in cities and industrial processes, to support both human and nonhuman flourishing, are the basic principles of circular frameworks that inspire ecocentric education with practical goals in mind. Circular economy education, pioneered by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundat

421

ion.org/resources/learn/higher-education-resources), and Cradle to Cradle education, pioneered by C2C Product Innovation Institute (https://www. c2ccertified.org/education) provide practical guides to students and practitioners considering alternative forms of production. Product Innovation Institute, for example, has web-based education program and teaching materials for designers, architects, but also other interested students developing practical product design strategies to create Cradle to Cradle Certified products that support the circular economy. It is worth noting, however, that these frameworks and their applications in education have been criticized for greenwashing (e.g., Kopnina 2018), as they tend to be over-optimistic in promising absolute decoupling and suggesting a possibility of continuous production without any environmental damage in order to serve further advancement of economic development (Washington and Twomey 2016). Many purportedly “sustainable” products support the Jevons paradox or rebound effect (Greening et al. 2000) promising businesses and societies new sources of wealth through immense savings and clever designs. The rebound effect can occur in which nominally “sustainable” companies employ smart marketing selling even more products, in effect stimulating more consumption (Greening et al. 2000). While optimistic in intention, and avoiding conventional talk about “minimizing” human impacts, “zero footprints,” “banning” harmful substances, or “reducing” energy use, often times circular frameworks are subordinated to optimistic techno-solutions based on economic growth scenarios (https://www.businessgreen. com/bg/sponsored/2123874/industry-cradle-cradlenatural-world). Critics have noted, however, that in doing so, the dream of absolute decoupling of products such as food, clothes, and shelter from material demands of seven and a half billion consumers excuses continuous production that is essentially unsustainable (Rammelt and Crisp 2014). In teaching practice, this translates not into ecocentric education, which circular frameworks could, at least in theory, support, but into education about production – once again – in the service of an economy (Kopnina 2017). This leaves room

E

422

for further thinking about circular systems and teaching that simultaneously address production and consumption challenges and root causes of unsustainability – population growth and increase in material demands (Meadows et al. 1972). Ecocentric education does indeed benefit from practical production-focused tools provided by a circular economy and C2C education but does need to retain its focus on benefits that go beyond conventional economic growth, which might have caused environmental problems in the first place. Also, ecocentric education does need to retain its ethical focus on ecosystems and nonhuman beings, not just in terms of sidebenefits of more “circular” production. This needs to remain a central focus of its effort to educate citizens that are concerned about and motivated to address environmental problems, as the original aim of the Belgrade charter has stated (UNESCOUNEP 1976).

New Directions in Ecocentric Education In the past few years, environmental education and citizenship education has been more open to combining active citizenship with a new form of inclusion – that of nonhuman species. Education for ecojustice provides pedagogy of responsibility for teachers and teacher educators with the information and classroom practices they need to help develop citizens who are prepared to support diverse, democratic, and sustainable societies (Martusewicz et al. 2014). This pedagogy might require engaging with a more “radical ecopedagogy” (Kahn 2008) involving exposure of students to ideas inspired by environmental activism (Kopnina 2015). Yet, this education still needs to take a deeper root both in society at large as well as in curriculum at all levels of education. One productive way of addressing ecocentric pedagogy is through examining research and practice of teaching controversial, complex, or novel issues. Research findings delving into teaching practice of controversial environmental issues reveal that while teachers believed they should adopt a “neutral” or “balanced” approach, in the reality of the classroom, such an approach

Ecocentric Education

proved unsustainable and the teachers experienced significant difficulties in enacting their beliefs (Cotton 2006). While it is assumed that in plural “democratic” education, students need to be aware of the nature of controversy, such as ethical or practical acceptability of genetically modified agriculture, and be able to see how arguments are constructed to sway opinions if they are to be fully scientifically literate, in practice such balancing remains difficult (Oulton et al. 2004). For example, while ecocentric education embraces unity between human and nonhuman interests through the concept of interconnectedness, it may also require examination of trade-offs between ecological and social justice (ShoremanOuimet and Kopnina 2015). Similarly, exposure of ideas generated by environmental activists labelled “radical” in wider society (Kahn 2010) may put educators in an uncomfortable position (Kopnina 2014c), especially when the students espouse conventional values (Jickling 1996). The ethical principles and didactic methods relating to the teaching of controversial issues may themselves appear controversial (Oulton et al. 2004). Teaching ecocentric values may indeed require a greater (self)examination of values by the teachers and careful consideration of challenges associated with teaching in “mixedopinion” classrooms. Also, teaching ecocentric values might involve discussing complexities and trade-offs in the questions of “rights” accorded to certain species at the “edge” of moral boundaries (Sun 2018), for example, in the case of invasive species or predators (Kapembwa 2018). Finding the “right” or at least “efficient” way of teaching eccentrically inspired values or skills will doubtfully require further examination as to how democratic learning for sustainability can or should occur. A significant development in educating ecocentric citizens is a newly established platform for ecodemocracy (https://ecodemocracy.net/) which will soon develop educational materials. This platform seeks to give political and administrative voice to ecocentrism. Ecodemocracy has as its aims representation for nonhuman nature in political processes and, more broadly, the halting of ecocide (Higgins 2010) through theorizing and

Ecocentric Education

studying political power in relation to environment and animal/human divide (Grant and Jungkunz 2016). In ecodemocracy, a key mechanism by which representation for nonhuman nature could be achieved is the appointment of human proxies that represent nonhumans politically and legally within decision-making structures. The principle of ecodemocracy can operate at any geographic scale, from a local stakeholder group, through a protected area board, to an international alliance of governments. It could also emerge within traditional party-based politics. Thus, https:// ecodemocracy.net/ attempts to develop teaching materials that would inspire, inform, and include both democratic, in a traditional, human-centered sense, and inclusive pluralism perspectives (Kopnina and Cherniak 2016) that represent nonhumans.

Conclusion: Looking into the Future of Ecocentric Education Ecocentric education needs further development and integration within all levels – from primary schools to higher education, from institutions teaching technical skills through hands-onprojects to postgraduate philosophy departments. The expected societal and economic consequences of successfully integrated ecocentric education will be an environmentally sustainable and ecologically just society. Such a society requires further development, stimulation, maintenance, and monitoring of successful programs and their adaptation in the wider international context. Understanding how complex variables, such as national and institutional context, ideology, and ethics (e.g., ecocentric orientation), and pedagogical skills (e.g., didactic qualities) to ensure a sustainable future represents a high-reward objective. Further research and practice of ecocentric education need to focus on nationally contextualized studies along the nexus of education, environment, and sustainable future by examining how a wide range of educational programs have influenced the students’ worldview and raised particular moral concerns in relation to the

423

environment and our common future. Future research and practice can focus on factors influencing larger societal and by implication teachers’ and students’ beliefs about the treatment of animals (Erlanger and Tsytsarev 2012) and the environment at large. Granted the strong impact of education and socialization on the continuous cultural reproduction of human-nature relationships suggests a rich and important research area for both environmental ethics and sustainability science (Spannring 2015). Ecocentric education promises to embrace both pragmatic/practical and moral/ethical aspects of (un)sustainability and our relationship with the living world.

Cross-References ▶ Circular Economy and Sustainable Development ▶ Cradle-to-Cradle for Sustainable Development: From Ecodesign to Circular Economy ▶ Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

References Bailey I, Wilson GA (2009) Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy. Environ Plan A 41(10):2324–2341 Bonnett M (2013) Sustainable development, environmental education, and the significance of being in place. Curric J 24:250–271 Burdon PD (2014) Earth jurisprudence: private property and the environment. Routledge, London Cafaro P, Primack R (2014) Species extinction is a great moral wrong. Biol Conserv 170:1–2 Cotton DR (2006) Teaching controversial environmental issues: neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educ Res 48(2):223–241 Erlanger ACE, Tsytsarev SV (2012) The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animals. Soc Anim 20(1):21–38 Glasser H (2004) Learning our way to a sustainable and desirable world: ideas inspired by Arne Naess and deep ecology. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promises, and practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–148 Goodall J (2015) Caring for people and valuing forests in Africa. In: Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T

E

424 (eds) Protecting the wild: parks and wilderness, the foundation for conservation. The Island Press, Washington, DC/London, pp 21–26 Gorski PC (2009) Critical ties: the animal rights awakening of a social justice educator. http://www.edchange.org/ publications/animal-rights-social-justice.pdf Grant J, Jungkunz VG (eds) (2016) Political theory and the animal/human relationship. SUNY Press, New York Greening LA, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey. Energy Policy 28:389–401 Higgins P (2010) Eradicating ecocide: laws and governance to prevent the destruction of our planet. Shepheard Walwyn Publishers, London, pp 62–63 Jickling B (1996) Wolves, ethics and education: looking at ethics through The Yukon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. In: Jickling B (ed) A colloquium on environment, ethics and education. Yukon College, Whitehorse, pp 158–163 Kahn R (2008) From education for sustainable development to ecopedagogy: sustaining capitalism or sustaining life. Green Theory Prax J Ecopedagogy 4(1):1–14 Kahn R (2010) Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy, & planetary crisis: the ecopedagogy movement. Peter Lang, New York Kapembwa J (2018) Predation Catch-22: Disentangling the Rights of Prey, Predators, and Rescuers. J Agr Environ Ethic 31(5):527–542 Kopnina H (2011) Qualitative revision of the new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale for children. Int J Environ Res. Bingley 5:1025–1034 Kopnina H (2012) Education for sustainable development (ESD): the way from ‘environment’ in environmental education? Environ Educ Res 18:699–717 Kopnina H (2014a) Future scenarios and environmental education. J Environ Educ 45:217–231 Kopnina H (2014b) Revisiting education for sustainable development (ESD): examining anthropocentric bias through the transition of environmental education to ESD. Sustain Dev 22:73–83 Kopnina H (2014c) If a tree falls: business students’ reflections on environmentalism. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 8(3):311–329 Kopnina H (2015) If a tree falls and everybody hears the sound: teaching deep ecology to business students. J Educ Sustain Dev 9(1):101–116 Kopnina H (2016) Of big hegemonies and little tigers: ecocentrism and environmental justice. Special issue “On the politics of policy-making for education for sustainable development”. J Environ Educ 47:132–150 Kopnina H (2017) Discussing practical and educational challenges in teaching circular economy. In: Sindakis S, Theodorou P (eds) Global opportunities for entrepreneurial growth: coopetition and knowledge dynamics within and across firms. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK, pp 507–522 Kopnina H (2018) Circular economy and cradle to cradle in educational practice. J Integr Environ Sci 15(1):123–138 Kopnina H, Cherniak B (2016) Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: a call for inclusive pluralism. Environ Educ Res 22:827–841

Ecocentric Education Kopnina H, Gjerris M (2015) Are some animals more equal than others? Animal rights and deep ecology in environmental education. Can J Environ Educ 20:109–123 Kopnina H, Meijers F (2014) Education for sustainable development (ESD): exploring theoretical and practical challenges. Int J Sustain High Educ 15:188–207 LaChapelle D (1991) Educating for deep ecology. J Exp Educ 14:18–22 Martusewicz RA, Edmundson J, Lupinacci J (2014) Ecojustice education: toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities. Routledge, New York McDonough W, Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York Naess A (1973) The shallow and the deep: long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16:95–99 Norris KS, Jacobson SK (1998) Content analysis of tropical conservation education programs: elements of success. J Environ Educ 30:38–44 Ortiz A (2015) Humane liberation: incorporating animal rights into critical pedagogy. Vt Connect 32:8–30 Oulton C, Dillon J, Grace MM (2004) Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. Int J Sci Educ 26(4):411–423 Piccolo J, Washington H, Kopnina H, Taylor B (2018) Back to the future: why conservation biologists should re-embrace their ecocentric roots. Conserv Biol 32(4): 959–961 Rammelt C, Crisp P (2014) A systems and thermodynamics perspective on technology in the circular economy. Real-World Econ Rev 68:25–40 Schlosberg D (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environ Polit 13(3):517–540 Shoreman-Ouimet E, Kopnina H (2015) Reconciling ecological and social justice to promote biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 184:320–326 Spannring R (2015) I and animal thou: perspectives for educational theory. Soc Anim 23:613–629 Sun Y (2018) The edge of “animal rights”. J Agric Environ Ethics 31(5):543–557 UNESCO-UNEP (1976) The Belgrade Charter: a global framework for environmental education. Connect UNESCO-UNEP Environ Educ Newsl 1(1):1–2 Waldau P (2013) Venturing beyond the tyranny of small differences: the animal protection movement, conservation, and environmental education. In: Bekoff M (ed) Ignoring nature no more. The case for compassionate conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 27–43 Washington H (2018) Education for wonder. Educ Sci 8:125 Washington H, Twomey P (2016) A future beyond growth: towards a steady state economy. Routledge, New York Webster K (2007) Hidden sources: understanding natural systems is the key to an evolving and aspirational ESD. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(1):37–43 Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia: the human bond with other species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development Impact of Building Materials Choice on the Environment Maria Sinara Alves de Lacerda, Patrick Vinicius Fonseca da Silva and Carla Matheus Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Introduction Building expanding is a must, but as any basic act, it is necessary to take into account its impacts. In a world where every year the population and its needs increase, it is essential to have an initiative or action plan to stop or minimize the impacts caused in this process. Taking into account a few points, in 2015 world leaders gathered at UN headquarters in New York and decided on an action plan to eradicate poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that people achieve peace and prosperity. This plan was named Agenda 2030, the set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDG). These tasks propose sustainable paths and measures of transformation to the world (United Nations 2015). Sustainability is a prominent topic at the moment, and according to the Brundtland report (1987) from United Nations (UN), it is defined as: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (CMMAD 1991, p. 46). According to Tajiri et al. (2014), the government must act to reach sustainable development; however, there are great obstacles to achieve this goal, such as the lack of government incentives and the resistance to change. The critical effects caused by predatory exploration of ecosystems may be evidenced by a study published by the Met Office Hadley

425

Centre for Climate Change, which presents data on the anomalies of the average temperature of the earth through time, where it is possible to observe a clear rise in temperature after the industrial revolution. Data from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report also confirm this information with databases other than HadCRUT4 and project a rise in average anomalous temperature from 0.3
C to 0.7
C (IPCC 2018). The climate changes and other environmental aspects of the present demonstrate the need to widely discuss the ecological responsibility in the different social aspects in the quest of sustainable development. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that the civil construction occupies a central and unique role in this scenario, as it is a major resources consumer and waste producer. In Brazil, there is an institution that regiments the materials or the conditions they have to present in order to be used in civil construction, it is named Associação Brasileira de Normas e Técnicas (ABNT) and will be constantly mentioned in this article, and used to approach the impacts of three types of materials used in Brazil for sealing, which are: Solid Brick obtained from clay and thereafter shaped and burned, NBR 7171 (1983); Concrete block made of Portland cement, water, and aggregate materials such as blast furnace slag, fly ash, or expanded clay governed by NBR 6136 (2008); and Compressed Earth Block which raw materials are water, Portland cement, and soil with the possibility of using additives, NBR 8491 (2012a). Given the above, the present study analyzes wall materials in order to compare them with each other, so that the effects associated with the use of each material and, consequently, its positive or negative participation for sustainability are clear. It focuses on the most commonly used and also on some of the most promising in Brazil, analyzing the origin, possibility of reuse, and disposal. Therefore, this study seeks a greater comprehension about how civil construction relates to sustainability when evaluating building materials and their environmental impacts.

E

426

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Origin of the Sealing Materials Used in the Brazilian Civil Construction

of rivers, where the clay is extracted. There are several types of clay that offer different properties to the bricks. It is common to add other materials to clay in order to give the raw material the desired characteristics. It must go through quality control to ensure its characteristics. Some factories use mining waste in their preparation (waste that would be discarded in landfills or would have an inappropriate end), contributing to the environment, and improving the quality of the paste. Then, the paste goes through a process called extrusion, and then it must be dried. The drying process can be performed naturally or forced, artificial or mixed. Finally, in the burning process the blocks are taken to furnaces where the temperature varies from 750
C to 1000
C. These furnaces can be fed by wood or sugarcane bagasse. The solid bricks go through a compression test in accordance with NBR 6460. The visual, geometric, and mechanical characteristics must comply with the standard NBR 7170. Products within the standards are approved by the National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (Inmetro) (SEBRAE 2018). The solid brick is one of the most commonly used brick in Brazilian civil construction. For this reason, studies have been carried out to ascertain its impact on the environment. In addition to its raw material being a nonrenewable material, which already brings great impact to nature, the emissions of gases in its manufacture is significant. If the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is evaluated by the IPCC method for a period of 100 years, the CO2 emission presents significant values with a total of 0.6219 kg of CO2 for each kilo of brick produced. According to the graphic below, most of the CO2 is released by transports – the clay to the factory and the brick from the factory to the consumer, due to the burning of diesel oil (Barbosa et al. 2012) (Fig. 2). Burning fossil fuels in internal combustion engines is one of the main sources of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and rising global temperatures. The life cycle of fossil fuels is considered an energy system; its activities of extraction, transportation, processing, distribution, and final use can cause significant environmental impacts (Barbosa et al. 2012).

The human being’s need to protect spaces, seek shelter to protect himself from the intemperate nature, and survive goes back to prehistory. The security of housing only became possible from the moment the human being began to settle in their own house, land, and family. Made from reddish clay, the solid bricks are widely used to build walls. The earliest traces of bricks date from 7,500 BC. At first, they were not baked, only dried in the sun. Around 3,000 BC the baked bricks began to appear and were more resistant. The exact time and origin are unknown, possibly the Romans were the firsts to use the product the way it is used today, because they dominated the clay burning process. The solid brick (Fig. 1) began to be used when the natural stone became limited. Bricks arrived in Brazil around the nineteenth century with the Italian immigration, who began masonry housing in São Paulo (Fac – Arquitectura de Lisboa 2007). The manufacturing of solid bricks begins in deposits or barriers, almost always at margins

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Residence built with solid brick. (Source: The authors (2017))

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

427

Thus, this material can not be considered a sustainable option, since it is a great polluter throughout its life cycle, especially in its conception, which does not fit the perspective of the sustainable housing, which according to Tajiri et al. (2014) seeks for environmental adequacy, economic viability, and social justice. Concrete blocks (Fig. 3) for masonry emerged in the twentieth century as an alternative material in civil construction, replacing the solid brick, which is handcrafted till this day. Beginning in the 1960s, its consumption and acceptance was really quick, since it represents the best option in several situations (SEBRAE 2018). According to the norm NBR 6136 (2008), the block is defined

as a masonry element of which net area is equal to or less than 75% of the gross area. The concrete block is used on a large scale in Brazil. It was the first block to have a Brazilian standard for structural masonry calculation. It has good compressive strength and the production range is between the minimum 4.5 MPa required by the standards and 16 MPa. The walls built with concrete blocks can perform the functions of structure and/or closing, eliminating pillars and beams and reducing the use of armor and forms. There is a complete set of ABNT standards for the quality of materials and the structural masonry system with concrete blocks. Among them there are NBR 15873 (2010) – Modular Coordination for

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Impact contribution from CO2 Emission: IPCC Method 100 years. (Source: The authors, based on Barbosa et al. (2012))

CO2 EMISSION 3% 3%

1%

0% 0% Sugarcane bagasse Firewood Clay Transports Electricity 93% Production processes

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Residence built in concrete block. (Source: The authors (2018))

E

428

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Building, NBR 6136 (2008) – Hollow Concrete Block for Concrete Masonry – Requirements. Currently there are several types of blocks for different applications. These blocks are produced in factories that use all types of processes, ranging from small craft presses to huge, fully automated industrial assemblies. They are made with a pressed mixture of cement and aggregates. This aggregate can be sand, pebbles, stone powder, or similar. It is common to use a mixture of two or three types of aggregates, to improve the quality and cost of the block. The choice of aggregates also depends on their supply nearby the factory (SEBRAE 2018). As mentioned, the transportation of the raw material and the final material to their destination is one of the greatest contributors to air pollution, due to the emission of CO2, by burning the fuels used in the trucks. But there are also stationary sources like factory chimneys, construction sites, and mining activities. Besides these gaseous pollutants resulting from these activities, there is dust, which is a particulate matter and is considered a primary pollutant; it means this pollutant is emitted directly into the atmosphere from identifiable sources (Singh 2006). Concerning air pollution, Brazilian legislation obeys several resolutions, and laws, with emphasis on Resolution CONAMA n. 5 (1989). This Resolution certifies the National Air Pollution Control Program – PRONAR, which aims to improve air quality, meeting established standards and not compromising air quality. As other economic activities, the production of blocks results in the generation of large amounts of dust. There are two types of dust, the suspended one formed by particles smaller than 10 mm, which tend to remain in the air for a longer time, and the sedimentable dust, consisting of fractions larger than 10 mm, which tend to sediment, remaining for less time in the air. However, it is important to note that even sedimentable dust can become suspended dust, depending on the conditions. In drier weather conditions, the dust tends to be in suspension. The same happens when there is constant disturbance of the soil where it is deposited. In concrete block factories, this dust tends to

deposit mainly in the yard, where there is a large flow of vehicles that promote the resuspension of the particulate materials. In addition to dust, the production of concrete blocks generates solid waste, such as defective products, waste of products used in tests or waste generated during the production process itself. As already mentioned, the production process of the blocks requires the molded material to be placed in a greenhouse at 75
C; the heating of the greenhouses is given by the operation of dieselpowered boilers, which can cause leaks and oil infiltration into the soil (Diego et al. 2014). Therefore, due to its great economic viability, this material is largely chosen, as Motta et al. (2014) corroborates, mainly due to its fast masonry execution. However, although it is slightly more correct than solid brick, it is still not the best sustainable option due to its high GHG emission. The Compressed Earth Block (CEB) (Fig. 4) is also known by the technical names of modular or ecological block. It is a brick produced from a mixture of earth, cement, and water. The soil used is clay, widely found in our region. The soil should not contain organic matter. It is also possible to use the ground residue of building material in its composition (Trivisan and Pinatti 2004). The CEB is conformed in hydraulic press, giving to the ecological brick its form. After the conformation, the block remains moist for several days, until the soil-cement cure occurs, with the consequent hardening of the brick. The main difference in relation to others is the hydraulic press: the product is not baked in the furnace – a process that consumes wood and also results in the emission of polluting gases. Other characteristics that make it environmentally friendly are the proportion of cement incorporated into the paste (about 10%) and the type of soil used. It is a sandy soil and, since it has no hail, it can be removed from nearly all areas, not restricted to areas of permanent preservation, such as sedimentary clay which sources are located near springs (Trivisan and Pinatti 2004). Bricklaying can be accomplished by simply fitting the pieces, without the need for mortar. The builder must only be aware of the alignment of the bricks.

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

429

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Use of compressed earth block. (Source: The authors (2017))

E

The CEB is normalized by the quality standard of ABNT NBR 8492 (2012b). In Brazil, it was first used in the production of bases and subbases of road pavement. CEB began to be used in construction in 1948, when residences made with monolithic walls were built at Fazenda Inglesa, in Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil. A year later, the famous Hospital Adriano Jorge, of the National Tuberculosis Service, was built in Manaus, a 10,800 m2 building still in operation and in good conditions (Fiquerola 2004). However, CEB was only widely applied in housing around 1978, when the former National Bank of Housing approved the technique for constructions of popular housing. Studies carried out by the Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas de São Paulo (IPT) and the Centro de Pesquisas e Desenvolvimento (Ceped) have shown that, in addition to the good acoustic performance, the CEB applied in constructions led to a reduction of costs by 20% to 40%, compared to traditional masonry of clay or ceramic bricks (Fiquerola 2004). The masonry made with CEB offers some advantages: it eliminates the coating, mortar of settlement, besides not requiring wood burning or fuel oil for its production, which reduces costs for the building. As the monolithic wall, CEB is usually manufactured with the site’s own soil,

which reduces costs related to the raw material and its transport (Fiquerola 2004). As a disadvantage of this system, it is possible to cite the dependence on manual and hydraulic presses, which are high cost (Fiquerola 2004), and the fact that the technical standards of ABNT, which determine characteristics such as shape, dimensions, compressive strength, and water absorption of compressed earth blocks, disregard the application of the pieces in structural masonry. In view of the above, between the three materials analyzed, it can be said that compressed earth block is the most suitable for sustainable development objectives, considering its characteristics that may indicate a more balanced alternative considering the economic and environmental aspects. In addition, this material has the possibility of being used in many places due to its simplicity regarding the raw materials.

Waste Generation and Disposal of Masonry Materials Mostly Used in Brazil The resources of the planet are finite and, therefore, it is necessary to design considering the impact that the work and the use of the building will cause; after all, as presented by John et al.

430

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

(2001), civil construction is the sector of the economy that consumes most materials worldwide. Steel, cement, lime, sand, wood, water, energy, etc., all this immense demand generates degradation and pollution in the places where these resources are extracted and even in the places where the works develop. They also say that 50% of gross raw materials in Japan are consumed by construction, and in the USA, this consumption of natural resources rises to around 75%. According to the National Association of Bioecological Architecture, civil construction in Brazil is responsible for consuming 40% of natural resources and energy, 34% of water consumption, 55% of uncertified wood consumption, 67% of the total mass of urban solid waste, and 50% of the total volume of waste comes from construction (Chaves 2014). These figures are too large and are not aligned with the objectives of Agenda 30 for sustainability, especially regarding objectives 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15, which seek to:

necessary to look for a production cycle which minimizes the exit of output and input of raw material; it is up to the technical responsibility to select situations and materials that have less impact. The concern about the disposal and reuse of waste is something new in Brazil compared to other countries like the USA, which has policies on waste since the 1960s and Europe that began practicing it after the Second War (John and Agopyan 2000). According to the Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais (ABRELPE), Waste from Construction and Demolition (WCD) in Brazil is destined, almost exclusively, to landfills and street maintenance. This reality indicates a poor management of these materials, that is, economic waste of recyclable materials. In addition, it is evident that there is not a correct destination or an efficient reuse of the materials used in construction sites (ABRELPE 2016). Brazilian municipalities collected about 45.1 million tons of WCD in 2016, a decrease of 0.08% compared to 2015. This situation, also observed in previous years, requires special attention, once the total quantity of these wastes is even greater, since municipalities, as a rule, collect only the waste dumped or abandoned in public places. When thinking about the share of individual responsibility of the citizen, this percentage is equivalent to 123.219 tons/day or 0.600 kg/inhabitants/day. From the environmental point of view, the main problem with this type of waste is related to its irregular deposition and the large volumes produced. These irregularly deposited residues cause flooding, proliferation of vectors that are harmful to health, partial interdiction of roads, and degradation of the urban environment. These residues are often accepted by real estate owners who use them as a landfill, usually without major concerns with the technical control of the process. This practice can lead to future construction problems. In addition to the consequences mentioned above, the removal of irregularly accumulated waste costs to the public safes. In São Paulo alone, almost 3,000 t of rubble are daily removed

Objective 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all; Objective 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation; Objective 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; Objective 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; Objective 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; Objective 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (United Nations 2015, p. 14)

In this sense, it is worth mentioning ISO 14000, which is a set of norms that focuses on environmental management. Some of these standards deal with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a procedure which purpose to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product or material from its acquisition to its final disposal (ABNT 2015). Thus, it requires special attention when building, considering the design, the production of the materials, and the resources involved. It is

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

431

from the streets at a cost of R$ 50 million per year (G1 2011). In the light of the above, changes are necessary so that the production of rubble can be minimized. These changes need to be reviewed in the three main stages of rubble generation: building (construction site); maintenance and renovation; demolition. The generation of the waste during the construction phase is due to the losses of the construction processes, mortar and concretes made in larger quantities. Changes are important to reduce construction losses and rubble. Processes such as the incorporation of facilities in masonry walls that require the partial breaking of the newly constructed wall and its reconstruction with mortar must be abandoned. But not all new technologies have recently been used to reduce losses. This is the case of internal gypsum-based coatings, with losses of up to 120% in service. The reduction of losses generated in the construction phase has a direct impact on the reduction of the amount of material incorporated in the works, which results in the reduction of waste in the maintenance and demolition phases (John and Agopyan 2000). In the maintenance phase, the generation of rubble results from facts such as: correction of defects (pathologies); remodeling or modernization, which usually require partial demolitions; disposal of components that have degraded and reached the end of their useful life and therefore need to be replaced. In Brazil, in general, the projects do not even consider the existence of maintenance activities and their costs. Currently, the industry concentrates a lot of effort on quality management programs. The other measures to reduce waste at this stage depend on the awareness of members of the construction chain, which will only be obtained in the long term. Flexible projects rely on new technologies, which are coming to the country. These new technologies allow demolition with the possibility of reusing some of the components (John and Agopyan 2000). The reduction of waste caused by demolition depends on: the extension of the useful life and its components, which depends on both design technology and materials; the existence of incentives for owners to carry out modernization and

not demolitions; design technology and demolition or disassembly that allow the reuse of components (John and Agopyan 2000). National waste recycling experiments in the form of aggregates are used in paving works and in the production of small concrete components such as paving blocks. The reduction of the generation of this residue is complex and can only be reached in medium or long term. Recycling of construction and demolition waste is technically and environmentally feasible. The risk of environmental contamination by this type of recycling can be considered low, although minimal control is desirable especially when dealing with wastes from industrial plants.

Final Considerations The development of this study was based on the comparison of the three main types of bricks and blocks most commonly used in Brazil and the analysis of their environmental impacts, atmospheric emissions, and the production process. Among all the categories analyzed, the transportation of the raw material for the production of bricks and blocks and the transportation of ready-made items most contributed to the potential environmental impacts, with diesel oil being the most commonly found substance in the impacts of the analyzed categories. Burning fossil fuels in internal combustion engines is one of the main sources of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration and the average temperature rise of the planet. The life cycle of fossil fuels is considered an energy system. Its extraction, transportation, processing, distribution, and final-use activities can cause significant environmental impacts. Considering the emission factors of pollutants, the substance emitted in greater quantity was the carbon dioxide (CO2). Note this being consonant with IPCC data, where CO2 gas is the main contributor to a radioactive forcing increase, with 80% of the total increase, where increasing radioactive forcing is related to atmospheric warming. It is possible to point out that in order to minimize the negative impacts of civil construction on the environment, it

E

432

Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development

is necessary to replace traditional construction techniques with other more efficient ones, being essential to search for alternatives for greater rationalization and modulation. Considering the perspective of the Brundtland report for sustainability and according to this study, it is clear that the construction industry is largely responsible for the great distance from the point of balance in terms of environment, economy, and society. Thus, in order to achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to abandon the old ideas that the planet will always replace what the human being extracts and will absorb the generated waste. It is necessary to adopt techniques, materials, and logistics that are more efficient and environmentally responsible.

www.monografias.poli.ufrj.br/monografias/monopoli100 11743.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2018 Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente (1991) Nosso Futuro Comum. Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente (1989) Resolução CONAMA n 5, de 15 de junho de 1989. Dispõe sobre o Programa Nacional de Controle da Poluição do Ar – PRONAR. http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm? codlegi=81. Accessed 13 Jan 2018 Deigo VH, Costa WAS, Araujo RC et al (2014) Problemas e soluções ambientais causados por uma empresa de produção de blocos de grande porte. Augusto Guzzo Revista Acadêmica 1(13):1–11. http://www.fics.edu.br/index.php/augusto_guzzo/article/ view/229. Accessed 13 Mar 2018 Fac Arquitectura de Lisboa (2007) O tijolo e a sua aplicação ao longo do tempo. http://home.fa.utl.pt/ ~lcaldas/Tijolo.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2018 Fiquerola V (2004) Alvenaria de solo cimento. Téchne, n. 8. Abril, 2004. http://techne17.pini.com.br/engenhariacivil/85/artigo286284-1.aspx G1 (2011) Prefeitura de SP gasta R$ 50 milhões por ano para dar destino a entulho. http://g1.globo.com/ jornal-nacional/noticia/2011/01/prefeitura-de-sp-gasta-r50-milhoes-por-ano-para-dar-destino-ao-entulho.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) http://www.ipcc.ch. Accessed 06 Jan 2018 John VM, Agopyan V (2000) Reciclagem de Resíduos da Construção. In: Anais do seminário reciclagem de resíduos sólidos domiciliares. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, 10 May 2000 John VM, Sato NMN, Agopyan V, Sjostrom C (2001) Durabilidade e Sustentabilidade: Desafios para a Construção Civil Brasileira. USP/ University of Gävle, São Paulo Motta JCSS, Morais PWP, Rocha GN, Tavares et al (2014) Tijolo de solo-cimento: análise das características físicas e viabilidade econômica de técnicas construtivas sustentáveis. Exacta 7(1):13–26 SEBRAE - Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (2018) Olaria, fabricação de tijolos. http://www.sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/ ideias/como-montar-uma-olaria-para-a-fabricacao-detijolose6e87a51b9105410VgnVCM1000003b74010a RCRD. Accessed 10 Feb 2018 Singh YK (2006) Environmental science. New Age International Publisher, New Delhi Tajiri CAH, Cavalcanti DC, Potenza JL (2014) Habitação Sustentável, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente Coordenadoria de Planejamento. Ambiental, São Paulo Trivisan JH, Pinatti A (2004) Oito perguntas sobre tijolo ecológico. Revista digital AECweb. https://www. aecweb.com.br/cont/m/rev/8-perguntas-sobre-tijoloecologico_9601_0_1. Accessed 04 Nov 2017 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20S ustainable%20Devel

References Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais (2016) Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil 2006. Abrelpe, São Paulo. http://www.abrelpe.org.br/Panorama/panorama2016. pdf. Acessed 3 Apr 2018 Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (1983) NBR 7171. Tijolo maciço cer^amico para alvenaria. ABTN, Rio de Janeiro Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (2008) NBR 6136. Blocos vazados de concreto simples para alvenaria. Requisitos. ABTN, Rio de Janeiro Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (2010) NBR 15873 Coordenação modular para edificações, ABNT, Rio de Janeiro Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (2012a) NBR 8491. Tijolo de solo-cimento. Requisitos. ABTN, Rio de Janeiro Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (2012b) NBR 8492. Tijolo de solo-cimento. Análise dimensional, determinação da resistência à compressão e da absorção de água. Método de ensaio. ABTN, Rio de Janeiro Associação brasileira de normas técnicas (2015) NBR ISO 14001:2015. Sistemas de Gestão Ambientais. Requisitos e Orientações para Uso. ABTN, Rio de Janeiro Barbosa PP, Silva TL, Galassi C et al (2012) Análise dos impactos ambientais da produção de blocos cer^amicos. In: Anais do 3rd simpósio de pós-graduação em engenharia urbana, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, 7–8 November 2012 Brundtland G (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-com mon-future.pdf Chaves HO (2014) Diretrizes sustentáveis na construção civil. Mongrafia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. http://

Ecology and Sustainable Development

433

Ecological Sustainability ▶ Sustainability Barriers

Ecological University ▶ Green Universities Development

and

Sustainable

Ecology and Sustainable Development Bila-Isia Inogwabini Center for Research and Communication in Sustainable Development (CERED), Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, The Jesuit Loyola University of Congo, Kinshasa, Congo Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Introduction The irruption of ecology in the last part of the twentieth century is a major shift in scientific paradigms, particularly on how humans view, understand, and interact with nature. In fact, despite being quoted back in 1866 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, ecology became an important scientific endeavor only after the defining publication The Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. (1972) went out of press. Indeed, The Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. (1972) predicted a gloomy future for humankind, prompted by our overextraction of natural resources. Globally, humankind has gained an increasing interest in exploring the role that our species has played in shaping the ecosystems in which they live (Des Jardins 2001). Since then, interconnectivity of different forms of life and the environments in which they happen to occur as well as relationship between living organisms (including species) have become a persistent theme in wider debates over human development and

well-being (Ghimire and Pimbert 2000). Studying interconnectivities of different forms of life, the environments, and all living organs globally and in a systemic paradigm is, in essence, what modern ecological sciences strive to achieve. Viewed from this angle, ecology can be better understood as sensitivity to care about these relationships and interlinkages in any action humans may want to take to improve their own conditions. For the lay public, and shortly stated, ecology has become an imperative to care for environment. Numerous international, national, and local multilateral, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and conventions have been established and provide evidence of an emerging consensus and a more active willingness by societies around the world to care for their environment (Inogwabini and LeaderWilliams 2013). The prediction by Meadows et al. (1972) that overextraction of natural resources by humans was detrimental not only to the material basis of development but also to the human lives clearly established the linkages between ecology and human development. This essay is about these linkages; it is an argument that sustainable development, regardless of how it is defined, is much less of a technical issue. The entry is rather of the view that sustainable development is more about how communities envision their lives, how they view their relationships with nature, including physical environments within which they dwell, and what political and cultural means they employ to preserve the interlinkages between their own actions and the nature and the other human communities.

From Development to Sustainable Development The development paradigm that started with the emergence of industry in the Western world came through with the euphoria about the power of economics to limitlessly transform human lives through an ever-increasing economic growth. The general ideas behind the economics were those promoted in the Wealth of Nations, which can be simplistically expressed as equating material well-being with living happily. Hence, most communities, societies, and countries had invested

E

434

efforts over centuries to increase the material wellbeing of their members. From this perspective, increasing material well-being heavily relied on extracting natural materials, which are the base of life as it is known on earth. The report of the Club of Rome, which preceded the publication of the work by Meadows et al. (1972), was a milestone in the movement from development defined as an “everincreasing growth” to a much reflected usage of natural assets, which are in large part biological. Moving from the economic model that promoted an “ever-increasing growth” to a reflected usage of natural assets presided over the notion of sustainable development. This came about when scientists noticed that, as the title of the work of Meadows et al. (1972) suggests, there are limits to growth, which limits are simply attributable to the fact that nature is finite in itself. Additionally and along the same lines, the work that James Lovelock began with his colleague Sydney Epton in 1975, and was continued beyond the twentieth century (e.g., Lovelock 2000, 2006, 2014), had come to show that the nature of the earth itself was functionally similar to a living organism and needed care if humans would have to continue their existence on earth. Combining both the finite nature of resources and the idea of earth functioning like a living organism tied, once and for all, economic development and ecology. It can be genuinely argued that sustainable development, in essence, is the inclusion of ecological knowledge into the development activities in general. Hence, ecology is the scientific matrixes on which sustainable development is built. But, ecology has to be discussed beyond the narrow conceptions that are confined within visions that can seem sometimes to be rather extreme. Indeed, ecology is not just demonstrations whereby political or ideological biceps are shown to impose one’s views on discussions that pertain the whole globe.

Sustainable Development: But What Does Ecology Has to Do in All This? Arguing that sustainable development is the inclusion of ecological knowledge into the development activities in general remains a sensible point to start with characterizing sustainable

Ecology and Sustainable Development

development. However, this condensed assertion needs to be, at least, provided with some details to show how sustainable development is inextricably tied to ecology. To do so, one has to go back to the basics. The first of the basics is to elucidate the concept of sustainable development as it has evolved through its short history. Historically, and even though the concept can be said to be lurking above the heads, it was on 27 April 1987 that the World Commission on Environment and Development started to use “sustainable development” in its current understanding. The most popular version of the definition of sustainable development is the one found in the report of the Brundtland Commission, as the World Commission on Environment and Development has come to be most popularly known. For the Brundtland Commission, sustainable development is a development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Heated philosophical discussions ensued about this way of defining sustainable development; only very brief sketch of it is provided here to ensure that a broad overview of the concept is gained. Principally, there were three main arguments against the idea of caring for future generations. As Des Jardins (2001) puts them, these arguments are (1) ignorance argument, (2) disappearing beneficiaries’ argument, and (3) temporal location argument. Summarily, ignorance argument stresses the fact that current humans know little about people of the future and what their needs and desires will be; so they should not feel liable to them. The “disappearing beneficiaries” argument claims that, if alternative decisions were to be taken, different people with demands that might differ from our own may emerge in the future; so there is no way one could prejudge what next generations would be like to care about them presently. Finally, temporal location argument says that future generations do not exist presently; since one has responsibilities only toward what is there, there should be no reason to hassle oneself for none existing subjects. All the three arguments punch against the idea of sustainable development were plausibly demoted by Des Jardins (2001). Against the ignorance

Ecology and Sustainable Development

argument, Des Jardins (2001) introduced a parallelism between civil law and reasons why current populations have responsibilities to future generations. Civil laws are designed not to deal with the immediate breaches of commonly agreed social codes of conduct but to prevent potential future law breakers to account for acts that will happen in the future. The responsibility of present humans is engaged for future harms to people and the extent of harms that are presently unknown. Additionally, “the ignorance argument” could also have been pushed back by simple use of the precautionary principle. Indeed, when the opponents of sustainable development use the ignorance argument, they stress that present humans know little about people of the future and what their needs will be. The ignorance of present humans should be the very reason present generations should be precautious about dilapidating resources and destroying the environment. Against the argument of disappearing beneficiaries, Des Jardins (2001) argues that although any potential beneficiary may disappear under alternative decisions, the relative amount of suffering or happiness is not for those who would alternatively come to exist. Current humans, therefore, have obligations which are to recognize a certain minimal requirement of moral responsibility. Finally, against temporal location, Des Jardins (2001)’s point that if current humans react the way they do against unknown people that create products that threaten to destroy the basis of their lives, it is sensible to infer that future generations would have the same reaction to the mess current humans are likely to leave behind them. It is a truism to say that Des Jardins (2001)’s arguments to counter the disparaging attacks on the concept of sustainable development seem well-fitted. Nevertheless, argument stemming from both opponents (e.g., Heilig 1997) and proponents (e.g., Des Jardins 2001) of sustainability can be all said to be western-centered epistemologically. Indeed, questions about future generations (whether they will exist, who they will be, how they would like to live their lives, etc.) are almost irrelevant for communities with a different ontology. This can be said of the African context, which is by no means unique. The African ontology is construed around

435

the idea of a living network of past-present-future. Africans hold that their ancestors are still alive, and the present generation strives to procreate for the future. Procreation is something valued not for the immediate but for the future of one’s group (tribe, ethnic group, village, etc.). The continuation of the group is seen as the very reason for living groups to ensure that the blood of their ascendants is transmitted to the future. In contexts as this one, asking a question such as who the future generations are, what they would look like, or what their needs and desires would be is simply out of question. For these ontological contexts, the responsibilities to future generations are embedded in ways in which people perceive their lives. If the present cannot be dissociated of the past and the future, responsibilities to each of the points of the timeline are rather compulsory. If sustainability is all about caring for future generations, this is part of the human culture in the south, and there is no debate over why sustainability should be pursued. The above short discussion on ideas for and against sustainability in development was necessary to set the records straight; it was necessary because as Mebratu (1998) argued, the seeming vagueness of the concept of sustainable development led to large political battles. Viewed from this statement, issues conflicting over sustainable development are issues of struggle for influence, which cross through economy, public policies, the idea of society, and what type of civilization one wants to live in. Hence, as indicated above, sustainability is much more a question of defining what type of the world current generations and the future ones would like to live in. A major criticism levelled against the idea of sustainable development is, as Heilig (1997) puts it, that of being seen as essentially biologistic. Indeed, ecology is taught in departments of biology across the world. However, that argument narrows down the idea of ecology to biological sciences only. In the current acceptation of the term, ecology is at the juncture of many branches of science, including among others biology, physics, economics, anthropology, and philosophy. That is why ecology has been described as an interdisciplinary science both in its contents and its approaches. It relates these

E

436

branches to describe what makes life be what it is biologically, physically, socially, economically, and (why not) philosophically. Taken from this understanding, ecology bridges different natural components with human and social activities. Ecology does so in a thoughtful and thoughtthrough manner with the aim to ensure the persistence of life on earth. Ecology, as a scientific paradigm, then boils down to helping communities across the world to manage scarcity in natural resource supply as well as in identifying limits of the absorptive capacity of the natural sinks (Mebratu 1998). So, Heilig (1997)’s argument does not necessarily sound right here. Ensuring persistence of life on earth is the function of biodiversity. Hence ecology would also mean to bring in concerns over biological diversity in the development equation. The definition of the concept biodiversity has changed over time and the ethical implications and responsibilities toward biodiversity change depending on the understanding of the word (Bosworth et al. 2011). Narrowly defined, biodiversity is equated with the number of species or what is called the “species richness” found in a given location (Morgan 2009). However, during the past decades, this definition has moved from this narrow understanding to include living organisms and the complex interactions between living organisms and their abiotic environments. In this essay, accounting for the last evolution of the debate about what biodiversity is, biodiversity is defined as the totality of living organisms and functions that ensure that species and life are maintained on earth. This definition decomposes biodiversity in three main components such as composition, structure, and function (Neem et al. 2008) and implies that biodiversity should not be viewed only as the total number species; it has to be expanded to include functions that interrelate different organisms and sustain life on earth. Hence, people care about biodiversity when implementing sustainable development activities because by doing so, they are also prolonging the lives of their own species. Once more, if Heilig (1997)’s argument was based on the fact that ecology, at least in its early days, was felt to focus on wildlife species, it does not seem right

Ecology and Sustainable Development

here too. Caring about wild habitats and wild species is essential for humans whether presently or in the future. This is so because wild habitats and wild species play functions that will ultimately maintain life on earth, including the life of humans. Beyond managing scarcity, ecology ensures the sustainability of life on earth, which is essential for us as human beings. Having clarified the concepts above and having linked ecology and sustainable development, discussing how that operates remains the objective of the essay. In a sense, this can be done in two ways with hybrid methods in the middle. At the first end, it would require deploying an argument that shows how ecology is or rather should be used to inform activities of sustainable development. At the other end, one would be wise to use the ongoing discussion about global sustainable development objectives and analyze them looking at how ecology can play a role in their respective realizations. The first option seems to be rather theoretical and remote from concerns of the everyday development practitioners, whereas the second way would benefit from anchoring theoretical ideas on what is being pursued by governments, communities, and even private sector investments. For this reason, this essay discusses the links between ecology and sustainable development using the 17 sustainable development goals, which were adopted by the United Nations on 25 September 2015. Doing so is sensible because the 2030 Agenda, as these sustainable development goals are also known, provides a collective thinking effort to bring ecology and development together. To start with looking at the links between ecology and sustainable development goals, it is worth stating that these goals can be sensible analyzed using the conventional demand and supply approach. In addition to using this approach, it appears that some of the goals were inserted to act as mediating factors; the final objective being that of seeing positive feedback loops established between the demand and the supply sides. With this in perspectives, objectives falling on the demand side are (1) end poverty in all its forms everywhere; (2) end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable

Ecology and Sustainable Development

agriculture; (3) ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all; and (4) ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Objectives that should mediate between the demand side and the supply side include (1) ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; (2) achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; (3) ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; (4) promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all; (5) build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation; (6) reduce inequality within and among countries; (7) make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable; (8) ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; and (10) take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. As the term mediation implies, these are objectives that should ensure that the satisfaction of the demands does not deplete the material base of resources current humans live on. The material base of life is constitutive of biological and physical environmental elements. These mediating goals are, indeed, what should ensure the sustainability in the development action. The mediating objectives are, as indicated above, to ensure that positive feedback loops are maintained between demands and supply. This means that the above mediating objectives have the role of helping to avoid breaking the thresholds of what is actually bearable by the natural systems. In essence, these are at the core ecological demands to avoid breaking the life system through human action. Paraphrasing Kant, development should be viewed as human action on nature. However, ecology helps identify the threshold up to which that action can be carried out without breaking the life system; it sets the limits of the human action on nature for life to continue being sustained. To take just some examples from the above goals, (1) ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all will help educate men and women of all ages in ways to

437

behave vis-à-vis the world that is around them, how to serve themselves from natural assets without jeopardizing the possibilities for themselves and their descendants to continue using the same resources. Hence, one can see that the objective on education will sustain the objective on sustainable consumption, which is stipulated above as aiming at ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns. A more specific type of mediating goals is the one made by the following two objectives: (1) promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels and (2) strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. While remaining mediating objectives that should be viewed as enabling factors, they are of a specific sort because they are touching upon governance structures. They, in fact, are saying how the human action should be governed if we are to achieve sustainability. This falls under what can be genuinely called political ecology, which deals with how the political power can be used to ensure that global resources are distributed across entire communities. Promoting inclusive societies across the world will be the prerequisite for promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Finally, it should be stated that all the above mediating objectives require a significant shift in ways in which social life and economic successes have been defined so far. Truly, they demand defining a new civilization whereby new models of how to generate and accumulate riches are defined while caring about nature. That new civilization would be workable only with a look on the supply side, which has only the following objectives: (1) conserve and sustainably use ocean, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development and (2) protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. It is no surprising that these are the only two objectives clearly

E

438

talking about natural assets; this shows the finiteness of earth’s nature. We only have one planet, which can offer only its oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems to fulfil all human demands on both goods and sinks. For natural goods and sinks to be maintained in order to continue maintaining life on earth, they would have to be solicited within the limits of their carrying capacities. The essence of ecology is to help development actors to understand these carrying capacities and identify resilience mechanisms within natural ecosystems. Stating the above has been a point contention between those who, e.g., Heilig (1997), felt that bringing ecology, with its associate biodiversity conservation, in the development was to halt human development, or at least slowing human development, and those who believe the contrary being true. Rather than being stuck on arguments about who is right and who is not right on this debate, suffice it here to indicate that most of the demand-side objective cannot be answered without usage of raw materials that only nature, as depicted in the two supply-side objectives, can provide. In the regular jargons of sustainability, these nature supply-side objectives are called natural capital (Constanza and Daly 1992). In that very vein, the concept sustainability is defined as having a minimum necessary condition for it to be said being followed through with action. That condition is that current natural capital is maintained constant or increases over time (Constanza and Daly 1992). With this condition in mind, justification can be attributed to the pessimism of those that do not see why and how ecology would help a long-lived development. For pessimists, long-lived development or a steady-state economy (Daly 1980) is a complete opposition of preserving natural assets. The idea here is that there will always be a price that nature has to pay when people work. Development, viewed from this angle, is philosophically incommensurable with conserving natural assets (Robinson 2004). That steady-state development is philosophically incommensurable with the condition that current natural capital is maintained constant or increases over time (Constanza and Daly 1992) is the most vexing issue of conceptualizing and implementing sustainable development. Protecting nature, through

Ecology and Sustainable Development

several existing paradigms would, therefore, play a critical role here. Against the steady-state development being philosophically incommensurable with the idea of maintaining (at minimum) or increasing current natural capital over time, my pledge here is that enabling sustainable development goals above are a way to bridge the two sides (demand objectives and natural capital objectives). I also claim that to ensure that natural capital is at least maintained, the way to go is via ecology, particularly in trying to conserve both marine and terrestrial biodiversity. This is an important claim because so often many people do not see the link between conserving biodiversity (whether marine, oceanic, riverine, or terrestrial) and development objectives (Dudley et al. 2017). So, the question comes down to can ecology help development continue while maintaining the natural resources at (least) their current levels? If so, then how? Without trying to square the circle (Robinson 2004), bringing ecology into economic thinking is part of the process of bridging the incommensurable lines, and this is what sustainable development mean practically and beyond the focus placed on inter-generational equity. Ecological studies and biodiversity conservation can unravel new knowledge about nature that can foster innovation, which would then help provide sufficient resources to communities worldwide. For example, and relying on the work of Dudley et al. (2017), ecological knowledge on basic ecological services of soil production, functioning, and cycles can be used to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production while keeping soil types resilient themselves. Another interesting example from Dudley et al. (2017) is about knowledge and mastering of how to stabilize water supplies and cycles which can contribute to both sustainable agriculture and provide clean drinking water to immense numbers of people; that knowledge can help buffer communities and people against climate-related shocks. This capacity can be decupled if additional knowledge of interlinkages between water sources and forests are brought to play their partition in how humans manage water sources. Practically, active ecology, by which implementation of action is to

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development

be understood to preserve biodiversity, would work toward ensuring forests that serve as large water storages that are managed soundly to ensure that water supplies remain constant over millennia. There are many more examples of this type to help understand the role that ecology can play on implementing sustainable development activities. Clearly, the links between ecology and sustainable development should not be viewed solely from the angle of basic economic physical principles. The new paradigm is how to use ecological knowledge to ensure sustainability principles. The knowledge that ecological perspectives bring to economics and, subsequently to development, is essential; and ecological perspectives are in essence multidisciplinary. Despite the obvious incommensurability between maintaining, a steady-state economic development and the persistence of a stable natural capital, the two can be brought to “talk” together via enabling factors (sustainable development mediating objectives), which were described above. These mechanisms are means to establish positive feedback loops between human demands and needs for natural resilience of the supply side. For human demands to avoid breaking the resilience of the natural capital, ecological knowledge (primarily) and ecological work are essential part of the gamble. In this perspective, there is no sustainable development without ecology.

References Bosworth A, Chaipraditkul N, Cheng MM, Gupta A, Junmookda K, Kadam P, Macer D, Millet C, Sangaroonthong J, Waller A (2011) Ethics and biodiversity. Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education (UNESCO), Bangkok, Tayland Constanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46 Daly H (1980) Economics, ecology, ethics: essays toward a steady-state economy. Freeman, San Francisco Des Jardins JR (2001) An introduction to environmental philosophy, 3rd edn. Wadsworh-Thomas Learning, Belmond, California (USA) Dudley N, Ali N, Kettunen M, MacKinnon K (2017) Editorial essay: protected areas and the sustainable development goals. Parks 23(2):9–12 Ghimire KB, Pimbert PM (2000) Social changes and conservation: an overview of issues and concepts. In:

439 Ghimire KB, Pimbert PM (eds) Social changes and conservation. Earth Scan, London, UK, pp 1–45 Heilig GK (1997) Sustainable development: ten arguments against a biologistic ‘slow-down’ philosophy of social and economic development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 4(1):1–16 Inogwabini BI, Leader-Williams N (2013) Conservation paradigms seen through the lenses of bonobos. In Sodhi NS & Raven P (Editors). Conservation Biology: Lessons from the Tropics. Oxford University Press: 7–18 Lovelock J (2000) Gaia: a new look at life on earth, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford Lovelock J (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: why the earth is fighting back and how we can still save humanity. Allen Lane, Santa Barbara Lovelock J (2014) A rough ride to the future. Allen Lane, Santa Barbara Lovelock J, Epton S (1975) The quest for Gaia. New Sci 65(935):304–309 Meadows D, Randers J, Meadows D (1972) Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Earthscan, London Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:493–520 Morgan GJ (2009) The many dimensions of biodiversity. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 40(2009):235–238 Neem S, Bunker D, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C (2008) Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing. Oxford University Press, New York Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development Eva Chiu Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Definition Economic equity is defined as the fairness and distribution of economic wealth, tax liability, resources, and assets in a society. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland et al. 1987). Together these concepts promote a society where individuals are able to have their needs met intertemporally in a manner consistent with sustainable environmental resource use in each period and across periods.

E

440

Introduction As present human activity continues to foster resource-intensive economic growth, both the environmental and social costs are unequally distributed among different socioeconomic classes for individuals and development classifications of nations (Daily and Ehrlich 1996; Stanton and Ackerman 2014). Inequality has significant issues, not only will marginalized groups such as women, the poor, and agricultural workers suffer, but sustainability is challenged by an incomerelated inability to properly steward resources. Further, inequality facilitates inequity as unequal treatment (inequality) yields to unequal distribution of resources (inequity). Gender Equality, No Poverty, and Zero Hunger are among the 17 targets of the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are targeted to be met by 2030 (UN SDG n.d.). Though gender equity targets and the elimination of discrimination against females globally are main areas of focus of SDG 5, it is also crucial to the success of the other SDGs as well. Fortynine countries in the world do not have policies that shelter females from sexual and domestic violence, and on a global scale, women only own less than 15% of agricultural land. By providing women around the world access to health care, stable jobs, education, and more control in policies, the goals of SDG 5 are positioned to be achieved. SDG 1, No Poverty, calls to abolish global extreme poverty, determined by an income of less than $1.25 a day (UN SDG n.d.). SDG 1 aims to eradicate extreme poverty through giving support to countries vulnerable to natural disasters, administering sustainable jobs, and advocating for social equality (UN SDG n.d.). Zero hunger, the target of SDG 2, aspires to provide decent food to 815 million people who are presently characterized as starving and the 2 billion people that are expected to be added to that list by 2050. The focus of SDG 2 is investing in agriculture and protecting the environment. Climate change and other environmental impacts are directly accelerating the malnourishment of millions by increasing droughts and floods, destroying agricultural grounds and forests,

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development

putting pressure on scarce resources, and forcing families to move in light of better opportunities (UN SDG n.d.). In order to foster equality, access to basic needs, clean water, food, and quality air are needed, highlighting the significance of the environment in attaining the SDGs. Inequality across gender, social castes, and agricultural work generates a ceaseless, accelerating wage gap at a global level that may in turn reinforce the detriment of our environmental commons (Daily and Ehrlich 1996; Mechoulan et al. 2016). In most cases, the social and intrinsic value of our natural resources is much larger than their respective market price demonstrating that market prices reflect the inequitable power distribution between supply and demand that is observable in the exploitation or resources, including people. The inequities encountered by society are unsustainable in two ways: they reinforce poverty, causing positive feedback loops that lead to permanent damage to our environment, and they prevent cooperation from happening among varying socioeconomic classes (Least Developed Countries Independent Expert Group 2014). Both sustainability and economic equity reinforce each other and both factors are positively correlated. SDG 10, Reduced Inequalities, aims to take into account all the factors of sustainable development, economic, social, and environmental, in order to significantly decrease poverty and other injustices. One cannot solve one of these dilemmas without solving another. In this entry, the impact of unsustainable practices is highlighted and discussed with respect to economic equity, specifically, inequity.

Poverty Alleviation and Sustainability Climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and other environmental concerns do not involve everyone in an equal manner. Many of these consequences will be felt by the poorest members on a global scale because they do not have the same resources and power that wealthier individuals do (Hertel and Rosch 2010). As we near Earth’s carrying capacity, the influence of human environmental impact will most readily be felt by the

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development

poor on an intra- and inter-country basis. The access and ability to purchase necessities will be disproportionate across populations, and, however, the absolute size of a population will still require human-centered environmental resource use. As populations grow and resources are depleted, humans, as promoted through our economic framework, invent innovative technologies and methods to extract and produce the same amount of goods that they have grown accustomed to utilizing in the past. However, these technologies often give way to further environmental disturbances that impoverished members are burdened with (Daily and Ehrlich 1996). For example, as oil reserves and gas formations continue to diminish, we have attained several methods to acquire the fossil fuels deep inside Earth’s interior. Fracking is an example of an innovative technological advance that has allowed humans to access resources that arguably would not have been accessible through a natural channel. The process of pumping chemical fluids in order to extract oil or gas formations has resulted in water quality degradation, habitat destruction, air pollution, and even man-made earthquakes (Bligh and Wendelbo 2013). Prosperous members of a society typically do not grasp the repercussions of these externalities because they have the authority and capital to incentivize fracking companies to avoid working in their neighborhoods. However, the same is not true for the poor who find themselves facing the growing consequences of these unsustainable actions every day. In the United States, a research report from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania DEP) provides a clear example of how income is correlated with pollution. In an assessment of the environmental impact of fracking, it was noted that counties with an average per capita income of $30,043 had 268 well violations and 8 water supply determinations (WSD) (Pacheco 2015). WSDs indicate that the water supply in the region has been polluted with oil and gas. On the other hand, counties with an average per capita income of $21,552 encountered 1914 well violations and 161 WSDs (Pacheco 2015). The county with the lowest reported income had over 7 times more well violations and over

441

20 times more WSDs than the highest reported income sector (Pacheco 2015). Hydraulic fracking affects the poor in other areas as well; Shell, Falcon, and Challenger Energy’s all have permits to 20% of South Africa’s lands (Lowdown on Fracking in the Karoo 2015). Public efforts have prompted investigation on environmental degradation, water contamination, pollution, and health risks correlated with the fluid injection in the Karoo region in July 2011 (de Wit 2011). The Karoo is an extremely dry region. Literally meaning “thirsty land,” the region is highly dependent on groundwater for agriculture and consumption purposes (Schoeman 2014). Though a moratorium was imposed to investigate these concerns, these efforts were lifted in 2012 due to an economic decision that resulted in the creation of 700,000 jobs and an addition of almost 200 billion rands a year (Cheremisinoff and Davletshin 2015). Opposers to the moratorium lift have highlighted that the profit made off of this activity primarily benefits foreign corporations rather than the local economy, silently widening the gap between the rich and poor (Cheremisinoff and Davletshin 2015). Hydraulic fracturing is far reaching and causes irrevocable damages; it is just one example of the myriad of business’s short-term profit-driven practices and their respective externalities that directly affect the poor. Poor communities are often faced with limited political control and may also face limitations in ownership of the land they occupy. In these areas, the extraction of that resource provides profit for large, affluent firms and individuals, while it creates tremendous environmental risks for citizens living in the area or for people who use resources from the area. Appalachia, a mountainous region in the United States, is one of the poorest communities in the nation, a position it has held for the past 100 years. External ownership and exploitation of timber and coal have left its economy dependent on only one sector, coal. The environment of the area is polluted, and this is readily observable in the water. Because the economy is dependent on natural resources, as more resources in the Appalachia are extracted to depletion, the residents living there are left with the risk of unemployment. This leads to a vicious cycle

E

442

from which citizens in the Appalachia cannot escape, their survival is tied to the extraction of resources in the land, but the depletion and contamination of the land impacts their survival. Irrevocable damage to the area is caused by the extraction of more resources through acts such as clear-cutting and in situ mining (Glasmeier and Farrigan 2003). In situations like these, the interests of profitable corporations and their unsustainable practices take precedence over the interests of poor communities. Irreparably crippling these impoverished communities will only accelerate the income inequality, profiting corporations in the short run, while leaving labor vulnerable to exploitation and deteriorating natural living conditions.

Gender Equality, Total Fertility Rate, and Sustainability Unsustainable practices and their effects notably contribute to the growing vulnerability of women. Climate change will amplify the current issues that women are already battling, such as their dependence on scarce resources, limited education, inadequate mobility, and the inability to decide on how to use natural resources. Because women earn a much lower income relative to men, it will be difficult for them to adapt to these drastic changes, leaving them susceptible to anthropogenic climate-induced disasters (Pratiwi et al. 2016). Furthermore, women make up about two thirds of the illiterate population. Due to this lack of education, the vast majority of the female populations are not familiar with their rights and the various hazards that are in place for them. As result, the gendered risk of climate change can include, but is not limited to: • More requirements needed to maintain agriculture • An interruption in water, food, and other natural resource supplies • More climate-related disasters that put more responsibility and pressure on women to take care of households • Men leaving families behind to relocate jobs

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development

All of these consequences lead to higher efforts and burdens placed on women (Pratiwi et al. 2016). Gender inequality is also a contributing factor to climate change as lack of female reproductive power limits the ability of women to limit pregnancy, and increases in population size place higher burdens on the environment, which may use carbon-based energy. Total fertility rate (TFR) is a measure of the average number of children born in a female’s lifetime. In many cases, TFRs in developing countries are high enough that put tremendous stress on our environment as we near our Earth’s carrying capacity. Niger currently has the world’s highest TFR of 6.49 children/woman (CIA n.d.). Furthermore, women and children utilize about 90% of household supplies in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa and China, putting overwhelming pressure on scarce resources. To alleviate the energy and exertion needed to acquire the biomass and fuel to supply their households with power, women require the help of large families. As more people enter the population, essential resources are depleted at a more rapid rate, causing families to require even more effort to attain the most basic necessities for human life. This creates a vicious cycle of increased population and, in turn, more environmental damage (Daily and Ehrlich 1996). After implementing extensive education opportunities for females and an effective family planning program, Mauritius was able to reduce its TFR from 6.2 in 1962 to only 3.4 in 1971. In addition, a study in Barbados suggested that in order to decrease fertility rates in developing countries, children need to become “consumer durables” rather than another helping hand. When children become costly components of the family that demand private schooling and expensive TV sets, the fertility rate will decrease in families that cannot provide for these costly needs (Daily and Ehrlich 1996). Gender inequality also results from food insecurity issues caused by unsustainable acts in many societies. Food production is a growing problem in some parts of the world as we near our carrying capacity. In certain areas, females devote much more labor efforts than men do. Around 90% of

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development

domestic food in Africa is produced by women, and women contribute almost two times more time to agriculture in South Asian areas that produce rice. Though women provide more work and energy for these resources, they are not compensated nearly enough for their efforts. For instance, 60–90% of the farm workers are women in India, but women only receive 60% of men’s hourly wage. The workload of women has greatly increased in addition to the amount of household work of taking care of their children and families as natural resources are not as attainable as they were in the past. Another reason for this decreasing productivity is because women do not have as much access to farm credit, which are loans to farmers. Women’s share of farm credit is less than 10% based on the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). In rural areas of Pakistan, 76% of women work in agriculture; however, men dominate the agriculture finance and are provided 87% of loans (Ahmed and Javed 2016). Furthermore, although women produce most of the agriculture, they have limited control over these natural resources. Without access to proper information and management of their inputs, it is unlikely for anyone to adequately produce the substantial amount needed to provide for an entire population. From the receiving end of food security, women are also the victims of lack of food at times of poor economic activity and face the hardships related to limited to insufficient food for their children and elderly (Guillaume-Gentil 2014). Limited access to food is disruptive and impacts child development, which affects future sustainability.

Agriculture and Sustainability Climate change notably contributes to the economic loss of agriculture and food production. Some of its projected effects are variations of precipitation, decreased output of certain plants and livestock, diminishing water supply, and a growing risk for hunger in developing nations (Skene and Murray 2017). The projected temperature rise of 2- to 4-degree Celsius will not only diminish food production but will also create positive feedback loops that will continue to limit

443

agricultural production, such as soil salinization, desertification, and a lack of water (Skene and Murray 2017). Climate change impacts growing conditions and also increases the incidence and ability for vector-borne disease, providing the conditions for these invasive species to affect crop yield (Houser et al. 2015). Least developed countries emit very few greenhouse gases relative to developed countries, but, unfortunately, are the most susceptible to climate change. Time series data in Punjab, Pakistan, reveals a negative correlation between wheat production, human-induced temperature rise, and precipitation. The report establishes the relationship between yield and temperature; findings note that an increase in temperature of 3-degree Celsius by 2050 may result in a decline of one half of present production. Cotton is also vulnerable to climate change. Present research findings in Pakistan are that almost 20% of cotton crop land has been damaged by flooding in 2010, the cause of which was likely due to climate change. The flood devastated two million bales of cotton, greatly weakening Pakistan’s foreign trade economy (Ahmed and Javed 2016). The impact of climate change on agriculture is also being observed in developed countries. In the United States, California has had significant environmental impacts as a result of climate change. Many vital farming areas, such as California, have already been affected by wildfires, invasive species, droughts, and flooding. Anthropogenic climate change has been the direct impact of the two factors that govern drought, the speed and amount of precipitation and evaporation. With less precipitation and faster-paced evaporation, the duration, impact, and prevalence of the California droughts have risen tremendously. One hundred percent of the dry years in the past decade have been due to climate change anomalies (Mann and Gleick 2015; Seager et al. 2015). Loss in property, impact to agriculture, relationship with invasive pests, and, ultimately, the impact to agricultural productivity are outcomes of climate change that are reflective of the causes of the increasing speed of climate change as well. Unfortunately, these climate impacts are disproportionately borne by the same vulnerable populations that were exploited in the economic growth trajectory that promoted climate change.

E

444

Conclusion Human activity has influenced the speed of global climate change. The drivers of human activity have most recently been related to economic growth and have included unsustainable activity defined by exploitation, depletion, and degradation of the natural environment. Existing inequality and observable inequity across and within countries have enabled unsustainable practices as a matter of business as usual, as market prices have forced the value of resources, including people, below a value that would promote stewardship or resource maintenance. The assessment of market values (supply and demand), intervention in markets where pricing is exploitive, and greater precautionary oversight appear to be obvious actions to promote equity aligned to sustainable development. From this perspective, careful evaluation of what has yielded present environmental and human equity conditions provides a starting point for urgent action to address these elements as well as establish corrective measures to actively promote sustainable development.

Cross-References ▶ Contextual Learning for Sustainability ▶ Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development ▶ Quality of Life and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Justice in Sustainable Development ▶ Water Conservation Strategies for Sustainable Development

References Ahmed V, Javed A (2016) National Study on agriculture Investment in Pakistan. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, pp 11–16, Rep. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02851.5 Bligh S, Wendelbo C (2013) Environment, energy, and resources law: hydraulic fracturing: drilling into the issue. GPSolo 30(5):72–73. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23630753 Brundtland G, Khalid M, Agnelli S et al (1987) Report of the World Commission on enviornment and development: our common future. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Economic Equity and Sustainable Development Cheremisinoff NP, Davletshin A (2015) Hydraulic fracturing operations: handbook of environmental management practices. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/ WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118946359.html Daily G, Ehrlich P (1996) Socioeconomic equity, sustainability, and Earth’s carrying capacity. Ecol Appl 6(4):991–1001. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269582 de Wit MJ (2011) The great shale debate in the Karoo. S Afr J Sci 107(7–8):02–10. Retrieved from http:// www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0038-23532011000 400002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt Glasmeier A, Farrigan T (2003) Poverty, sustainability, and the culture of despair: can sustainable development strategies support poverty alleviation in America’s Most environmentally challenged communities? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 590:131–149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/stable/3658549 Guillaume-Gentil A (2014) GENDER: empowering women. Spore (173):13–17 Hertel T, Rosch S (2010) Climate change, agriculture, and poverty. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 32(3):355–385 HouserT, Hsiang S, Kopp R, Larsen K, Delgado M, Jina A, . . . Steyer T (2015) Agriculture. In: Economic risks of climate change: an American prospectus. New York: Columbia University Press, pp 51–66 Least Developed Countries Independent Expert Group (2014) Transforming global development: An LDC perspective on the post-2015 agenda. International Institute for Environment and Development, pp 6–9, Rep Lowdown on Fracking in the Karoo (2015) Retrieved from http://karoospace.co.za/lowdown-on-fracking-inthe-karoo/ Mann M, Gleick P (2015) Climate change and California drought in the 21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(13):3858–3859. Retrieved from https://www.jstor. org/stable/26462373 Mechoulan D, Mahmoud Y, Súilleabháin A, Roesch J (2016) (Rep.). International Peace Institute Pacheco E (2015) It’s a Fracking conundrum: environmental justice and the Battle to regulate hydraulic fracturing. Ecol Law Quart 42(2):373–395. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43920950 Pratiwi N, Rahmawati Y, Setiono I (2016) Mainstreaming gender in climate change adaptation: a case study from Cirebon, Indonesia. International Institute for Environment and Development, pp 10–14, Rep. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.neu.edu/ stable/resrep18050.7 Schoeman C (2014) The historical Karoo traces of the past in south Africas arid interior. RH Struik, Cape Town Seager R, Hoerling M, Schubert S, Wang H, Lyon B, Kumar A, . . . Henderson N (2015) Causes of the 2011–14 California drought. J Clim, 28(18): 6997–7024. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/sta ble/26195981; https://www.cia.gov/library/publication s/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html Skene K, Murray A (2017) Sustainable economics context, challenges and opportunities for the 21st-century practitioner. Routledge, Saltaire

Ecopsychology and Sustainable Development Stanton E, Ackerman F (2014) The tragedy of Maldistribution: climate, sustainability and equity. In: Climate change and global equity. Anthem Press, London/New York/Delhi, pp 37–54 UN SDGs. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sus tainable-development/sustainable-development-goals/ (2018, April 26) Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/ index.html

Ecopsychology and Sustainable Development Kathleen Kevany Faculty of Agriculture, Rural Research, Department of Business and Social Sciences, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada

Definition Ecopsychology is the scientific study of the relationships of organisms to one another and how interacting with the natural and built surroundings impact mind, spirit, and behavior. It blends dimensions from ecology and psychology, including the human connection to elements that foster life on Earth. Ecopsychology applies a systems approach in cultivating a consciousness that simultaneously attends to the physical/material, psychological/mental, emotional/sensory and ethereal/spiritual, and ecological/environmental. Ecopsychology encourages the fostering of worldviews and actions that enable the expansion of the human experience through being sensitive to and respectful of the evolving universe and work to protect the environment, especially from forms of human destruction.

Introduction In the 1960s unprecedented change and social conflicts were emerging. Along with advances in civil rights and environmental awareness, people were becoming more doubtful about the impact of unconscious consumption and unlimited economic growth. Concurrently, citizens were being urged to become adherents to the consumption

445

ethos and the prevailing economic orthodoxy. Many societies were facing their embedded inconsistencies and injustices and seeking to replace the arrogant attitudes that were being demonstrated as a sense of “white” superiority, colonialism, and dominance over all forms of life on Earth (for more analyses, see Meadows et al. 1972). The prelude to ecopsychology included works like that of Carson (1962/1994/2002) and Meadows et al. (1972) along with the conservation and stewardship movements and strong influences by Roszak (1992) and Roszak et al. (1995), among others. The authors of The Limits to Growth raised alarm bells about the interlocking resources being consumed at rates beyond renewal capacity. In 1970 this international team of researchers examined continued worldwide growth arising from population increase, agricultural production, nonrenewable resource depletion, industrial output, and pollution generation. From their computer modeling of various consumption patterns, the authors indicated alternative approaches were imperative for humankind’s future. They indicated that while the Earth offered bountiful resources and assets, including beauty and abundance, their key message was to reduce consumption and to examine the “religion of growth” in order to achieve global equilibrium with population and production in balance (Meadows et al. 1972). Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, greater scholarly work has emerged on the human philosophies and practices that are eroding the sustainability of ecosystems and the natural world. Ecopsychology has become its own field with substantive connections made between ecology and psychology (Roszak 1992; Roszak et al. 1995). Ecopsychologists framed scientific problems using both traditions and applied quantitative as well as qualitative analyses to environmental as well as psychological challenges and opportunities. As traditional psychology had placed little attention on external, natural environments or contextual factors as drivers of human psychology and human behavior, a reorientation to nature and sense of interconnectedness were necessary (Roszak et al. 1995). As

E

446

ecopsychology brought together disparate fields, it was able to consider an array of concerns like natural and human-made environmental influences on personal growth and relationship, physical and mental health, sustainability and sacredness, spiritual development, and quality of life.

The Need for Ecopsychology Unrelenting industrialization with arising adverse environmental impacts have led people in diverse fields to seek fundamental transformation (see Fox 1979; Hawken 1993). Humans have embraced an ideology of separateness and superiority. Humans have neglected and, in many cases, denied their nature as being part of and one with nature. Implied in this perception is that humanity derives nothing of its external existence or internal meaning making from nature (Besthorn 2013). What humans had created had become of the greatest importance rather than the external, natural creation. Nature activist Lopez taught that when humans behave as though there is no spiritual dimension to the physical spaces they occupy, humans easily treat nature as an object – utterly imperiled by exploitative tendencies of human pride and ambition (Lopez 1998 as cited by Crews and Besthorn 2016). The long-term consequences of this collective hubris has not portended well for the human species (Crews and Besthorn 2016; Hawken 1993). Naess (1973) alerted people to their state of being asleep to their ecological selves and to the recognition that the world cannot, in any meaningful way, be divided between sentient subjects and inanimate objects. Naess (1973) and Besthorn (2013) argued that reality was constituted by virtue of interrelationship and could not be logically construed as separate. As many were failing to respect the Earth and “hear the world,” they “naturally” may have assumed that the world must not speak, not communicate, and be mute and may even be unimportant. Boldt (1999) reminded humans that “...the separative ego consciousness is the psychological source of poverty, lack, conflict, human degradation, competitive hostility, craving and exploitation” (p. xviii). Devastating ecological crises have been growing over decades

Ecopsychology and Sustainable Development

with global warming and increased climate change, the loss of species and natural habitats, deforestation, soil erosion and degradation of its quality, air and water pollution and toxicity, and depletion of fossil fuels (Boldt 1999; Devereux 1996). Human hubris has been at the heart of these ecological crises. Many cultural frameworks too have played significant roles in reproducing neoliberal assumptions and practices within contemporary Western society that focused on immediate gratification and maximum profit over concerns with sustainability. Such anthropocentric practices arose when economic drivers took precedence over valuing and protecting the well-being of natural and human resources. Environmental degradation can be traced back to mechanistic worldviews and human domination over all life-forms (Devereux 1996). Western cultural ethos had contributed to a disconnection ranging from the institutionalization of domestic agriculture, the role of language and abstract thought, and the role of mechanistic science, colonization, and slavery (Canty 2005; Fox 1979). Even as progress had been made on some of these issues, the dominating worldviews continued to pressure citizen-consumers to contribute to the economic systems through their regular and uncritical consumption. (See entry on ▶ “Conscious Consumption and Sustainable Development”.) Greater emphases were placed on individual choice and freedom to live as desired without public interference. Ubiquitous consumer practices, with insatiable appetites (Capra 1996; Fox 1979), required incessant resource consumption and intensified agriculture. Overconsumption of goods and services exacted a great cost from the environment as well as the human psyche. The fact that these led to deteriorating ecological conditions was of marginal concern. These human practices revealed reduced abilities to respect and protect natural beauty and balance. Ecopsychology saw the environmental crisis as a psychological crisis where humans of Western civilization had separated their identities from the rest of the natural world, which led to unquestioned practices of excessive harvesting of the diversity of the planet for human consumption (Canty 2005).

Ecopsychology and Sustainable Development

With the growing importance on the role of the free individual consumer, this placed greater demand on individuals rather than collectives or governments for regulating society (Capra 1996; Hawken 1993). Mechanisms for balance, within this worldview, were self-surveillance, self-awareness, and self-discipline. Critical thinkers, like Foucault, challenged the shifting of societal regulation and civility from external and authoritarian forms to more individual, subtle, and invisible ones. Yet the capacity of individuals to fulfill their responsibilities, like sustainability and stewardship roles to the betterment of society, may be understated by Foucault. However such significant challenges raised the question of society’s expectations of the roles of the individual and the state. Canty (2005) argued that these spiritual and environmental crises could not be ignored nor could their origins – the Western paradigm of linear thinking. She also cautioned against continuing this error by maintaining the same paradigm and limited thinking (Canty 2005).

Strategies to Strengthen Ecopsychology New, more holistic, critical, and compassionate theories and orientations became essential. Ecopsychology arose as a theoretical framework and worldview. It prompted learners to examine cultural practices that contributed to overconsumption, human hubris, and environmental degradation. It has become a field of study that calls for systems change and responsible public policy and practices while guiding learners toward heightened awareness through interdisciplinary and applied study to bolster critical insights and responsible lifestyles. In addition to ecopsychologists, other philosophers and practitioners are engaged in strengthening the practices and advancing the goals of ecopsychology. Other key actors are deep ecologists, ecosophists, evolutionary psychologists, systems theorists, and ecospiritualists, along with those employing ancient, feminine, and indigenous wisdom. Ecopsychology recognized that psychological health was linked to the health of the planet, and the health of the planet was linked to human

447

psychological health. For humans to be well, the ecology too must be well. Consequently, ecopsychology emphasized systems theory, interconnectedness, and interdependence (Roszak 1992). Also developments included encouraging moving away from linear paradigms or mechanistic framing of the world and perspectives that integrated more consciousness and compassion of systems supporting life on Earth. Of particular importance were the abilities to live with gratitude, a sense of inner purpose, and satisfaction and thus rely less on external influences like consuming things to feel like one is living a real and meaningful life (Devereux 1996; Hawken 1993). Ecopsychologists called for deep reconnection to the natural world and deep connection to others without need of gadgets and tools and props except for trees, grass, animals, fresh air, seaside, or mountainous regions to spark knowing one is alive in nature and at one with the Earth and all its inhabitants. Such natural consumption rather than human forms of capitalism may be seen as revolutionary ways of thinking and acting. Such messages were necessary to expand consciousness through integrating metaphysics and philosophy to avert further ecological crises and degradation of the quality of human life and to enhance the senses of purpose and pleasure through living a conscious life (Canty 2005; Crews and Besthorn 2016).

Recommendations and Conclusions Practicing equanimity was recommended as one approach to extend thinking and to replace unconscious practices and habitual perspectives. Equanimity means right of mind, of even mind and balance, calmness and composure in the face of challenge, and fairness of justice (Merriam-Webster 2018). Ecopsychologists also encouraged the teaching on and engagement with feminine energy like determination, strength, as well as connection, and interdependence (Canty 2005; Capra 1996). Education also would be required to more effectively acknowledge the physical and metaphysical and to have humans “left with no alternative but to humbly acknowledge their intimate membership in a sacred earth story” (Crews and Besthorn 2016, p. 92). Thus

E

448

a priority for conscious citizens and system transformers would be to adopt more Earth-friendly actions and attitudes. These qualities could further inspire nurturing, listening, including, appreciating, loving, respecting, and protecting. This would include engaging in mindful practices and purposeful connections with the natural world to facilitate needed transformations (Capra 1996; Crews and Besthorn 2016). Mindful practices may take the form of silent walks in the woods, attention to the roar of waves, and relishing the rich array of colors, textures, tastes, and sensations in nature. Mindfulness involves being fully present to the moment and the surroundings. Mindfulness includes developing the capacities to be aware of being aaware and grateful for being grateful. Ecopsychology would draw attention to the role of collective advocacy and systems change to foster greater stewardship, sustainability, and ecological justice for future generations, through greater inclusion of diverse, nontraditional, indigenous, cross-cultural, and intuitive ways of helping, knowing, and being in the world (Roszak 1992; Canty 2005; Crews and Besthorn 2016). As human views of the world have been shaped by orthodoxies and cosmologies – like relying on growth, linear, and rational thinking – transitioning away from such mechanistic orientations has become essential for more sustainable living (Capra 1996; Naess 1973; Roszak 1992). Ecopsychology seeks to contribute to this transformational process (Crews and Besthorn 2016). A goal of ecopsychology is to engender in human consciousness a deep recognition that human beings are nature and are deeply interconnected with all ecosystems and with each other. Sustainable human well-being necessitates interacting well with the ecology and the hearts and minds of living beings on Earth.

References Besthorn FH (2013) Radical equalitarian ecological justice: a social work call to action. In: Gray M, Coates J, Hetherington T (eds) Environmental social work. Routledge, London, pp 31–45 Boldt LG (1999) The tao of abundance: eight ancient principles for abundant living. Penguin Putnam, New York

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development Canty JM (2005) Environmental healing: shifting from a poverty consciousness. http://www.ecopsychology. org/journal/ezine/archive3/Environmental_Healing.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017 Capra F (1996) The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor Books/Doubleday, New York Carson R (1962/1994/2002) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, St. Charles Crews D, Besthorn FH (2016) Ecosocialwork and transformed consciousness: reflections on eco-mindfulness engagement with the silence of the natural world. J Relig Spiritual Soc Work Soc Thought 35(1–2):91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15426432.2015. 1067588. Accessed 28 Nov 2017 Devereux P (1996) Re-visioning the earth: a guide to opening the healing channels between mind and nature. Fireside, New York Fox M (1979) A spirituality named compassion. Harper and Row Pub, New York Hawken P (1993) The ecology of commerce: declaration of sustainability. HarperCollins Publishers, New York Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth. HarperCollins Publishers, New York Merriam-Webster (2018) https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/equanimity. Accessed 2 Jan 2018 Naess A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16(1–4):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682 Roszak T (1992) The voice of the Earth: and exploration of ecopsychology. Touchstone Book, New York Roszak T, Gomes ME, Kanner AD (eds) (1995) Ecopsychology: restoring the earth healing the mind. Sierra Books, San Francisco

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development Hossein Meiboudi, Reza Arjmandi and Farzam Babaei Semiromi Department of Environmental Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Introduction Problems of environmental sustainability such as air pollution, deforestation, desertification, atrophy of lakes, contamination by pesticides, contamination by toxic metals, destruction of biodiversity and ecologic pressures are leading

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

public concerns in developed and developing countries. Many current environmental problems are rooted in a lack of awareness and in cultural biases regarding the relationship between humans and nature. A wide variety of environmental education programs have been incorporated into school curriculums schools worldwide. With significant populations headed to school every day as students, teachers and staff, it is no surprise that schools hold a central place in our communities, both socially and physically. Effective school programs will help students to increase their knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary for responsible environmental behavior (Meiboudi et al. 2016). Under such a circumstance, environmental issues are late happens in school activities worldwide (Hens et al. 2010). In 1992, twenty years after the Stockholm Conference, the Rio Conference was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The result of that conference was a charter entitled Agenda 21. According to Agenda 21, (Principle 22) “. . . local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development” (UNC 2015). Likewise, Chapter 36.3 of Agenda 21 states, “Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues” (UN 2015). In response to statements such as these, EcoSchool, also known as green school, movements have been initiated worldwide. Environmental responsibility in schools has led to the emergence of a variety of criteria to administer Eco-Schools’ contributions to sustainability (Meiboudi et al. 2017). The Eco-School movement is impacting both the formal and informal environmental education that young people experience in school. By advancing new school construction, retrofitting current buildings, changing cleaning and maintenance practices, changing lunchroom practices and modifying teacher-led curriculum, the EcoSchool movement is saving money and having an initial impact in improving educational outcomes.

449

The Green Schools Initiative (2013) definition for an Eco-School is one in which the leaders sought to “. . .integrate efforts to reduce schools’ ecological footprints, make school environments healthier, and get the whole community thinking about solutions to the problems we face.” Under this definition, Eco-Schools have a list of common objectives, including: • Strive to be free of toxic material; • Use resources sustainably; • Create a green and healthy space for teaching and learning; and. • Teach with an environmental mindset. The Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council defines a “green school” as a school building or facility that creates a healthy environment conducive to learning, and that saves energy, resources and money. To build a green school, the systems and integrity of the green school must be fully developed from the planning stage to monomer design and construction to reduce costs in the whole life cycle of the building and to instill in students an awareness of the educational significance of green design (Zhao et al. 2015). Taken broadly, the concept of an Eco-School is not a new one. Since the late nineteenth century, designers and educational professionals have debated the best way to heat, cool, ventilate and light a school while providing optimal conditions for teaching. Also, environmental education and Education for Sustainability have deep roots in the Nature Study movement at the turn of the last century and the conservation Education movement during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression. What is new at this point in time, is a widely recognized movement that unites several disciplines, including Eco-School building construction and operation, environmental literacy and the participatory values that support healthy organizations (Chan et al. 2015). From our literature review, we broadly identified three kinds of Eco-Schools: 1. Brand new buildings designed with one standards for environmental soundness;

E

450

2. Retrofitted, repaired or rebuilt buildings that integrated many environmental standard criteria; and. 3. Schools that remained structurally the same but whose leaders incorporated an environmental mindset and practices. There is an adage that “green saves green” – meaning conservation saves money – and, in the long run, cost savings for new and retrofitted green buildings exceed expenditures. EcoSchools also have the potential to make a profound impact on student health and learning. Therefore, as the Eco-School movement grows, researchers have the opportunity to investigate benefits that go beyond cost savings and go to the heart of the educational purpose of schools. The higher education is beginning to realize that in many school sustainability efforts it can play an important role, giving credibility and scientific and technical support. It can also contribute to increasing public participation, helping to generate consensus and commitment from the parties involved. Universities should bring their know-how to activities in the public and private economic sectors, allowing the necessary connections between Eco-Schools and sustainable development. Additionally, universities must play a significant role in the school sustainability initiatives, research, policy formulation, information exchange, and community outreach required to create equitable and sustainable development. However, various institutional, cultural and financial barriers may limit the scope of this cooperation. Assuming that higher education has a central role in the development of school sustainability initiatives, it is important: • To proceed to a formal cooperation protocol between the eco-schools and academia to institutionalize the different roles and commitments; • To promote dynamic interaction among all stakeholders, supported by collaborative and participative procedures, where academic staff can play the role of independent facilitators and mediators, assuring transparency,

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

robustness and credibility, beyond the strict, predetermined and scientific tasks; • To build a technical team, mainly composed of staff in the eco-school who will be in charge of managing the sustainable development; academic members should in a minority; • To engage higher education students through the use of school sustainability indicators in their course assignments or the production of useful academic work for the initiative itself. This paper is organized into six sections. In the next section, The Eco-Schools program is presented. In section “Rating System for Green Schools”, rating system for green schools are given. In section “Institutional Organizations and the Goals of Sustainability”, the institutional organizations and the goals of sustainability is introduced. In section “Eco-School and Student Learning”, Eco-School and student learning are discussed. Finally, section “Conclusion” presents the conclusions.

The Eco-Schools Program Eco-Schools is an international program coordinated by the international non-profit organization Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE), a group based in Denmark. The program was launched in 1994 with support from the European Commission. The goal of the program is to increase pupils’ environmental awareness by involving them in class, school and communitybased events. The program focuses on community-building around Eco-School efforts while encouraging environmentally sound practices and fostering environmental stewardship among youth. An Eco-School is a self-certifying system that engages teams of students, administrators, educators and community volunteers in greening the school grounds, facilities and curriculum. Pupils, together with their teachers, work in Eco-teams to improve environmental management policies at the school. The Eco-teams analyze the school environmental management plan and design, monitor changes to the plan, alter the school’s

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

curriculum to reflect environmental awareness, and share their experiences with the local community. During an audit of the school conducted, the team provides yes or no answers to questions regarding energy, water, climate change, global connectivity, transportation, school grounds, consumption and waste, healthy living, sustainable food, biodiversity and healthy schools. When a school is ready, evaluators from the Eco-Schools program visit the school and award it the Green Flag, signifying that the school has attained a high level of ecological management and is able to after a third party assessment. Evaluations of the Eco-Schools program shows that it brings about positive effects in three areas. Firstly, the program positively influences a school environmental management and status in the community. The schools involved produce less waste and are more active in recycling. O’Mahony and Fitzgerald (2001) showed that Irish schools that were long-time participants in the program produced up to 45% less waste per capita than schools that were new in the program. While schools that were new in the program sent 53 g of waste per person per day to landfills, schools awarded Green Flag status sent only 29 g of waste per person per day, and some of them only 2 g per person per day. Seventy percent of the schools evaluated in Wales reported that they had become more energy efficient over the last year (O’Mahony and Fitzgerald 2001). Moreover, Pirrie et al. (2006) found that the program also strengthens a school’s status in the community and leads to a reformulating of the school’s environmental management policy. Secondly, the program helps to develop selected pro-environmental competences. Pupils involved in the program are more likely to recycle, participate in environmental projects, save water and energy, and buy environmentally-friendly products. In Wales, three quarters of parents reported that their child had become more involved in recycling (People and Work Unit 2007). Thirdly, the program improves the quality of the school curriculum, teacher’s competence and effectiveness of the school management. Concurrently, these factors may also limit the effectiveness of the program (Rosenberg 2008).

451

Rating System for Green Schools The Green School Project is put forward to promote initiatives toward the sustainable development of the whole society. To identify sustainable green schools, a rating system must be developed for their selection. For instance, the International EcoSchools program offers a flexible approach for schools to implement an Environmental Management System (EMS), the so-called The Eco-Schools Seven Steps methodology, based on EMAS/ISO 14001 standards. Eco-Schools have a range of beneficiaries, including managers, teachers, families, students and school personnel. The schools also provide training with a focus on students, particularly where they adopt an integrative system for sustainable development that embraces activity, curriculum, building and research. As similar project conducted by Hens et al. (2010) with the aid of universities, developed and implemented EMSs in 39 primary schools in Northern Gauteng and Southern Limpopo Provinces, South Africa. Between 2006 and 2008, the supporting universities monitored implementation of the EMSs and evaluated the progress schools made in environmental management and performance. The study identified the main parameters that lead to improvement in the environmental performance of the schools, and these results can be used to improve the process of EMS implementation in the future. Lozano et al. (2013) analyzed eleven declarations, charters and partnerships developed by higher education institutions. These documents can be considered representative of university leaders’ intentions to improve the effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development at their institutions. Sammalisto and Brorson (2008) conducted a case study at the University of Gavle, Sweden, in which they found that training teachers is a key factor during implementation of EMS within a university campus. A similar rating system known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). USGBC first launched LEED for its schools rating system in 2006. The rating system was further refined and the LEED 2009 Green Building Rating System for Schools New

E

452

Construction and Major Renovations was subsequently launched. LEED (USGBC 2009) addresses 50 items in seven categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design, and Regional Priority. The rating system was developed by volunteer committees and was voted on by the membership body of USGBC, a body consisting of over 13,000 organizations from every sector (Chan et al. 2015). It offers four levels of recognition: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The rating level is determined by the number of points a building earns. Points are earned by meeting performance standards and/or implementing various green practices. The rating system for green schools in the United Kingdom is BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) Education 2008. BREEAM Education 2008 criteria for selection of green schools include 10 categories: Management, Health and WellBeing, Energy, Transport, Water, Material, Waste, Land Use and Ecology, Pollution, and Innovation. BREEAM Education 2008 is the latest version of the BREEAM rating system, and it includes the early BREEAM school version and the new BREEAM Education version, so it extends the evaluation targets more broadly (BREG 2008). Green school rating systems have also been developed in Australia, Japan and China. Drawn from many countries, the literature on green school rating systems reveals that each of the green school schemes has its own theoretical framework and unique features, and the classification forms vary within these systems. Table 1 compares the six known green school rating systems, and thus summarizes the world’s existing rating systems. Some use a grade rating system, such as Eco-Schools, LEED for School, BREEAM Education 2008 and Green Star Education v1 in Australia (GBCA 2015). Others adopt a complete degree rating system, such as Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan (CASBEE 2012) and China Society for Urban Studies (CSUS) (CSUS 2011). These standards invariably reflect the sustainable development requirements of

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

environmental protection and the “four savings” (land saving, energy saving, water saving and material saving) (Zhao et al. 2015). The rating systems take different environmental issues into account. There are some global standards, and green school rating systems such as LEED and FEE Eco-Schools, operate similar green school rating systems in many countries. All data and methods in these rating systems are open to the public, so anyone in different countries can adopt them (Gou and Lau 2014). The criteria proposed by international organizations are introduced only as a general guideline. The wide range of socioeconomic and cultural differences across the world is one of the main reasons for providing the criteria in a general form. Wideranging guidance cannot be generalized among unique and varied national circumstances, and some criteria may not even be applicable in some countries due to the lack of necessary conditions. Countries must consider their own socioeconomic and cultural characteristics to adapt these criteria from generalities into their own particular circumstances. For example, climatic conditions in the Middle East where the temperature difference between day and night is significant, require a great deal of energy consumption to make conditions livable. As a result, a sharp increase in the use of fossil fuels has greatly contribute to air pollution and raising air temperature, thus compelling local people to find a solution to this grave problem (Mahdavinejad et al. 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to establish a reasonable and fair standard for green schools based on socioeconomic and cultural background.

Institutional Organizations and the Goals of Sustainability Sustainability programs have generally been creating at organizations because of a cycle of pressure between leadership and “grassroots” (school parents, company shareholders, employees, community members, etc.) that is based on values rather than on a universal system of metrics (Hoffman 2001). These values come to form the basis of any sustainability program, so they

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

453

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Green school rating systems in the world Name of system Country/ region Assessment criteria

Rank

Eco-schools Europe Management, curriculum, community engagement & service, communication, energy, grounds, water, waste, health, safety

Bronze, silver, gold

LEED for school United States Efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation in design, regional priority Certified, silver, gold, platinum

BREEAM education 2008 United Kingdoms Management, health & wellbeing, energy, transport, water, material, waste, land use and ecology, pollution, innovation

Green Star education v1 Australia

CASBEE

CSUS

Japan

China

Management, indoor environmental quality, energy, transport, water, material, land use & ecology, emissions, innovation

Environmental quality of the building, environmental load reduction of the building

Planning & sustainable site, energy, material and water, indoor environmental quality, management, education

Pass, good, very good, excellent, outstanding

Best practice, Australian excellence, world leadership

Poor (C), fairly poor (B-), good (B+), very good (A), excellent (S)

One star, two star, three star

necessarily become central to measuring the success of the program. Therefore, measurement systems for sustainability in each group of people vary widely. This difference can make it difficult if not impossible to aggregate success stories or data across organizations to paint a national picture of sustainability programs. Comprehensive organizational sustainability measures are, not surprisingly, just as complicated for companies to define as for schools. This difficulty is especially highlighted in the search for universal metrics to measure the success of sustainability professionals. For many companies, the decisions to invest in a sustainability strategy and hire a sustainability manager are one and the same. Hiring a competent manager to coordinate, lead and measure any strategy is key to success. Unlike sales staff, whose performance can be directly measured by volume of sales, sustainability personnel find it more difficult to define success in their role. Sustainability roles are highly collaborative and rely on the efforts of many departments and individuals, thus complicating the ability to attribute performance to any particular department of person. Facilitating and coordinating sustainability-related programs to help others in the organization is the prevailing best practice for sustainability roles. Table 2 is a set of general

guidelines to encourage thinking about linking characteristics of Eco-Schools and sustainability principles. Those of us working on sustainability for educational institutions must recognize that, by providing the students and community with an understanding of the natural and built environments, the structures themselves can create the knowledge that is necessary to protect those environments. For example, if we show students the value of both built and natural learning environments, they will develop an appreciation for the necessity of maintaining those environments. Somehow, we must convey the notion of ownership to students and the community. The context of the buildings should match the surroundings. For example, we should not build a formal, ultramodern structure in a historical district or in a natural setting designed as a park or outdoor learning environment. Rather, we should build structures compatible with those environments.

Eco-School and Student Learning Research results indicated that Eco-Schools have more successful students than non-Eco-Schools. Most research on the impact of Eco-Schools on

E

454

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Linking characteristics of eco-schools and sustainability principles Plan for learning to take place directly in the community Plan schools as neighborhood-scaled community learning centers Create smaller schools Respect contextual compatibility while providing design diversity Consider the home as a template for school Allow circulation of people and processes to flow throughout the schools while ensuring supervision of students Design for safe schools Cluster learning areas Provide space for sharing instructional resources Design for a variety of learning groups and spaces Encourage educational leadership by decentralizing administrative spaces Establish a community forum Allow for community conference space Create privacy niches

Keep class sizes small

Provide resource-rich activity pockets Integrate early childhood education into the school

Provide a home base for every learner Regard teachers as professionals Provide studios for project-based learning Weave together virtual and physical learning spaces

Provide opportunities for job training Provide parent information centers Provide health care service centers Design places with respect for scale and developmental need Maximize natural and fullspectrum lighting

Allow for transitional spaces between indoor and outdoor spaces Establish a variety of outdoor learning environments Separate children and pedestrians from vehicles and service Design healthy buildings

Source: Meiboudi (2017).

student learning was openly. There was no evidence linking Eco-Schools as a whole school unit to higher test scores and improved performance. However, there was significant evidence that individual components of Eco-Schools contributed to overall student health and there was better attendance for those susceptible to respiratory illnesses

Eco-School buildings with well-designed classrooms and natural light helped increase the attention span of students and provided an improved learning environment with decreased exposure to toxins, pesticides, pollutants and chemicals. The Eco-School quality that has the most significant positive impact on student health and academic performance is indoor air quality. As Kats (2006) noted, the cost of poor air quality in schools has commonly been “hidden”—that is, it is masked by other problems rather than being recognized as the root cause problems. Symptoms of poor air quality include more student and teacher “sick days, lower teacher and staff productivity, slower learning, lower student motivation, lower tests score and increased medical costs”. All of these issues resulted in higher absenteeism related to increase respiratory ailments. Poor indoor air quality was particularly a trigger for asthma, the leading cause of school absenteeism that results about 13 million total missed days of school per year (Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 2013). Educators and parents would likely be surprised to learn of the high level of toxic chemicals and contaminants to which staff and children are potentially exposed every day in the school environment. Eco-Schools seek to limit this exposure by eliminating the sources of toxins through environmental design and careful choices of building materials and furniture. Environmental pollutants create discomfort for everyone exposed in the school environment, and they are a significant cause of performance issues and absenteeism for students and staff who suffered from asthma or other environmental sensitivities. In Eco-Schools, cleaning agents are chosen wisely and, in some cases, eliminated. Examples included the use of water and disinfectants to combat germs, which were found to be as effective as germicidal cleaners but without the air contaminants. High-tech solutions offer no-emission options, such as ultraviolet germicidal radiation and no-touch doors, toilets and faucets. Another source of indoor contaminants is pesticides. Eco-Schools seek to reduce pests without the use of toxic chemicals through integrated pest management. Implementing simple changes such as door sweeps on exterior doors and strict control

Eco-schools and Sustainable Development

of food sources reduce pest attraction and entry. Complaints of pests and the use of pesticides in schools decreased by 71 percent to 93 percent through these integrated pest management practices (Green and Gouge 2009). Another necessary focus area for many EcoSchools is student diet and nutrition. This includes providing healthier food at school, adding nutrition studies as part of the school curriculum, and involving students hands-on in growing and preparing their own food through school gardens and cooking programs. In addition, farm-to-table sourcing directly from local farmers of organic and/or pesticide-free produce and meats increases the quality of food and student nutrition, saves money over shipping of highly processed foods, supports local businesses and decreases the school’s overall carbon footprint.

Conclusion The potential for Eco-Schools to support sustainable development shows real promise. An EcoSchool is defined by a specific set of criteria which usually include site location, water usage, construction material, energy consumption, indoor environmental quality, environmental education and other attributes of sustainable development. A sustainable society will develop only when society understands the need for sustainability, and when it has the knowledge of how to attain sustainability. Changes in the educational sector are needed for society to reach the point of practicing sustainability. The continued focus on EcoSchool buildings, coupled with attention to healthy living habits and healthy diets for users of those buildings, will help stakeholders perform at their best. One obvious benefit is for schools to have students who are healthier, more attentive and who attend more frequently. Another benefit is to have students and the adults who work with them focused each day on learning and teaching rather than on the distractions of an unhealthy, foul environment. In the midst of working toward the establishment of Eco-Schools, one ultimately realizes that inspiring individual communities to act positively

455

toward Eco-School environments is only the beginning; our nation needs to be challenged and inspired to acknowledge the basic value of EcoSchool environments as a whole. Shobeiri et al. (2014) emphasize that there is perhaps no other example in the history of world education when a term expressing such a vast complex of ideas has disseminated from country to country as rapidly as has the concept of environmental education. Therefore, exchanges between countries with similar conditions in population, economic and cultural structure, educational systems and equipment can be useful and should be developed through international and intercontinental conferences.

References Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (2013) Asthma facts and figures. http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id= 8&sub=42#_ftnref20 British Research Establishment Global (BREG) (2008) BRE environmental and sustainability standard: BREEAM education 2008 assessors manual Chan TC, Mense EG, Lane KE, Richardson MD (2015) Marketing the green school: form, function, and the future. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 1–400 China Society for Urban Studies (CSUS) (2011), Green Building, China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) (2012) An overview of CASBEE. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ overviewE.htm Gou Z, Lau SSY (2014) Contextualizing green building rating systems: case study of Hong Kong. Habitat Int 44:282–289 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) (2015) Green Schools. http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/Green %20Schools_Lowres.pdf Green T, Gouge D (2009) School IPM 2015: a strategic plan for integrated pest management in schools in the United States. http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/ USschoolsPMSP.pdf Green Schools Initiative (2013) What is a green school? Retrieved from http://greenschools.net/article.php? list=type&type=11 Hens L, Wiedemann T, Raath S, Stone R, Renders P, Craenhals E, Rochter B (2010) Monitoring environmental management at primary schools in South Africa. J Clean Prod 18:666–677 Hoffman A (2001) Linking organizational and field-level analyses: the diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Org Environ 14(2):133

E

456 Kats G (2006) Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, Capital E Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano F, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 16:10–19 Mahdavinejad M, Zia A, Larki AN, Ghanavati S, Elmi N (2014) Dilemma of green and pseudo green architecture based on LEED norms in case of developing countries. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3:235–246 Meiboudi H (2017) Presentation of an evaluating model for the green schools in Iran using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making methods. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University of Tehran Meiboudi H, Lahijanian A, Shobeiri SM, Jozi SA, Azizinezhad R (2016) Creating an integrative assessment system for green schools in Iran. J Clean Prod 119:236–246 Meiboudi H, Lahijanian A, Shobeiri SM, Jozi SA, Azizinezhad R (2017) Development and validation of sustainability criteria of administrative green schools in Iran. J Environ Manag 197:605–609 O’Mahony MJ, Fitzgerald F (2001) The performance of the Irish green-schools programme, results of the greenschools research projects. Environmental Education Unit. http://www.greenschoolsireland.org/_fileupload/ Publications%20and%20Reports/ireland_research_re port_2001.pdf People and Work Unit (2007) Evaluation of the ecoschools programme in wales, final report. August 2007. Abergavenny. http://www.youngreporters.org/ Serviceþmenu/InternalþPages/Nationalþdocuments/Eco SchoolsEvaluationReportWales.pdf Pirrie A, Elliot D, McConnell F, Wilkinson EJ (2006) Evaluation of eco-schools Scotland. University of Glasgow, Glasgow Rosenberg E (2008) Eco-schools and the quality of education in South Africa: realising the potential. Southern African J Environ Educ 25:25–43 Sammalisto K, Brorson T (2008) Training and communication in the implementation of environmental management systems (ISO 14001): a case study at the University of Gavle, Sweden. J Clean Prod 16:299–309 Shobeiri SM, Meiboudi H, Kamali FA (2014) The brief history of environmental education and its changes from 1972 to present in Iran. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 23(3):228–241 U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) (2009) LEED 2009 for schools new construction and major renovations rating system, Washington, DC. Available online from http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/ Docs5547.pdf. Last accessed 25.11.2014 United Nations (UN) (2015), Earth summit: agenda 21; the United Nations programme of action from Rio: the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations conference on environment and development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. http://www.hdl.handle.net/10625/50234

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development United Nations Conference (UNC) (2015) Report on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15 126-1annex1.htm Zhao D-X, He B-J, Meng F-Q (2015) The green school project: a means of speeding up sustainable development? Geoforum 65:310–313

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development Petra Schneider1 and Anna Belousova2 1 Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany 2 C&E Consulting und Engineering GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany

Definition According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem, differentiating supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural ecosystem services.

Introduction The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015, represents a milestone in international cooperation (United Nations 2015). With the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the global community has agreed on an universal catalog of fixed time objectives that includes all three dimensions of sustainability, which will decisively shape international cooperation in key policy areas over the coming decades. The implementation of the SDGs is strongly connected to the natural capital and its ecosystem services (ES). ES refer to direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being, that is, services and goods that bring to humans a direct or indirect economic, material, health, or

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

psychological benefit (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) derived provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Biodiversity is the prerequisite for a healthy and natural development of all living things and ecosystems and creates many services that are used every day: • Provisioning services: Ecosystems and their species are important factors in the production of numerous goods, such as drinking water, food, energy sources, building materials, or medical agents. • Regulating services: Natural communities in ecosystems store CO2, protect against avalanches and floods, prevent erosion, and regulate the climate. • Cultural services: Ecosystems and species contribute to diverse landscapes. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) consider also spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits, e.g., that are making humans happy and give meaning to life. • Supporting services: Basic ecosystem services that enable all other services are oxygen production, maintenance of nutrient cycles or water cycle, etc. The concept of ES has its origins in nature conservation (Schröter 2017). It was biologists to make it clear what value biodiversity provides to humans, both, in directly used and in unused areas. Biodiversity is the variability of living organisms and their ecological complexes. It includes (a) the diversity of ecosystems or communities, habitats, and landscapes, (b) the biological diversity, and (c) the genetic diversity within the different species. Over the years, various forms of natural use have been grouped together under the term ecosystem services, without paying particular attention to the idea of nature conservation yet (Schröter 2017). The EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy requires that by 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing Green Infrastructure (GI) and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. To this end, the Commission adopted an EU-wide strategy in 2013, promoting

457

investments in GI to restore the health of ecosystems. The strategy promotes the deployment of GI across Europe. GI is defined as a strategically planned network of high-quality (semi-) natural areas, which is designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ES and protect biodiversity in both rural and urban settings. In this regard, connectivity is a central element of the Habitats Directive (Natura2000 network). Currently, scientists work on the integration of the key elements of the “ES assessment science” and their linking to major international standardization efforts in this field, including the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (European Environment Agency 2011), the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) typology (European Union 2016; Burkhard and Maes 2017), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEEB (de Groot et al. 2010; TEEB 2010), and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, Pascual et al. 2017). ES are an essential part of the natural capital, as economic metaphor for the limited supply of physical and biological resources of the earth, the natural capital stock, and the limited provision of goods and services through ecosystems. Natural capital together with physical capital, money capital, and human capital forms the basis for added value and well-being. Conservation and sustainable use of natural resources are therefore a requirement of economic farsightedness and responsibility (Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE 2012). The past decades have witnessed expanding interest in the protection, management, and planning of cultural landscapes on the part of scientists, policy-makers, and the public, motivated by widespread concern about their rapid change. Many appreciated landscape features enhancing connectivity and potentially being elements of GI have been lost (Lindborg and Eriksson 2004; Zimmermann 2006). The speed, scale, frequency, and magnitude of landscape changes in Europe in the past 60 years have been unprecedented (Antrop 2005; Plieninger et al. 2015). A whole set of “drivers of change” has fundamentally reshaped previously prevailing landscapes, including demographic, macroeconomic, and sociocultural

E

458

changes (Hersperger and Bürgi 2009). Preserving ecosystem services is a global challenge. Global increasing urbanization is a doubly problematic factor (Langemeyer et al. 2017). On the one hand, urban life is generally associated with increased consumption of ecosystem services; on the other hand, because of geographical decoupling, urban populations are increasingly losing the sense and understanding of the fundamental importance of ecosystem services (Langemeyer et al. 2017). It is therefore important to understand the importance of ES for human well-being and to anchor them in urban awareness and urban planning.

Ecosystem Services Assessment Frameworks and Classification The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) has been designed to help measure, account for, and assess ecosystem services. Although it was developed in the context of work on the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) that is being led by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), it has been used widely in ecosystem services research for designing indicators, mapping, and valuation. In the CICES system, services are either provided by living organisms (biota) or by a combination of living organisms and abiotic processes. In addition to providing a way to classify ecosystem services, CICES was also intended as a reference classification that would allow translation between different ecosystem service classification systems, such as those used by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 calls Member States to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory with the assistance of the European

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

Commission. According to the EC, a first outcome is the development of a coherent analytical framework to be applied by the EU and its Member States in order to ensure consistent approaches are used; see Fig. 1. The international TEEB initiative was carried out with the help of numerous other institutions under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and under the leadership of economist Pavan Sukhdev (TEEB 2010). As a model of the TEEB process, it was formulated: Biodiversity in all its dimensions – quality, quantity, and diversity of ecosystems, species, and genes – must be preserved not only for social, ethical, or religious reasons but also for the economic benefit of present and future generations. The results of the TEEB study were published between 2008 and 2012 (www.teebweb.org). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) IPBES is a UN-based intergovernmental body that aims to provide policy-makers with reliable, independent, credible, and legitimate information for decision-making. After a long-term planning process, the UN General Assembly in New York gave the green light for its establishment in December 2010, and the organization was officially founded on April 21, 2012, with the Secretariat in Bonn (Germany). IPBES assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services it provides to society for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development (Pascual et al. 2017). IPBES developed the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; see Fig. 2. Value and Valorisation of Ecosystem Services In principle, ecosystem services only emerge when the often spatially bound potential for provision is matched by a corresponding demand (Burkhard et al. 2014). However, since there are often neither markets nor prices for these services, the question arises of adequate assessment (Olschewski 2017). According to the definition of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment equates

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

459

ecosystems

socio-economic systems

ecosystem services

functions

ecosystem use and management other capital inputs

human well-being ecological processes

genetic diversity

functional traits

species richness

biodiversity

benefits

value

• nutrition, clean air and water • health, safety, security • enjoyment, ...

• economic value • health value • shared (social) value • other values

drivers of change biophysical structures

biotic interactions

response state present and future

• institutions, businesses • policies (agriculture, forestry, fishery, environment, ...) • stakeholders and users

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Conceptual framework for EU-wide ecosystem assessment. (Source: European Commission, available

online: https://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/MAESConcep tualFramework.png/view)

ecosystem “services” and the “benefits” they provide. This leads to inconsistencies when it comes to evaluating benefits (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Olschewski (2017) demonstrated this subject by the example of forest recreation and stated that it is not a service provided by forests, but a utility good that people create themselves using various “factors of production.” Through the forest are provided the recreational facilities only (Bergen et al. 2013). Fisher and Turner (2008) therefore define ecosystem services as “aspects of ecosystems used (actively or passively) to produce human well-being.” There are various methods available for the ES’s economic evaluation (Olschewski 2017). They refer to different preference categories, but all are based on individual preferences and aim to assess marginal changes. While the market method is based on “actual” preferences for private environmental goods, the productivity, the alternative cost, and travel cost method, as well as the implicit price and overhead inferiority methods, rely on the so-called “revealed” preferences. This is possible if the environmental goods

to be assessed have a measurable relation to private goods. If this is not the case, the assessment can be made using a conditional assessment method or selection (choice) experiments based on “stated” preferences. The stated preference approaches have the advantage that they can cover the entire economic value chain (Olschewski 2017). Since the introduction of the ecosystem services concept, science has mainly used monetary and biophysical values to assess them, while the integration of sociocultural values has only recently become more widely used in recent years (Schmidt et al. 2017).

Sustainable Development as Driving Force for the Effectiveness of Ecosystem Services In Schröter et al. (2014) are discussed seven ways that should be taken into account for collecting and managing ecosystem services, when sustainability is considered the overarching goal, as there are:

E

460

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (Source: IPBES 2016)

• Fair intergenerational distribution: It is important to ensure that this preserves natural capital, which ensures the provision of ecosystem services for future generations. • Just intragenerational distribution: This is about the question of who benefits how much from the acquisition of ecosystem services. • Equitable distribution between species: If humans adopt ecosystem services, how much land and biomass should be available for other species? • Fair procedures, consideration of interests, and participation: Here, among other things, the question of who has a legitimate interest in having a say in the use of ecosystem services.

• Sufficiency: What amount of ecosystem services is needed in different contexts to live a good life? How much is enough, instead of how many ecosystem services can we acquire? • Efficiency: This strategy is about using information on ecosystem services to identify where resources can be used more efficiently. Among other things, this means that the potential loss of ecosystem services should be taken into account when deciding on land use. • Persistence: This is about the durability of the use of ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Among other things, the question of whether the use of ecosystem services also uses fossil fuels that contradict the concept of sustainability plays a role.

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

Having in view the abovementioned seven ways, it becomes obvious that sustainable development is a driving force for the effectiveness of ES. But ES are also a driving force for the implementation of sustainable development.

Ecosystem Services as Driving Force for Sustainable Development On the way to the implementation of sustainable development solutions, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) developed nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). According to Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016), nature-based solutions (NbS) use ecosystems and their services to address societal challenges such as climate change, food security, or natural disasters. IUCN defines NbS as “Actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” The IUCN divides between ecosystem restoration approaches – the instruments which ensure the long-term availability of ES – and issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches, the instruments which foster the effectiveness of ES. Ecosystem restoration (ER, also called ecological restoration) refers to the technical process of restoring ecosystems and conserving biodiversity. The implementation tool for ER is the Ecological Engineering (EE), which has its roots in ecological science, and it can be considered a branch of both, ecology and engineering. It is closely linked to ER and covers examples like the introduction of particular plant species for salt marsh restoration (Teal and Weinstein 2002) and wastewater treatment by selected species. Another rehabilitation approach is forest landscape restoration (FLR), a process of restoration that extends beyond forested ecosystems (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016), which may focus on enhancing connectivity between protected areas, protecting water and soil resources, and reinforcing cultural values.

461

ES applied in issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches are a driving force for sustainable development as well, as they find their input directly into the urban planning. The two main approaches are ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based mitigation (EbM) (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). EbA was developed as a framework for addressing the role of ecosystem services in moderating climate impacts. The term EbA was first coined in 2008 and in the same years was introduced to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 14, by IUCN in a position paper. In 2009, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) officially defined EbA as an operational tool for climate change adaptation. EbM, like EbA, contributes to the objectives of the UNFCCC and for this reason is often treated together with EbA as key approaches to ensure continued ecosystem functionality, human health, and socioeconomic security, through storage of carbon. Accordingly, the Eco-DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) focuses mainly on minimizing the impacts of hazard events by enhancing people’s capacities to better manage and recover from the effects of hazards. This emerging approach, applied in policy as well as practice, is closely linked to EbA and EbM, focusing on particular hazard events, often within specified time periods and locations. Unlike EbA and EbM, the EcoDRR approach also addresses hazard events that are not necessarily linked to climate change or climate variability.

The Role of Ecosystem Services for Nature-Based Planning Solutions Nature-Based Solutions Nature can make important contributions to climate protection and adaptation to climate change, through “nature-based solutions.” Examples of nature-based solutions to climate protection and adaptation to climate change include the conservation of peatlands and species-rich permanent grassland as important CO2 storage, the renaturation of floodplains as retention areas to mitigate flood peaks, and the use of urban green, to

E

462

dampen episodes of heavy rainfall events in cities. Therefore, nature-based solutions can be considered complementary or a real alternative to purely technical approaches. The need for multifunctional landscapes which simultaneously provide food security, livelihood opportunities, maintenance of species, and ecological functions and fulfill cultural, aesthetic recreational needs is recognized since several years (O’Farrell and Anderson 2010). Urban vegetation is an example for multifunctional land use (Kabisch et al. 2017). Urban trees, green roofs, small and large parks, but also allotments contribute to a better climate in cities. Urban trees cool the surrounding air through shading and evaporation effects. Urban green areas promote water runoff during heavy precipitation. Urban nature can thus make cities more adaptable and resilient to global challenges such as climate change and related processes such as heat or flooding (Kabisch et al. 2017). At the same time, urban green spaces increase the quality of life in cities. Ecosystem Services and Climate Change Adaptation Climate change is one of the major challenges for sustainable urban development (Zölch et al. 2018). Increasingly, ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), i.e., the use of ecosystem services and biodiversity to adapt society to climate change, is considered as a solution. EbA can either be an alternative or an addition to traditional, often technical, adaptation measures and is also a type of nature-based solution (Zölch et al. 2018). So far, the implementation of EbA has hardly been investigated, especially in the urban area. Therefore, information on the effectiveness of ecosystembased measures for climate adaptation is lacking. At the same time, the question arises of how these measures can be incorporated into urban climate adaptation concepts. GI in cities usually consists only of small spatial units, such as gardens and parks (Langemeyer et al. 2017). Nevertheless, these spatially limited ecosystems are crucial for the local delivery of ecosystem services. Urban community gardens play a special role in this, as they are cultivated by the population differently

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

than urban parks, but unlike private gardens are accessible and usable for a broad population. Figure 3 provides an insight into nature-based solutions for EbA in Dresden close to the Weißeritz river, which shows a location that was transformed from a former inner-city brownfield into a greenbelt after the so-called millennium flood in 2002. The area provides a variety of ES: provisioning (biomass, etc.), regulating (cooling, erosion protection, precipitation retention), supporting (oxygen production, urban water balancing, air purification including CO2 transformation, etc.), and cultural (recreation, social interaction, etc.). Zölch et al. (2018) examined the application of EbA for the strategic planning of urban climate adaptation activities. For this purpose, documents from all German cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants were analyzed and compared. Thirtyfour of these cities had already developed their own climate adaptation strategy or integrated these activities into their climate change or urban development strategy. The results show that the EbA concept has not yet been explicitly included in these strategies. Almost all strategies, however, include references to constituents of the concept such as biodiversity and ecosystem services. In 76% of the strategies, ecosystem-based climate adaptation measures such as roof and facade greening as well as permeable pavements or the extension of urban green spaces are listed in concrete action plans (see Fig. 4). Ecosystem Services and Flood Prevention In recent years, catastrophic flooding and the traditional flood protection with dike construction or dike enlargement are reaching its limits. Ecological flood protection gives the flood the space it needs and thus enables life in the floodplains. The remedy of choice is a relocation of the dikes in large scale. A rearrangement with functional and ecological effectiveness must be based on information on the dimension of historical floodplains. The entire valley of the rivers must be included in the planning, as many areas on the river in the settlement area are no longer available. If possible, compensation should be found for this. For previously constructed floodplain areas, new retention areas must be designated elsewhere

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

463

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Nature-based solutions for EbA in Dresden, the Dresden-Weißeritz Greenbelt. (Photos by Petra Schneider, taken November 2017)

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Further samples of nature-based solutions for EbA, impressions from Berlin. (Photos by Petra Schneider, taken July 2017)

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 Nature-based solutions for flood protection in Chemnitz: Kappelbach river before restoration, during

the flood in 2010, and after restoration. (Photos provided by the City of Chemnitz, Environmental Agency, with permission to publish, November 2017)

to compensate for the damage potential. The main focus of ecological flood protection is more space for water and floodplains and the relocation of the dikes including the securing of natural retention space (see Fig. 5). Water retention in the area refers to the consideration of the consequences of soil sealing and thus to flood protection through environmentally friendly land use. Figure 5 provides an insight into nature-based solutions for flood protection Chemnitz, which shows a location of a rehabilitated inner-urban river. Also urban gardens and parks

play a crucial role for nature-based solutions for flood prevention. Figure 6 shows one of the major inner-city flood retention spaces which were established in Dresden in an oxbow lake of the Elbe river providing space for a multifunctional land use. The location is in a heavily populated area which is protected from floods through a flood protection dike. On the flood exposed side of the dike are urban gardens which can be flooded in case of a flood event. In case of an average water level, the urban gardens are used for food cultivation, recreation, and socialization.

E

464

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Further samples of nature-based solutions for flood prevention, impressions from Dresden. (Photos by Petra Schneider, taken November 2017)

Ecosystem Services and Urban Gardening It is obvious that urban gardens and parks play a crucial role for the provision of ES. However, the key factors that determine which type of gardens is important for specific ES have so far been insufficiently understood (Langemeyer et al. 2017). Langemeyer et al. (2017) investigated 27 community gardens in Barcelona (Spain) that have emerged from urban garden programs or from citizen or neighborhood initiatives, often in connection with the rehabilitation of brownfields. In contrast to many German cities, where urban gardens have had a consistent tradition since Schreber’s time, the number of urban gardens in Barcelona has been systematically minimized since industrialization and reached its low point in the course of far-reaching urban redevelopment to the 1992 Olympic Games. The results of the study show that garden size, number of users, and property rights are significant factors in the importance of ES in urban gardens. In addition, the important factors are social in particular. For example, gender, ethnicity, education, and income are key to the importance of ES (European Commission, FET Advisory Group 2016).

(2011), which means “Adding purpose to the mix.” In practice, CES include cultural identity, heritage values, recreation and tourism, inspiration, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual services. Fish et al. (2016) outlined the interactions between humans and ecosystems as main characteristics of CES in an operationalisationable way, which supports a more relational understanding of the CES framework. Schneider and Popovici (2019) summarized CES under the Spaces – Practices – Goods Nexus, which focuses to the sustainable consumption of locally produced goods representing the regional identity. The Nexus approach (Hoff 2011) has as scope the reintegration of related aspects and, a participatory approach, the Nexus dialogue. Figure 7 shows an example for CES under the Spaces – Practices – Goods Nexus, the case of the Jordan river, which is appreciated for its holy baptism sites. The integration of CES with ES and GI fosters the defragmentation of natural and social sciences and their reintegration. These strategies go beyond “classical” spatial and conservation planning, a process of securing the natural and cultural capital on the long term.

Cultural Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Services and Higher Education Under the Roof of Sustainability

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) consider spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits, e.g., that are making humans happy and give meaning to life. CES are the cultural aspect which transforms the Triple Bottom Line People – Planet – Prosperity according to Elkington (1997) into a Quadruple Bottom Line according to Roetman and Daniels

The objective of the 2030 Agenda is to make global development socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable, thus vigorously promoting the long-overdue transformation of economies toward a much more sustainable and

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

465

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development, Fig. 7 Cultural ecosystem services under the Spaces – Practices – Goods Nexus, the case of the Jordan river. (Photos by Petra Schneider, taken March 2017)

inclusive development. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, poverty, hunger, and economies often associated with high resource consumption show that global change is needed. The 2030 Agenda follows the principle of taking even the weakest and most vulnerable in the world (“leave no one behind”) and aspires to secure the chance of a fulfilling life for future generations as well. At the end of the day, all SDGs have a relation to ES, as they have an interface with the natural capital and/or cultural aspects. As such, the institutions of Higher Education play a particular role in this framework, as they are one source for the lifelong learning process. In 2008, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provided a General Curricula Framework for Education for Sustainable Development to guide and to support the teaching of sustainability in primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions. Institutions of Higher Education are both, providers and actors, but are also even learners in the field of sustainability. They provide education to understand the context of sustainability, the insight knowledge for practical implementation, and the social framework understanding for a successful long-term transformation of the society. There is still room for improvement of the teaching and learning practice in terms of sustainability. Schneider et al. (2018) proposed the Teaching – Practice – Research Nexus as framework for a sustainable education, which considers an equal linking of the three subjects to achieve sustainability in applied teaching. Institutions of Higher Education are also actors, as mentioned

above, in terms of sustainability implementation. They are field labs, for instance, as zero emission campus, in terms of campus greening and/or campus gardening, or as CO2-free campus. One wellknown example for this is the German Birkenfeld Campus.

Conclusions ES emerge at the interface between humans and the environment, all the more so in urban ecosystems that are heavily influenced by human activities. It can therefore be assumed that the breadth and importance of ES depends on a complex interplay of environmental, social, and institutional factors. There are various interdependencies and interrelatenesses between these factors which are affected and sometimes even controlled by ES. There is a substantial need for a better understanding of the role that ES play in everyone’s daily life which forms also a challenge for the institutions of Higher Education. They must equip future generations with the tools for change management and the practical implementation of sustainable development. This means also an educational challenge as partially old teaching methodology must be transferred into transdisciplinary holistic schemes. One important aspect in this regard is also the implementation of sufficient public participation schemes. Creative urban planning can actively promote sustainability by promoting citizens as guardians of ES. The creation of physical and institutional space for self-responsible experiences seems to be a crucial building block for such urban planning.

E

466 Acknowledgments The current contribution was prepared in the context of the project “Water Management and Climate Change in the Focus of International Master Programs WATERMAS” funded by the Erasmus+ Program of the European Union. In this regard, this manuscript reflects only the views of the authors; as such, the European Union cannot be held responsible for these views or any future use of them.

References Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70(1–2):21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 Bergen V, Löwenstein W, Olschewski R (2013) Forstökonomie – Ansätze für eine vernünftige Umweltund Landnutzung. Vahlen, München, 477 p Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626 Burkhard B, Maes J (eds) (2017) Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, 376 pp. Open Access Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–32 Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (eds) (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland, xiii + 97pp. https:// doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en. ISBN 978-28317-1812-5 De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portella R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) TEEB – The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London/Washington, DC, pp 9–40 Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks – triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek European Commission, FET Advisory Group (2016) The need to integrate the Social Sciences and Humanities with Science and Engineering in Horizon 2020 and beyond. European Commission, Brussels European Environment Agency (2011) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on ecosystem accounts organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London, December 2011 European Union (2016) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services – mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: progress and challenges, 3rd report – final, March 2016. https://doi.org/ 10.2779/351581. ISBN 978-92-79-55019-5

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv 21: 208–217 Fisher B, Turner K (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169 Hersperger AM, Bürgi M (2009) Going beyond landscape change description: quantifying the importance of driving forces of landscape change in a Central Europe case study. Land Use Policy 26:640–648 Hoff H (2011) Understanding the Nexus. Background paper for the Bonn 2011 conference: the water, energy and food security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm IPBES (2016) Decision IPBES-214: conceptual framework for the intergovernmental science – policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. http:// www.ipbes.het/ Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (2017) Nature-based solutions to climate change in urban areas – linkages of science, policy and practice. Theory and practice of urban sustainability transitions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5 Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013 Lindborg R, Eriksson O (2004) Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 85:1840–1845 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. ISBN 1-59726-040-1 Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2012) Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft – Eine Einführung. ifuplan/Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ/Bundesamt für Naturschutz, München/Leipzig/Bonn. Download 14.10.2014. http:// www.naturkapital-teeb.de/publikationen/projekteigenepublikationen.html O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PML (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:59–65 Olschewski R (2017) Bewertung von Ökosystemleistungen: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Schweiz Z Forstwes 168(1):3–13. Perspectives Pascual U, Balvanera P, Diaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn S, Al-Hafedh YS, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Berry P, Bilgin A, Breslow SJ, Bullock C, Caceres D, Hamed Daly-Hassen H, Figueroa E, Golden CD, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Houdet J, Keune H, Kumar R, Ma K, May PH, Mead A, O’Farrell P, Pandit R, Pengue W, Pichis-Madruga R, Popa F, Preston S, Pacheco-Balanza D, Saarikoski H, Strassburg BB, van den Belt M, Verma M, Wickson F, Yagi N (2017)

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16 Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bieling C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok M-A, Bürgi M, Crumley CL, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J, Kuemmerle T, Milcinski G, Palang H, Trommler K, Verburg PH (2015) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc 20(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205 Roetman PEJ, Daniels CB (2011) Creating sustainable communities in a changing world. Crawford House Publishing, Adelaide, p 262 Schmidt K, Walz A, Martín-López B, Sachse R (2017) Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosyst Serv 26:270–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07. 001 Schneider P, Popovici LD (2019) Approaches for the implementation of water-related cultural ecosystem services in teaching programs on sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, McCrea AC (eds) Sustainability and humanities. Springer, Cham, pp 267–289. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-95336-6 (online first) Schneider P, Folkens L, Busch M (2018) The teachingresearch-practice nexus as framework for the implementation of sustainability in curricula in higher education. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Implementing sustainability in the curriculum of universities. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 113–135. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-70281-0_8. ISBN 978-3-31970280-3 (online first) Schröter M (2017) Do ecosystem services and sustainability fit together? ESP-DE Blog. http://www.esp-de.de/ passen-oekosystemleistungen-und-nachhaltigkeit-zusa mmen/. Accessed 02 Dec 2017 Schröter M, vander zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Sema-chavet HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. https:// doi.org/10.1111/conl.1209n. Conservation letters Teal JM, Weinstein MP (2002) Ecological engineering, design, and construction considerations for marsh restorations in Delaware Bay, USA. Ecol Eng 18:607–618 TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. http://www.theweb.org/our-publications/ teeb-study-reports/synthesis-report/ United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations – Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 25.09.2015 Zimmermann RC (2006) Recording rural landscapes and their cultural associations: some initial results and impressions. Environ Sci Policy 9(4):360–369. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.009 Zölch T, Wamsler C, Pauleit S (2018) Integrating the ecosystembased approach into municipal climate adaptation strategies: the case of Germany. J Clean Prod 170:966–977. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2017.09.146

467

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development Georgia Liarakou Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

Synonyms Education for sustainable consumption

Definition Responsible consumption refers to individual and societal choices which are in accordance with sustainable development, that is, which have the slightest possible impact on the environment and contribute to social equity. These may encompass the purchasing of products that are organic, fairly traded, and so forth but may simultaneously make reference to a general reduction of consumption. Education for responsible consumption is an aspect of education for sustainable development that seeks to enable students to become actors of change toward more sustainable consumption patterns.

Introduction Responsible consumption is a key factor of sustainable development. In 2015, the UN included responsible production and consumption as one of the 17 formulated targets in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. More specifically, Objective 12 includes, among other things, the efficient use of natural resources; the reduction of waste generation, in particular global food waste; and the promotion of sustainable public procurement practices. Achieving this goal requires changes throughout the supply chain, involving everyone from producer to final consumer. Thus, education for responsible consumption has come to be recognized as a key factor in achieving sustainable

E

468

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

development: “This includes educating consumers on sustainable consumption and lifestyles, providing them with adequate information through standards and labels and engaging in sustainable public procurement, among others” (UN 2018). The reference made in the 2030 Agenda is indicative of the importance allocated to education for responsible consumption as an integral part of education for sustainable development. However, despite increasing international recognition and initiatives, education for responsible consumption still remains a challenge, and its impact on educational policies and practices is far from being significant and efficient (Thoresen 2010; UNESCO 2018). Meanwhile in the academic field, discussion about the goals and content of education in relation to responsible consumption is particularly lively. This is because the concept of responsible consumption itself has inherent complexity and deals with many open and sometimes controversial issues. It is a crossdisciplinary area where different disciplines such as marketing (e.g., Pereira-Heath and Chatzidakis 2012), sociology (e.g., Kravets et al. 2018), anthropology (e.g., Miller 1995), psychology (e.g., Sachdeva et al. 2015), education (e.g., Kopnina 2018), etc. are involved. Although international research in this area shows an increase in interest and bibliography, there are a number of researchers who claim that the notion of sustainable consumption is in its infancy (e.g., Quoquab and Mohammad 2017). This is reflected in the education field too as the notion’s complexity and controversiality do not allow for easy solution prescriptions for consumer behavior change (Fischer and Barth 2014).

Consumption as a Key Driver for Unsustainability Consumption has increased at a fast pace, especially in the last 50 years. Compared to 1960 the amount allocated for consumption has increased sixfold; if one takes into account the increase in population, consumption expenditures per person are calculated to have almost tripled (Assadourian

2010). Future predictions too reflect a high speed increase of consumption. For example, in the transport sector by the year 2020, motor vehicle kilometers are projected to increase by 40%, vehicle ownership by 32%, and global air travel is projected to triple (UN 2018). These numbers hide enormous inequalities and a disproportionate distribution of wealth on the planet. Οne in nine people in the world today (815 million) are undernourished, while simultaneously 2 billion people globally are overweight or obese, and, each year, an estimated 1/3 of all food produced ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers or spoiling due to poor transportation and harvesting practices (UN 2018). Despite inequalities, increase in consumption seems to be a global trend affecting all parts of the world. The per capita “material footprint” of developing countries increased from 5 mt in 2000 to 9 mt in 2017 (UN 2018). And though these indicators show improvement in the standard of living, Western consumer patterns however seem to be expanding around the world. Chris and Gafaro (2012) claim that it is through globalization and global trade that the end of poverty and the rise of standards of living have become synonymous with the spreading of a high consumption model throughout the world. And this development is not accidental. Excess consumption seems to be deeply rooted in dominant cultural patterns. Many theorists (e.g., Baudrillard 1998) have analyzed the symbolic value of consumer goods that explain much of consumers’ motivation to consume. We are basically talking about consumerism – “the cultural orientation that leads people to find meaning, contentment, and acceptance through what they consume” (Assadourian 2010, p. 3). Consumerism has been incorporated into human culture to such a degree, exhibiting its tremendous capacity to constantly reinvent itself so much so that it is sometimes hard to distinguish that it is actually a cultural construct (Miles 2018). Behind the consumer society hides a prevailing growth ethic (Rees 2008) or an endless growth myth (Washington 2016), that is, a belief in constant growth in consumption and resource use. It

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

refers to the ability of societies to increase the quantities of products they produce and often appears as the only way to eliminate poverty as well as the only way toward social progress and social well-being (Flogaitis 2011). This constant economic growth, which expresses itself through the dominant market-centric economic model, is responsible for current unsustainability, which is for the aggravation of environmental problems (e.g., climate change) and increasing inequalities. In order to make progress toward sustainability, we need to develop a new model of a steady-state economy (Kopnina and Blewitt 2014), deeply revise our lifestyles, and adopt new, more responsible consumption patterns.

The Concept of Responsible Consumption Responsible consumption is the answer to the current unsustainable model, at least as far as the consumer is concerned. In 1973, Fisk provides an initial definition for responsible consumption as a “rational and efficient use of resources with respect to the global human population” (Fisk in Agrawal and Gupta 2018). Today one may say that the term refers to individual and societal choices which are in accordance with sustainable development, that is, which have the slightest possible impact on the environment and contribute to social equity. In addition to the characterization responsible, terms such as green, ethical, sustainable consumption are used in literature. These terms are related; if not identical in terms of content, they illuminate different dimensions of responsible consumption. Green consumption mainly alludes to environmental friendly consumer practices (e.g., Sachdeva et al. 2015; Guckian et al. 2017). Reference to green consumption has been made since the late 1960s as part of the overall environmental movement. According to Connolly and Prothero (2008), green consumerism has been traditionally associated with the refrainment of consumption of specific commodities (e.g., aerosols) and the undertaking of practices such as recycling and public transportation use, while

469

presently it is associated with lower levels of material and energy consumption. The need to have measurable results has led to the adoption of scientific criteria (such as ecological or carbon footprints) for measuring the environmental impact of our consumption practices. Ethical consumption is a wider term which advocates a moral dimension to consumerist behavior (e.g., Mazar and Zhong 2010; Carrington et al. 2010; Carrier 2012). This is because firstly consumer choice is a field which expresses values and norms and secondly because consumer items each have a moral nature that is determined by the social, the political, and the environmental context in which they are produced, marketed, and sold. In the above context, they may refer to environmental issues, workers’ rights, fair trade, animal welfare, etc. Οne may express responsibility toward the environment and society by either purchasing or boycotting a product taking into account its moral nature. Sustainable consumption had been firstly used in the early 1990s and has presently become the term mostly used (e.g., Lee 2014; Böhme et al. 2018). Quoquab and Mohammad (2017) collected definitions of sustainable consumption from 61 articles published over the last two decades. Their analysis of these definitions has highlighted a number of features, some of which are as follows: sustainable consumption “is a socially and environmentally concerned way of buying, using and disposing goods and services. It advocates for wise and careful consumption pattern as well as efficient use of goods and services. It refers to the act of avoiding over indulging in purchase and careful use of goods and services that satisfy the basic needs” (Quoquab and Mohammad 2017, p. 117). Whichever definition is used, responsible consumption refers to a wide range of practices. Such practices may cover either all three stages of the consumption process, that is, purchase, use, and disposal of goods and/or services (Kim et al. 2012), or they may refer mainly to the level of the purchasing of products. Based on the findings of surveys about environmentally responsible consumption as illustrated by Agrawal and Gupta (2018), one can distinguish certain practices and behaviors that have occupied researchers

E

470

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

in recent years. Few such examples of responsible consumption are saving electricity, water, and energy in households; buying things with little or no packaging; repairing things instead of buying new ones; buying local, organic, recycled, reusable, and ethical products; recycling and donating furniture and clothes; purchasing and selling secondhand products; composting; growing one’s own food; making need-based purchases; sharing and pooling goods and services with others; leasing and renting equipment and facilities; using public transportation; etc. Summarizing the conceptual clarification of the term, one can say that two elements are distinguishable: the first is that even though it is an individual choice which probably also encloses private motives (e.g., economics or health), responsible consumption is mainly a social practice with political dimensions. As Carrier (2012) says, it is a collective commentary on the economy and society and their relationship, and it is also about collective ideas, values, processes and institutions. Being concerned with these realms, it is necessarily a critique and an effort to bring about change. The second element is that responsible consumption also indicates the direction of this change, namely, the denial of the constant growth model. In this respect, responsible consumption is differentiated from green consumerism, whereby one can maintain the same levels of consumption by greening the materials and services of the world’s economy. It requires deeper changes in values and adoption of different lifestyles based on a new approach to the basic concepts of human needs and desires. “Sustainable consumption encompasses the principles of moderation and sufficiency as a means of curbing social, economic and environmental imbalances and of stimulating responsible citizenship” (Thoresen 2010, p. 6).

Key Issues in Education for Responsible Consumption The goal of education for sustainable consumption, although articulated in different ways, is to adopt a more responsible consumer behavior. But behind the unanimity with regard to the general

purpose, there are differences regarding both the manner in which individual behavior is approached in the context of the broad issue of responsible consumption, as well as the competencies that a consumer should have for responsible consumption. Some of these controversial issues will be presented below. The first issue is how much emphasis will be placed and whether it will be placed primarily on individual behavior change and/or on social and political structures. Considering individual behavior as the main lever of change has been criticized. Focus on individual responsibility reflects the dominance of neoliberalism, whereby governments shift responsibility to consumers and their failure to engage in correct values and behaviors in order to detract from social and political changes (Hobson 2002; Midlemiss 2018). This issue concerns environmental and sustainability education in general; it is however of particular importance for responsible consumption education. Several scholars (e.g., Fien 2000; Fischer and Barth 2014) have highlighted the risk in approaching responsible consumption as an unpolitical matter which underestimates structural and political factors and depends predominantly on individual consumer behavior. On the other hand, some studies (e.g., Kilbourne and Carlson 2008; Pereira-Heath and Chatzidakis 2012) emphasize that by comprehending the requirement for societal changes, one may be lead to the assumption that responsibility lies with others. This in turn may lessen an individual’s perception of his/her personal responsibility and his/her adoption of a responsible pattern of consumption. The second issue raises how individual behavior is shaped and therefore what factors one should focus on during the educational act. Chatzidakis et al. (2018) distinguish two paradigmatic traditions. The first principally adopts a more psychological or socio-cognitive perspective and is based on the premise that personal ethical judgments inform consumer intentions which may lead to responsible consumption. It therefore emphasizes the formation of consumer personal values and attitudes and wants to intervene in consumer decision-making processes. The second tradition based on a socioculturally oriented perspective

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

focuses on themes such as social identities and consumption communities. It recognizes that the consumer is not autonomous but acts within the broader institutions of consumption and modes of production. In this case, consumers are considered to be socially embedded agents, and the goal of the educational process is to enable the collective construction of new shared symbolic meanings for consumer goods in different societal subsystems in which they belong. Another issue broaches competencies to be developed through learning so that one can engage in responsible consumption. Here too, there are different and often conflicting views which are related to the different perspectives with which key issues concerning responsible consumption are approached. One of these controversies is what Fischer and Barth (2014) mention as “persuasion versus co-determination” and is related to the role of governments, producers, and policy makers on the one hand and consumers on the other. According to the first approach, an effective way to get to sustainable consumption is by consumer choice editing (Maniates 2010; Kopnina and Blewitt 2014), that is, shifting the field of choice for mainstream consumers by eliminating or making less attractive offensive products. This has the advantage of removing responsibility from the consumer, who often does not have all the data to judge whether a purchase is responsible or not. In this case the emphasis should be on providing information and also on the cultivation of “overall willingness to comply with and support interventions in everyday decision-making contexts” (Fischer and Barth 2014). Characteristic of this approach is the goal set by UNESCO for sustainable consumption education: “knowledgeable consumers who purchase goods with low lifecycle impacts and who use their purchasing power to support corporate social and environmental responsibility and sustainable business practices” (UNESCO 2005, p. 29). If, on the other hand, consumers are seen as co-constructors in a social learning process, that is, directed toward determining what sustainable consumption is, then one needs to target reflective thinking and communicative and collaborative skills (Fischer and Barth 2014). This approach

471

appears to have been adopted by UNEP, as the purpose for education for responsible consumption which is “. . . helping individuals learn how to function as citizens who not only make selective, reflected lifestyle choices in the market but who also effect changes by seeking creative new solutions and engaging as stakeholders in the dialogues and debates that determine policy” (Thoresen 2010, p. 10).

E Integrating Responsible Consumption into Higher Education The role of higher education in promoting responsible consumption is important both at the level of the training of future professionals (business managers, products designers, educators, etc.) and in the attitudes and consumption patterns of all students. Sustainable consumption is one of the elements that is emphasized in almost all initiatives (declarations and charters), developed to foster sustainable development in higher education (Losano et al. 2013). However, the specific topic seems to be marginalized. In fact, all scholars dealing with education for responsible consumption in higher education stress the point that conceptual and empirical knowledge about approaches that could promote sustainable consumption among students remains fairly underresearched (e.g., Crafford and Bitzer 2009; Barth et al. 2014; Adomßent et al. 2014). According to Gombert-Courvoisier et al. (2014), education for responsible consumption in higher education must focus on three complementary targets: 1. To demonstrate the social and environmental impacts of consumption and to enhance feelings of individual and collective responsibility 2. To develop students’ capacities for innovation in very changing situations and to familiarize them with transversal approaches to societal issues 3. To train young professionals in the goals and practices of responsible consumption. Like all issues relating to the shift toward sustainable development of higher education

472

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

institutions, these objectives can also be achieved through interventions mainly on two levels: the organization’s operation and the curriculum. The first level concerning operational practices change in universities has been the most developed to date (Adomßent et al. 2014). Campus interventions can contribute to more sustainable management of resources but can also act as frameworks for educational engagement with responsible consumption in the university community. Such interventions have been implemented in many higher education institutions around the world regarding the saving of resources such as energy and water (e.g., Marinho et al. 2014), waste management (e.g., Tangwanichagapong et al. 2017), food gardens (e.g., Duram and Klein 2015), fair trade products in canteens, etc. These practices may have an impact on student attitudes regarding responsible consumption as they provide opportunities for “incidental learning” (Barth et al. 2014), that is, informal learning, stemming from contact with rules and routines, which is an indirect result. The second level, that is, integrating education for responsible consumption in the higher education curricula, is more challenging. The highly controversial nature of sustainable consumption, some dimensions of which were mentioned above, is one of the elements that create conceptual and pedagogical difficulties. As reported by Thoresen (2012), this element makes education for responsible consumption sensitive to influence of curriculum developers’ and policy makers’ political positions about growth and consumption. Indicative of this perspective is Pereira-Heath and Chatzidakis (2012) research on the topic of attitudes toward consumption of 335 members of the lecturing staff of a university in Portugal. According to the results of the study, those people who might have some influence on policy making and over their students’ attitudes and behavior, although in agreement that “people” consume to excess, fail to acknowledge their own part in the problem and do not seem to associate consumption with environmental degradation. Even if education for responsible consumption was

integrated in the curriculum of this institution, it is more than likely that it would not have had the required transformative approach to challenge norms and values that are at the heart of the consumer society. Another element regarding the difficulty of integrating education for responsible consumption into the curriculum lies in the fact that it encompasses several diverse yet complementary fields of study such as ethics and values education, consumer education, civic training, and environmental education (Thoresen 2012). These fields are often difficult to incorporate into the teaching of specific disciplines, which deal with various aspects of responsible consumption. As a result, although individual parts are incorporated into disciplinary fields such as technological sciences for new materials and new consumer products based on eco-design, health studies for physiological or nutritional aspects of consumption activities, psychology, sociology, and anthropology for social norms and representations (GombertCourvoisier et al. 2014), the approach to the complex issue of responsible consumption remains fragmented. A more integrated approach seems to be selected in courses dealing more specifically with responsible consumption issues. Examples of such courses come from various fields such as teacher education (e.g., Álvarez-Suárez et al. 2013; Fischer and Rieckmann 2010), business management (Kopnina 2018), human ecology (Gombert-Courvoisier et al. 2014), health studies (Barrett et al. 2016), etc. Summarizing, from experience obtained so far, it seems that the development of interdisciplinarity in order to overcome confinements of single disciplines, in conjunction with transdisciplinary learning settings that go beyond the university boundaries to engage with real-world problems, is an important element for the integration of education for responsible consumption in higher education institutions (Adomßent et al. 2014). In addition, approaches such as service learning (Barth et al. 2014) or mindfulness training (Barrett et al. 2016; Böhme et al. 2018) are examples of good models and offer promising frameworks which will enrich and develop this field.

Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

Cross-References ▶ Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Sustainability on Campus

References Adomßent M, Fischer D, Godemann J, Herzig C, Otte I, Rieckmann M, Timm J (2014) Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development – management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J Clean Prod 62(1):1–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.045 Agrawal R, Gupta S (2018) Consuming responsibly: exploring environmentally responsible consumption behaviors. J Glob Mark 31(4):231–245. https://doi. org/10.1080/08911762.2017.1415402 Álvarez-Suárez P, Vega-Marcote P, Mira PG (2013) Sustainable consumption: a teaching intervention in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(1):3–15. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2011-0044 Assadourian E (2010) The rise and fall of consumer cultures. In: Assadourian E (Ed) 2010 State of the world: transforming cultures. From consumerism to sustainability. Worldwatch Institute, pp 3–20. ISBN 978-0393-33726-6 Barrett B, Grabow M, Middlecamp C, Mooney M, Checovich MM, Converse AK, Gillespie B, Yates J (2016) Mindful climate action: health and environmental co-benefits from mindfulness-based behavioral training. Sustainability 8:1040. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su8101040 Barth M, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Richter S, Rieckmann M (2014) Learning to change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable consumption in higher education. J Clean Prod 62(1):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.04.006 Baudrillard J (1998) The consumer society: myths and structures. Sage (1st edition 1970). ISBN 978-0-76195692-1 Böhme T, Stanszus LS, Geiger SM, Fischer D, Schrader U (2018) Mindfulness training at school: a way to engage adolescents with sustainable consumption? Sustainability 10:3557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103557 Carrier JG (2012) Introduction. In: Carrier JG, Luechtford PG (eds) Ethical consumption: social value and economic practice. Berghahn, Oxford, pp 162–181. ISBN 978-1-78238-676-6 Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ (2010) Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J Bus Ethics 97(1): 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6

473

Chatzidakis A, Shaw D, Allen M (2018) A psycho-social approach to consumer ethics. J Consum Cult 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518773815 Chris E, Gafaro P (2012) Human population growth as if the rest of life mattered. In: Gafaro P, Chris E (eds) Life on the brink: environmentalists confront overpopulation. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 3–15. ISBN 978-0-8203-4385-3 Connolly J, Prothero A (2008) Green consumption: life-politics, risk and contradictions. J Consum Cult 8(1):117–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/146954050708 6422 Crafford S, Bitzer E (2009) Consumer learning for university students: a case for a curriculum. High Educ Res Dev 28(4):443–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360 903046884 Duram LA, Klein SK (2015) University food gardens: a unifying place for higher education sustainability. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 9(3/4):282–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJISD.2015.071853 Fien J (2000) Education for sustainable consumption: towards a framework for curriculum and pedagogy. In: Jensen BB, Schnack K, Simovka V (eds) Critical environmental and health education: research issues and challenges. Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, pp 45–66. ISBN 87-7701-857-5 Fischer D, Barth M (2014) Key competencies for and beyond sustainable consumption. An educational contribution to the debate. GAIA 23(S1):193–200. https:// doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.S1.7 Fischer D, Rieckmann M (2010) Higher education for sustainable consumption: concept and results of a transdisciplinary project course. J Sustain Educ 1(1): 296–306. http://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/ higher-education-for-sustainable-consumption-conceptand-results-of-a-transdisciplinary-project-course_2010_ 05/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019 Flogaitis E (2011) Education for the environment and sustainability (1st ed 2006). Pedio, Athens. ISBN 978-9-6095-5226-4 Gombert-Courvoisier S, Sennès V, Ribeyre F (2014) An analysis of viewpoints on education for responsible consumption in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(3):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE12-2011-0080 Guckian M, De Young R, Harbo S (2017) Beyond green consumerism: uncovering the motivations of green citizenship. Mich J Sustain 5(1):73–94. https://doi.org/ 10.3998/mjs.12333712.0005.105 Hobson K (2002) Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the ‘rationalisation of lifestyles’ make sense? Environ Polit 11(2):95–120. https://doi. org/10.1080/714000601 Kilbourne W, Carlson L (2008) The dominant social paradigm, consumption, and environmental attitudes: can macromarketing education help? J Macromarketing 28:106–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146708314 586 Kim SY, Yeo J, Sohn SH, Rha JY, Choi S, Choi AY, Shin S (2012) Toward a composite measure of green

E

474 consumption: an exploratory study using a Korean sample. J Fam Econ Iss 33(2):199–214. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10834-012-9318-z Kopnina H (2018) Teaching about sustainable production and consumption. In: Reis G, Mueller M, Gisewhite R, Siveres L, Brito R (eds) Sociocultural perspectives on youth ethical consumerism. Cultural studies of science education. Springer, Cham, pp 131–147. ISBN 978-3319-65608-3 Kopnina H, Blewitt J (2014) Sustainable business: key issues. Routledge Earthscan, New York. ISBN 978-0415-73950-4 Kravets O, Maclaran P, Miles S, Venkatesh A (eds) (2018) The SAGE handbook of consumer culture. Sage, London. ISBN 978-1-4739-2951-7 Lee K (2014) Predictors of sustainable consumption among young educated consumers in Hong Kong. J Int Consum Mark 26(3):217–238. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08961530.2014.900249 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano F, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10. 006 Maniates M (2010) Editing out unsustainable behavior. In: Assadourian E (ed) 2010 State of the world: transforming cultures. From Consumerism to Sustainability. Worldwatch Institute, pp.119–126. ISBN 978-0-393-33726-6 Marinhoa M, Socorro Gonçalves M, Kiperstokc A (2014) Water conservation as a tool to support sustainable practices in a Brazilian public university. J Clean Prod 62:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06. 053 Mazar N, Zhong CB (2010) Do green products make us better people? Psychol Sci 21(4):494–498. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956797610363538 Middlemiss L (2018) Sustainable consumption: key issues. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-1386-4566-0 Miles S (2018) The Emergence of contemporary consumer culture. In: Kravets O, Maclaran P, Miles S, Venkatesh A (eds) The SAGE handbook of consumer culture. Sage, pp 11–26. ISBN 978-1-4739-2951-7 Miller D (ed) (1995) Acknowledging consumption. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/97802039 75398. (eBook 2005). ISBN 978-1-134-84312-1 Pereira-Heath T, Chatzidakis A (2012) Blame it on marketing’: consumers’ views on unsustainable consumption. Int J Consum Stud 36:656–667. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01043.x Quoquab F, Mohammad J (2017) Managing sustainable consumption: is it a problem or panacea? In: Leal Filho W, Pociovalisteanu W, Al-Amin DM, Quasem (Eds) Sustainable economic development. World sustainability, series. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp 115–125. ISBN 978-3-319-45081-0 Rees W (2008) Human nature, eco-footprints and environmental injustice. Local Environ 13(8):685–701. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13549830802475609 Sachdeva S, Jordan J, Mazar N (2015) Green consumerism: moral motivations to a sustainable future. Curr

Education for Sustainability Opin Psychol 6:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2015.03.029 Tangwanichagapong S, Nitivattananon V, Mohanty B, Visvanathan C (2017) Greening of a campus through waste management initiatives: experience from a higher education institution in Thailand. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(2):203–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-10-2015-0175 Thoresen VW (2010) HERE and NOW! Education for sustainable consumption–recommendations and guidelines. UNEP, Paris. http://www.unep.org/pdf/Here_ and_Now_English.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2018 Thoresen VW (2012) Developing value-based, holistic education for sustainable living. In: Proceedings: Global research forum on sustainable consumption and production workshop, June 13–15, 2012, Rio de Janiero, Brazil. https://grf-spc.weebly.com/uploads/2/ 1/3/3/21333498/grf-2012-rio-thoresen.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019 UN (2018) Sustainable development goals. https://www. un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019 UNESCO (2005) International implementation scheme. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000140372. Accessed 22 Dec 2018 UNESCO (2018) Education for sustainable consumption. https://en.unesco.org/greencitizens/stories/educationsustainable-consumption. Accessed 10 Jan 2019 Washington H (2016) Introduction. Why the growth economy is broken. In: Washington H, Twomey P (eds) The future beyond growth. Towards a steady state economy. Routledge, London, pp 1–14. ISBN 978-1-138-95302-4

Education for Sustainability ▶ Soft Skills and Sustainable Development

Education for Sustainable Consumption ▶ Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development

Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Soft Skills and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainable Education Methods

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

475

Introduction

Educational Games ▶ Serious Games and Sustainability

Educational Technology ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development

Edutainment ▶ Serious Games and Sustainability

E-Learning ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development ▶ Serious Games and Sustainability

E-Learning 2.0 ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

E-Learning and Sustainable Development Daniel Otto1,3 and Sara Becker2,3 1 Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany 2 Faculty of Cultural and Social Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany 3 Interdisciplinary Distance Studies of Environmental Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Synonyms Computer-based learning; Online learning; Technology enhanced learning

It is still a matter of controversy whether E-Learning has in fact triggered a new educational paradigm. However, it is not overstated to claim that E-Learning nowadays is ubiquitous and has transformed our way of thinking about teaching and learning (Garrison 2011; Johnson and Brown 2017; Tibaná-Herrera et al. 2018). Since the first occurrence of E-Learning in the mid-1990s, this transformation has been observable in manifold fields in higher education and has had enormous ramifications for the prevalence of sustainable development (Corbeil and Corbeil 2015). However, attempts to grasp the main idea behind E-Learning are puzzling as the term itself is in constant flux and hence elusive (Nicholson 2007; Stein et al. 2011). A first glance at the literature reveals that even though the term E-Learning is well established, it is still loosely defined. Despite consensus that E-Learning, to a varying extent, is a nexus of electronic and learning, its aims and outlines may vary depending on the related context and concrete usage. One of the explanations for this heterogeneous picture is the multiplicity of notions that are subsumed under E-Learning (blended learning, virtual learning, learning management systems) or used interchangeably with E-Learning (computer-based learning, online learning, technology enhanced learning). New emerging trends like massive open online courses (MOOCs), mobile learning, and digital learning have exacerbated the problem of a clear distinction and make an exclusive definition difficult. The aim of this article therefore is threefold: First, it strives to provide a definition of the item by outlining the origins and the trajectories of the different developments in E-Learning. This overview does not purport to be complete but to capture a wide variety of understandings of E-Learning as a concept or idea. The second section examines the evolvement of E-Learning in higher education with special regards to sustainability. Distribution, usage, and entrenchment of E-Learning in higher education are presented in the form of a brief synopsis. Third, the article attempts to briefly illustrate the kaleidoscope of E-Learning approaches to teach about sustainable

E

476

development in higher education. Tools commonly used for E-Learning purposes are presented by showing best practices and future perspectives.

Definition and Delimitation of E-Learning As already mentioned, the nexus of electronic and learning is found to be the least common defining denominator for E-Learning. A narrower definition is hampered by the fact that forms of electronically supported or technology enhanced learning are used in a wide array of different learning settings (Carliner and Shank 2008; Lau et al. 2014). As a first important and salient distinctive feature, E-Learning is not interchangeable with the longer tradition of distance education. However, in the practical use coexistence, overlap and even convergence exist in many respects that blur a rigid dichotomy (Guri-Rosenblit 2005). Distance education, broadly defined, refers to teaching arrangements that are not face to face and that predate the separation of teacher and student (Keegan 1980). E-Learning, on the other hand, predominantly aims to support and facilitate all types of teaching and learning settings by the use of information and communications technology (ICT). This comprises different technologies, tools, and software. Learning and teaching settings for E-Learning include among others virtual learning, blended learning, virtual classrooms, or content sharing platforms. Electronic tools and software for the realization of these settings encompass interalia learning management systems (LMS), videoconferencing, mobile devices, audience response systems, webcams, or educational games. This broad approach to the term also reveals that E-Learning does not necessarily predate the Internet as several learning settings or deliveries can be implemented without it. Even though asynchronous in nature, synchronous activities are also possible in E-Learning, for instance, using software like Adobe Connect for “live” occasions (Otto 2014). Reminiscing about the emergence and development of E-Learning, it becomes manifest that the term has undergone a perpetual concurrence with the evolvement of the

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

web, the web 2.0, and the incremental digitalization of society (Nof et al. 2015a). The launch of personal computers and networks (Internet and intranet) has played a crucial role for the expansion and distribution of a wide range of applications for E-Learning. It has also provided new ways to deliver the learning content by using audio or video material. In this regard, computers and networks are indispensable for E-Learning and an essential prerequisite for all related learning activities (Tsai and Machado 2002). Alongside higher education, organizations and companies have amplified their efforts to deliver instruction and training through the use of E-Learning to facilitate effective and efficient learning (Welsh et al. 2003; Nof et al. 2015b). These efforts have significantly contributed to the broader use and professionalization of E-Learning. At the same time, it has been recognized that E-Learning often evolves much faster than empirical results are obtained and disseminated. As a consequence, a tripartite division has been postulated that differentiates between basic E-Learning (e.g., LMS for storage or use), interactive E-Learning (e.g., usage of multimedia for collaboration), and advanced E-Learning (e.g., serious gaming, mobile augmented reality) (Rock et al. 2016). Against this background and that of the ubiquity and intricacy of E-Learning, the question occurs whether it is possible to accomplish a single and likewise comprehensive definition of the term. Many of the suggestions offered have been criticized for either overgeneralizing or restricting E-Learning in its core meaning (Tsai and Machado 2002; Rock et al. 2016). In 2012, Sangrà, Vlachopoulos, and Cabrera published a remarkable and comprehensive article in search of “Building an inclusive Definition of E-Learning” (2012). The authors combine an extensive review of the literature with a Delphi survey to gather the opinions of recognized experts in the field. The results is a quite broad definition that nonetheless appears thoughtful, well-grounded, and adequate. In order to cover a wide spectrum, E-Learning is defined as “an approach to teaching and learning, representing all or part of the educational model applied, that is based on the use of electronic media and devices as tools for improving access

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

to training, communication and interaction and that facilitates the adoption of new ways of understanding and developing learning” (Sangrà et al. 2012). In addition, the authors form four broader categories that revolve around four different and relevant elements of E-Learning: (1) technologydriven (advocates the use of technology for learning), (2) delivery-system-oriented (focuses on the approachability of resources), (3) communicationoriented (emphasizes on key component of communication as interactivity and collaboration), and (4) educational-paradigm-oriented (triggers new ways of learning and is an enlargement of the existing educational paradigm). This definition, also considering the four categories, offers an inclusive definition of E-Learning that comprises all relevant aspects and therefore serves as an adequate framework to inform theory development and empirical research. In order to address the latest issues in the fields of E-Learning, a variety of leading journals has emerged throughout the years, publishing theoretical and empirical results on various topics in the area. These include, among others, The American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE), The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL), The Journal of Online Learning and Technology (JOLT), Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (OL), and The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). All these journals aim to cover the whole bandwidth of the different types of E-Learning and teaching. Worth mentioning, not all journals refer to E-Learning in their titles.

E-Learning and Sustainability in Higher Education Nowadays, higher education and sustainability are widely recognized as interwoven concepts. In a modern world, higher education has an obligation and pivotal position in redefining education for the case of sustainability surpassing its two traditional functions of research and teaching. A challenge is to reassess disciplines and institutional practices to initiate a development

477

to achieve this task (Corcoran and Wals 2004). Amalgamating the different dimensions of sustainability and bundling and aligning efforts within and across institutions and disciplines are key preconditions in order to maximize sustainability outcomes (Chambers 2015). Recent studies examining the distribution and deepening of sustainability in higher education find the beginning of wider and more systematic approaches (Wals 2014). Disruptive changes in many ways – social, technical, and environmental, globally and locally – have provided an opportunity due to the flexibility of learning process, use of technologies, and new approaches to teaching and learning. Hence, they constitute key factors in education for sustainable development (Bell et al. 2017). As a consequence, institutions are realigning their education, research, operations, and community outreach activities (Wals 2014). In order to pave the way for a sustainable development in higher education, the implementation of E-Learning appears to be one central requirement in a twofold way: First, implementing E-Learning can be considered as a strategic approach to contribute to (more) sustainability in higher education. Second, implementing E-Learning provides tools that deliver and promote teaching and learning about sustainable development in an innovative and wide-ranging way. E-Learning becomes particularly prevalent when it is established to advance or expand the range of target groups for higher education. Demographic boundaries or other limiting framework conditions for global education can in this manner be dismantled. This is especially the case for the developing world where E-Learning can serve as a booster for opening up education and training systems to the wider world (Srivastava 2013). As a strategic approach prima facie, implementing and performing E-Learning in higher education seems to be sustainable in itself. In an overall perspective, the tools and methods employed in E-Learning are much lower in carbon intensity than traditional teaching (Castle and McGuire 2010). More specifically, a considerable amount of resources, face-to-face interaction, and even student and staff mobility can potentially be

E

478

superseded by the use of strategies for E-Learning and teaching. The incremental usage and affordance of E-Learning throughout the last decades has significantly contributed to its advancement and embeddedness in higher education. In 2013, the European University Association (EUA) conducted a survey which was answered by 249 higher education institutions, in their majority universities, from 38 European systems (European Union and wider Europe) (Gaebel et al. 2014). The results underscore the high acceptance of E-Learning in its various forms, predominantly blended learning (91%) and offering online learning courses (82%). Economic and pedagogical motives are indicated primarily for implementing E-Learning strategies. As additional motives, the survey discloses an increasing need for flexibility of time and place, efficient use of resources, and efforts to expand the range of the target groups by striving to include professional and other lifelong learners (Gaebel et al. 2014). So whereas early efforts for the implementation and usage of E-Learning were seldom, nowadays the turn of higher education toward E-Learning has reached a global scale that can hardly be overlooked (Azeiteiro et al. 2014; Johnson and Brown 2017). Worldwide, the usage of ICT has increased due to decreasing costs for computer technologies, better Internet access, and a an improved digital infrastructure in many places. Nevertheless or right therefore, at an early stage it was argued that E-Learning is an opportunity for the developing world to multiply education and provide equitable educational access at diminishing marginal costs (Capper 2001; Lee 2004). Notwithstanding the resulting accomplishments and distribution of E-Learning in higher education all over the world, it should be recognized that the upswing in access and use of technologies and Internet is not evenly distributed across all countries (Kirkwood and Price 2016). E-Learning thus cannot be used to its full potential, often to the detriment of developing countries. Consequently, E-Learning has acquired a central position in educational strategies for developing countries. Several judiciously designed solutions exist that can be implemented to the benefit of these countries at reasonable costs. As a recent

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

promising approach, MOOCs have entered the arena to teach and engage a global audience about topics like climate change or health (Barteit et al. 2018; Otto 2018). As observable in developing countries, this can result in a convergence between the costs of E-Learning and distance education and those of face-to-face education (Depover and Orivel 2013). The launch of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2015 created a strong momentum for promoting E-Learning as a contribution to accomplish these goals, particularly goal number 4, “quality education.”

E-Learning Tools in Higher Education for a Sustainable Development The following section provides a brief outline about some of the tools and methods that are presently available in E-Learning to foster and enhance learning and teaching in higher education. The tools and methods presented are illustrated as examples for the use in the broader field of sustainable development. A comprehensive overview and assessment of “E-Learning and education for sustainability” is interalia provided by the anthology of the same name that covers principles, tools, and several good practices from the field (Azeiteiro et al. 2014). LMS nowadays have turned out to be a standard tool in higher education to facilitate interaction, communication, and collaboration with and among each other. Thus, LMS have grown into an indispensable tool for facilitating teaching and learning in higher education. Besides cultivating and improving students’ communication skills and assisting teaching in general, studies also found that the implementation of LMS contributes to sustainability by significantly reducing the production of materials and preserving resources (Isaias and Issa 2013). Another ongoing trend in E-Learning is electronic assessment (e-assessment), which uses ICT in various forms of educational assessment. These educational assessments can encompass a wide range of student activities, for example, the use of on-screen testing or peer assessment. Although E-Learning is well established in higher

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

education, hitherto little effort has been made in the area of assessment. Traditional methods of formative and summative assessment are still commonly used (Whitelock 2009; Guàrdia et al. 2016). Those forms of e-assessment that currently exist merely comprise traditional methods like single or multiple choices answers, fill in the blanks exercises, or true and false questions (Stödberg 2012). The book of Guàrdia et al. reviews the current state of e-assessment and opens up new possibilities for its use from both the practice and research perspective (Guàrdia et al. 2016). Possibilities include, for example, interactive simulations, gamification, and online scenarios. Recent studies also demonstrate that a careful design of e-assessments can trigger the development of higher-order thinking skills (Johansson 2017). Blended learning is probably the most wellknown concept in E-Learning and is often perceived as the “new normal” (Dziuban et al. 2018). The concept basically refers to a mixture of online learning and face-to-face interaction. A welldesigned combination of both strategies can result in desirable solutions for a wide set of teaching arrangements. Meta-analysis found that, on average, there is a significant advantage of blended learning over traditional face-to-face classes (Means et al. 2013). However, during the process of implementing blended learning, a special emphasis has to be devoted to the design of the blended learning environment. Another important aspect is the role of instructors and learners and how they interact and collaborate in these blended learning environments (Graham and Dziuban 2008). The acceptance of blended learning has significantly increased in higher education making it a common and flexible instructional model in various teaching and learning arrangements (Güzer and Caner 2014; Kristanto et al. 2017). One recent concept that has emerged due to advancement in ICT is virtual mobility. Virtual mobility refers to the idea to enable students to exchange and collaborate with teachers and fellow students from other countries by the means of the latest ICT (Tereseviciene et al. 2013). As a corollary of the need for flexibility in teaching and learning, virtual mobility especially allows

479

mobility for nontraditional students in higher education. Virtual mobility can be used either as an alternative or complementary to the idea of physical exchange (Vriens et al. 2010). Practical examples of teaching students in higher education demonstrate that virtual mobility can also be embedded in blended learning settings and accomplish to spur international and intercultural exchange (Otto 2017). Moreover, it can also make a significant contribution to sustainable development by avoiding the production of environmental externalities, for instance, reducing flights. MOOCs are another prominent development as part of the ramified E-Learning universe. The basic idea of MOOCs is to educate a massive amount of students online and free of charge. The term MOOC was first introduced by Dave Cormier from the University of Prince Edward Island in 2008 to describe a course about Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08). In 2008, only a few might have been aware of the educational ramifications of MOOCs. In the last decade, a professionalization of MOOCs has emerged. Several MOOC providers have entered the educational arena, for instance, Coursera, Udacity, and edX. The peak of the euphoria was reached when The New York Times was calling 2012 the “year of the MOOC” (Pappano 2012). Elation, however, was followed by intensive discussions about whether MOOCs have met the expectation of being a disruptive innovation giving educational access to everyone (Fischer 2014; Jona and Naidu 2014; Veletsianos and Shepherdson 2016). The high rates of dropouts, the enduring efforts to compile an ideal pedagogical model, and to develop a sustainable business model are only some of the challenges MOOCs are facing (Otto 2018). While this diagnosis is accurate for the situation in Europe and North America, it appears to be deviant for developing countries. The Technology & Social Change Group (TASCHA) at the University of Washington conducted a survey in Colombia, the Philippines, and South Africa pointing to the significance and potential of MOOCs for learning and employment through widened access to education, especially for women (Garrido et al. 2016). The results show significantly higher rates of

E

480

completion (79%) and certification (49%) than in Europe and the USA (maximum of 10%) and allows concluding that the future direction of MOOCs is open and ambiguous, at best. In a nutshell, although MOOCs have been heavily criticized, they contain a considerable potential to broaden equitable access to education, knowledge, and information, so that “even the loudest critics of MOOCs do not expect them to fade away” (Fischer 2014).

Final Remarks This short overview tries to provide insights into the discussion about E-Learning in general and for the context of sustainable development in particular. First, the origins and evolvement of E-Learning were outlined disclosing its wide ramifications. It became evident that an exclusive definition is challenging as E-Learning is in a constant flux. A rigid separation between E-Learning and other concepts such as distance education or online learning is puzzling. Recent developments like MOOCs or mobile learning amplify this delimitation. In the next step, two perspectives of E-Learning on sustainable development were outlined – E-Learning as a way to enhance sustainability in higher education and E-Learning as a repository of tools for learning and teaching, interalia about sustainability. To sum up, it has been demonstrated in this article that E-Learning is difficult to capture given its several developmental trajectories. Instead of narrowing the debate by advocating the superiority of one approach, we attempted to illuminate the whole debate by pointing to many different fields. We hope that readers feel encouraged to explore some of the presented facets in more detail.

Cross-References ▶ Blended Learning and Sustainable Development ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development ▶ E-Learning and Sustainable Development ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development

E-Learning and Sustainable Development

References Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W, Caeiro S (2014) E-learning and education for sustainability. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. [u.a.] Barteit S, Depoux A, Sié A et al (2018) Massive open online courses (MOOCs) on climate change and health: teaching a global audience. In: Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W, Aires L (eds) Climate literacy and innovations in climate change education: distance learning for sustainable development. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 169–191 Bell S, Douce C, Caeiro S et al (2017) Sustainability and distance learning: a diverse European experience? Open Learn J Open Dist E-Learn 32:95–102. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2017.1319638 Capper J (2001) E-learning growth and promise for the developing world. TechKnowLogia. May/June:7–10 Carliner S, Shank P (2008) The e-learning handbook: past promises, present challenges. Wiley Castle SR, McGuire C (2010) An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: implications for sustainable education delivery. Int Educ Stud 3:36. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ies.v3n3p36 Chambers D (2015) Maximising sustainability outcomes by amalgamating dimensions of sustainability. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities: working across disciplines. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 195–206 Corbeil JR, Corbeil ME (2015) E-learning: past, present, and future. In: Khan BH, Ally M (eds) International handbook of e-learning. volume 1: theoretical perspectives and research. Routhledge, New York, pp 51–64 Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (2004) The problematics of sustainability in higher education: an introduction. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 3–6 Depover C, Orivel F (2013) Developing countries in the e-learning era. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Learning, Paris Dziuban C, Graham CR, Moskal PD et al (2018) Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15:3. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5 Fischer G (2014) Beyond hype and underestimation: identifying research challenges for the future of MOOCs. Dist Educ 35:149–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01587919.2014.920752 Gaebel M, Kupriyaova V, Morais R, Colucci E (2014) E-learning in European higher education institutions: results of a mapping survey conducted in octoberdecember 2013. European University Association, Brussels. Tel: +32-230-5544; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.eua.be Garrido M, Koepke L, Andersen S et al (2016) Massive open online courses as a tool for workforce development in

E-Learning and Sustainable Development Colombia, the Philippines, and South Africa why study MOOC usage in the developing world? https://digital.lib. washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/36880. Accessed 26 Jan 2018 Garrison DR (2011) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice – D. Randy Garrison – Google Books. Taylor & Francis, New York Graham CR, Dziuban C (2008) Blended learning environments. In: Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3rd edn. pp 269–276 Guàrdia L, Crisp G, Alsina I (2016) Trends and challenges of e-assessment to enhance student learning in higher education. In: Innovative practices for higher education assessment and measurement. pp 36–56 Guri-Rosenblit S (2005) ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: not the same thing. High Educ 49: 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0 Güzer B, Caner H (2014) The past, present and future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of literature. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 116:4596–4603. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.992 Isaias P, Issa T (2013) E-learning and sustainability in higher education: an international case study. Int J Learn High Educ 19:77–90 Johansson E (2017) Assessing for higher-order thinking skills: an international study of university teachers’ perception of developing e-assessment that fosters higher level outcomes Johnson RD, Brown KG (2017) E-learning. In: The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of the Internet at work. Wiley, pp 369–400 Jona K, Naidu S (2014) MOOCs: emerging research. Dist Educ 35:141–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919. 2014.928970 Keegan DJ (1980) On defining distance education. Dist Educ 1:13–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587918000 10102 Kirkwood A, Price L (2016) Technology enabled learning: Handbook. Commonwealth of Learning, Burnaby, British Columbia Kristanto A, Mustaji M, Mariono A (2017) The development of instructional materials e-learning based on blended learning. Int Educ Stud 10:10. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ies.v10n7p10 Lau RWH, Yen NY, Li F, Wah B (2014) Recent development in multimedia e-learning technologies. World Wide Web 17:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11280-013-0206-8 Lee RM (2004) E-learning prospects for the developing world. In: Stanoevska-Slabeva K (ed) The Digital Economy – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Festschrift für Beat F. Schmid. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 363–378 Means B, Toyama U, Murphy R, Baki M (2013) The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teach Coll Rec 115:1–47 Nicholson P (2007) A history of e-learning. In: FernándezManjón B, Sánchez-Pérez JM, Gómez-Pulido JA et al (eds) Computers and education: e-learning, from theory to practice. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 1–11

481 Nof SY, Ceroni J, Jeong W, Moghaddam M (2015a) Revolutionizing collaboration through e-work, e-business, and e-service. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin/ Heidelberg Nof SY, Ceroni J, Jeong W, Moghaddam M (2015b) E-learning and e-training. In: Revolutionizing collaboration through e-work, e-business, and e-service. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 357–390 Otto D (2014) Letʼs play! Using simulation games as a sustainable way to enhance students’ motivation and collaboration in Open and Distance Learning. In: Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W, Caeiro S (eds) E-learning and education for sustainability. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. [u.a.], pp 73–82 Otto D (2017) Lived experience of climate change – a digital storytelling approach. Int J Glob Warm 12:331–346. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2017.084784 Otto D (2018) MOOCs – a powerful tool for imparting climate literacy? Insights from parleys with students. In: Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W, Aires L (eds) Climate literacy and innovations in climate change education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70199-8_8 Pappano L (2012) The year of the MOOC. New York Times, pp 1–7 Rock AJ, Coventry WL, Morgan MI, Loi NM (2016) Teaching research methods and statistics in eLearning environments: pedagogy, practical examples, and possible futures. Front Psychol 7:339. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00339 Sangrà A, Vlachopoulos D, Cabrera N (2012) Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: an approach to the conceptual framework. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn 13:145–159 Srivastava S (2013) E-learning booster in developing world. Nature 501:316 Stein SJ, Shephard K, Harris I (2011) Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand. Br J Educ Technol 42:145–165. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00997.x Stödberg U (2012) A research review of e-assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 37:591–604. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602938.2011.557496 Tereseviciene M, Volungevičien_e A, Daukšien_e E (2013) Fostering internationalisation in higher education by virtual mobility. Acta Technol Dubnicae 3:1 Tibaná-Herrera G, Fernández-Bajón MT, De MoyaAnegón F (2018) Categorization of E-learning as an emerging discipline in the world publication system: a bibliometric study in SCOPUS. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239018-0103-4 Tsai S, Machado P (2002) E-learning, on-line learning, webbased learning, or distance learning: unveiling the ambiguity in current terminology. E-Learn Mag Assoc Comput Mach. https://doi.org/10.1145/566778.568597 Veletsianos G, Shepherdson P (2016) A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature

E

482 published in 2013–2015. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn 17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448 Vriens M, Van PW, Achten M (2010) Virtual mobility as an alternative or complement to physical mobility? In: Edulearn 10 proceedings of the 2nd international conference on education and new learning technologies. pp 6695–6702 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007 Welsh ET, Wanberg CR, Brown KG, Simmering MJ (2003) E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. Int J Train Dev 7:245–258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-3736.2003.00184.x Whitelock D (2009) Editorial: e-assessment: developing new dialogues for the digital age. Br J Educ Technol 40:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008. 00932.x

Eliminate Externalities ▶ Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

Empowerment in Sustainability Thamires Cesário Gimenes1, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado2 and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha2 1 Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Social development and participation are essential components for sustainable development. Participation has been seen as a way to train people, thereby fostering empowerment and bringing more satisfaction. Thus, the success of participation means empowerment, which obviously contributes to social sustainability, an essential component in the search for more sustainable societies (Lyons et al. 2001).

Eliminate Externalities

Introduction Data from the United Nations indicate that 80% of the participants in ecological activism are women. It may be related to the feminist movement, which since the 1970s has defended the idea that the natural environment is feminine and, for this reason, protection of the environment would be linked to the emancipation of women and their greater influence on local and global development (Camargo and Fontoura 2014). The condition for modern society to achieve a more sustainable way of thinking about its development is related to the view of equity in social relations between genders, developed by mankind (Couto and Wivaldo 2017). In this sense, it is worth emphasizing that sustainable development strives for a balance between social, economic, and environmental factors. From the social point of view, empowerment becomes a key element for the transformation of the current system which, besides generating environmental impacts at different scales affecting the life quality of human beings, is also marked by inequalities, vulnerability, exclusion, and discrimination. Briefly, the process of empowerment necessarily implies social transformation. Therefore, the first step is the subject’s awareness of his role as a transforming agent and the recognition of his disempowerment (Fonseca et al. 2017). Couto and Wivaldo (2017) point out women as essential factors in the practice of actions to promote gender equality, which aim at fairer relations of work for women, as well as strategies aimed at the full development of the feminine gender. This emancipatory performance is part of the discussions related to the perspective of sustainability and to the ideological and behavioral change of society. In this context, this work presents a reflection about the relationship of empowerment of women and sustainability, seeking to highlight that the search for sustainability goes beyond proposals based on the conservation of natural resources or the search for more ecologically correct economic alternatives.

Empowerment in Sustainability

Women’s Empowerment and Sustainability Throughout history, domination is present in societies in different forms. The study of this characteristic, present in the development of humanity, has assumed centrality in the fields of education and politics, when questioning the possibility of emancipation of the human being. In this discussion, one of the central themes refers to the empowerment of individuals, individually and collectively (Baquero 2012). Empowerment seeks alternatives to the social reality marked by inequalities, vulnerability, exclusion, and discrimination, being a phenomenon that is prominent both in academic circles and in the activities of development agencies and social projects (Barreto and Paula 2012). From the historical point of view, according to Baquero (2012), the tradition of empowerment has its roots in the Protestant Reformation, initiated by Luther in the sixteenth century in Europe, in a movement of protagonism in the struggle for social justice. Thus, although the increasing use of the term empowerment has occurred in the second half of the twentieth century in the United States from the emancipatory movements related to the exercise of citizenship, such as the movement of blacks, women, and homosexuals and movements for the rights of the disabled person, it can be said that the empowerment theme is not new. For Vasconcelos (2003) the theoretical framework on which the notion of empowerment is based is not new; it is an appropriation and re-elaboration of already existing traditions constituting a nonlinear, noncumulative, or progressive process. In this way, it constitutes dynamic arenas of conflict, relational, without clear distinctions, in a constant dialectic between instituting and instituted. In this sense, it should be emphasized that empowerment is a polysemous, complex, and multifaceted concept (Barreto and Paula 2012; Baquero 2012; Kleba and Wendausen 2009; Vasconcelos 2003; Horochovski and Meirelles 2007; OAKLEY and CLAYTON 2003; Fonseca et al. 2017). Empowerment is a multidimensional variable, with variable scope – ranging from individuals to the global sphere. Therefore, it cannot

483

be generalized, as something that one absolutely has or not (Horochovski and Meirelles 2007). According to Barreto and Paula (2012) in a broader way, one of the conceptualizations of empowerment refers to the phenomenon in which people come to have control over the resources, may they be physical or symbolic. However, in the face of a neoliberal and neoconservative perspective, physical resources frequently end up gaining more centrality, for there is a general notion that if poverty were to disengage, leaving the social risk situation by the material way is the path to empowerment. The authors question this notion by emphasizing the importance of the rescue of symbolic resources with regard to empowerment: “[...] the solution of the material problem of poverty does not avoid the condition of exclusion, but the subject in the situation of poverty that effectively empowers himself ceases positioning as an excluded” (Barreto and Paula 2012, p. 112). Kleba and Wendausen (2009) point out that the use of the concept of empowerment based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition of civil and religious liberalism could serve as an instrument of greater control by some groups and/or institutions, which would condition the distribution of power to their corporate group interests. Then, for the authors, it is necessary to clarify the meaning that is intended to be attributed to this concept, identifying limits and possibilities related to its use. In the opposite direction from the neoliberal and neoconservative perspective is the Freirean perspective that treats empowerment as reinforcement of a public space of transformation and emancipation of the dominated and excluded groups. Freire and Shor (2011) bring awareness of individual and social empowerment by advocating a process of participatory education in which people are not objects or recipients of political education projects but actors in history, capable of naming their problems and solutions, to become the process of change. According to the authors: Even when you individually feel yourself most free, if is this feeling is not a social feeling, if you are note able to use your recent freedom to help others be free by transforming the totality of society, then you are exercising only a an individualist attitude

E

484 towards empowerment or freedom [...] while individual empowerment, the feeling of being changed, is not enough concerning the transformation of the whole society, it is absolutely necessary for the process of social transformation. (Freire and Shor 2011, p. 135)

Fonseca et al. (2017) also point out that the fundamental matter is to understand the nature of the relationships established between empowerment and human development, in order to make feasible a socially fair proposal. In general terms, empowerment is interdependent and multidisciplinary, considering that, as a process, it refers to both the psychological, social, organizational, cultural, economic, and political dimensions. In this sense, social empowerment implies the development of the capacities of excluded people, to transform power relations that limit access and relations in general with the state, the market, and the society. However, it is fundamental to show that this process differs from the simple construction of skills and competences, since it refers to an emancipatory perspective. In this way, empowerment must be understood as a dialectical process, a struggle for rights and constant resistance against oppression and inequalities. According to Wallerstein and Bernstein (1994, p. 142): Empowerment, or community empowerment, a preferred usage because of the social context in which empowerment takes place, thus embodies an interactive process of change, where institutions and communities become transformed as people who participate in changing them become transformed. Rather than pitting individuals against community and overall societal needs, the community empowerment construct focuses on both individual and community change.

Given the above, it is evident that the discussions about the conceptualization and practical approach related to the concept of empowerment are complex and dynamic and involve social, political, historical, and economic factors. It is understood, in this work, that empowerment takes place in processes in which those involved empower themselves, so it cannot be provided nor realized for individuals or groups; empowerment is intrinsically related to social transformation.

Empowerment in Sustainability

This social transformation, which is so necessary and important from the point of view of empowerment, is also present when it comes to considerations about sustainability. Since the 1990s, the term empowerment has been generalized in its use, particularly by banks, multilateral and bilateral development agencies, governments, and nongovernmental organizations (Oakley and Clayton 2003), in the face of the growing need to adopt a sustainable development model, in accordance with the recommendations of the 2nd World Conference on Environment and Development held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (Fonseca et al. 2017). Nowadays, all the discussion about the socioenvironmental issue shows that an alternative for environmentally more balanced development should consider human society as part of the environment. “The very concept of sustainable development was born incorporating environmental sustainability into a social and economic sustainability” (Foladori 2002, p. 104). The concept of sustainable development includes three basic dimensions: ecological sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability. Among the three, the most controversial has always been social sustainability. However, over the last 30 years, social sustainability has evolved to emphasize the importance of social participation and the increase of the potentialities and qualities of people in the construction of a fairer future (Foladori 2002). With regard to the issue of social participation in the discussion on social sustainability, it should be mentioned that it can be considered an indicator of democratic freedoms, equity in decisions, and also a key element in the enhancement of productive efforts. Since the 1980s, participation has been placed by international agencies, NGOs, and international institutions as a necessary goal for development and sustainability programs. In fact, the concept of social participation has changed over time, from a simply informative participation to what is now known by the word empowerment, which assumes that participants in development projects discuss even the strategic guidelines themselves (Foladori 2002).

Empowerment in Sustainability

For the author it is clear that nowadays, the concept of participation associated with the idea of empowerment is what prevails, at least in discourse. There should be no doubt that this means a significant civilizational advance in the face of the earliest versions. However, empowerment itself signifies changes in the relations of ownership and appropriation present in the current system of production, that is, in the social relations of production. In this way, the distribution of social wealth does not change according to the rules of competition established by the market nor its consequences on social differentiation and poverty. Romano (2002) also points out that the concept of empowerment has not only become fashionable, but also, and more damaging, has been appropriated as a way of legitimizing practices that are very diverse and not necessarily empowering, such as those proposed in the original terms. Thus, the empowerment invoked by multilateral and bilateral development banks and agencies, by various governments and also by NGOs, has often been used primarily as a legitimating tool for them to continue to do, in essence, what they used to do. Now with a new name: empowerment. Or to control, within the milestones established by them, the potential for changes originally printed in these categories and innovative proposals. (Romano 2002, p. 10)

In this sense, it is worth mentioning Villacorta and Rodrígues (2002) for whom sustainable development is one which purpose is the generation of wealth and well-being for present and future generations. For the authors, the search for sustainability is not only about generating wealth but also about the well-being of both present and future generations, so that sustainability cannot be reduced or made synonymous with economic growth, since, in addition to economic growth, it includes various dimensions or spheres of human life, such as political, social, cultural, environmental, space, spiritual, etc. Therefore, it is a multidimensional phenomenon, which fundamental characteristic is the inclusion of all the forces and actors of a society. A development that is exclusive, on the one hand, is poor development and, on the other hand, needs sustainability. Sustainable development

485

implies, among other factors, a struggle to eradicate poverty and exclusion. It means that: [...] a development strategy is to ensure that sectors, groups and people living in poverty and extreme poverty, or who have been excluded and marginalized for various reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion, are not only considered as objects of programs or strategies against poverty, but that, abandoning their status as excluded and marginalized, they become actors of their own development, participating in the fundamental decisions that drive it and the benefits it generates. (Villacorta and Rodrígues 2002, p. 46)

Thus, a key factor in moving toward sustainable development is the empowerment focus on poor and excluded sectors, groups, and people. In this sense, it is not by chance that historically, as mentioned earlier, the concept of empowerment was introduced in the 1960s and 1970s by the American Black movement, which fought discrimination against black minorities in the United States, and by feminist and women struggling to achieve women’s full citizenship (Villacorta and Rodrígues 2002). Oliveira and Freitas (2017) mention that female empowerment involves empowering women with social participation, ensuring that they are aware of the struggle for their rights, including gender equality. For the authors, the way the subjects make their choices is closely related to the participation capability but also to the power distribution in these spaces. Thus, women’s empowerment relates to the women positioning in all social, political, and economic fields. The woman, by becoming aware and assuming her place and her individual power, also promotes the growth and strengthening of the role of all women in society. It is a dynamic process that involves cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. Considering the relationship between women’s empowerment and sustainability, it is worth mentioning the Agenda 30 for sustainable development, which came into force in January 2016. The document presents 17 objectives, successors of the 8 millennium development objectives, and 169 goals. These objectives are integrated and indivisible and, among other factors, seek to realize the human rights of all and achieve gender

E

486

equality and the empowerment of women and girls, in order to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental (United Nations 2015). Agenda 30 considers that achieving human potential and sustainable development is not possible if for half of humanity, its full human rights continue to be denied. Thus, women and girls should enjoy equal access to quality education, economic resources, and political participation, as well as equal opportunities with men and boys in terms of employment, leadership, and decisionmaking at all levels. Objective 5 of the document specifically addresses gender equality and women’s empowerment, as shown in Table 1: In view of the Agenda 30 proposal, it is essential to mention that the reach of more egalitarian interpersonal relationships between men and women provides the design of human development in line with the environment in which they are inserted. The guarantee of this ideal is based on the substantial recognition of people, regardless of their representation as part of the masculine or feminine sign, that is, distanced from any differentiation in their rights (Carmo et al. 2016). Equity understood as ensuring people’s access to equal opportunities and the development of basic skills can guarantee environmental sustainability. In this context, barriers to women’s Empowerment in Sustainability, Table 1 Objective 5 from Agenda 30 for sustainable development Objective 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere 5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation 5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation 5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure, and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate 5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life Source: The authors based on United Nations (2015)

Empowerment in Sustainability

economic and political opportunities must be removed and provide them access to education and basic services. It is based on the idea that equality in gender relations generates social sustainability and, therefore, environmental sustainability (Carmo et al. 2016). Also at the international scope, the Paris Agreement, approved in 2015 by the 195 countries that took part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of sustainable development, was another recent achievement for the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women. According to the document: Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity [...]. (Nações Unidas 2015, p. 2)

Even with initiatives such as the Agenda 30 for sustainable development and the Paris Agreement, which are based on the relationship of women’s empowerment and sustainability, it is important to mention Calvelli et al. (2014) who emphasize the need to recognize that territorial development can only achieve sustainability if an integration process takes place, establishing equal opportunities and privileges and overcoming discrimination since the contribution of women to the functioning of society is unquestionable, which makes them decisive actors in this process.

Final Considerations Sustainability is one of the great challenges of contemporary society. This process is complex and requires actions committed to the transformation of a production and consumption system that has generated significant socio-environmental problems while promoting social inequality. The promotion of empowerment, discussed in this paper, can provide a disrupting perspective of

Empowerment in Sustainability

socioeconomic development models that disseminate and increase the cycle of endemic poverty, high levels of social inequalities, and the alienation of basic civil rights (Oakley and Clayton 2003). In this way, the empowerment process can intervene in these imbalances and help increasing the power and participation of those groups that lack it, such as women. In this sense, it is fundamental to promote and implement programs and public policies that include this approach in its basic structure. Empowerment implies the beginning of a broader process of conquest and exercise of citizenship as a mean and end for the constitution of human autonomy and for an equitable distribution of social and environmental well-being. In this perspective, it can be said that women’s empowerment and sustainability, while fundamental for human development, are still issues that need to be discussed and improved from a theoretical and practical point of view. Women’s empowerment is intertwined with sustainability, and since efforts to the environment must overlap any gender issue, it is extremely necessary for men and women to fight together and in equality to improve and create more sustainable practices that will ultimately guarantee life in Planet.

References Baquero RVA (2012) Empoderamento: instrumento de emancipação social? – uma discussão conceitual. Rev Debates 6(1):173–187 http://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/ debates/article/view/26722/17099 Barreto RO, Paula APP (2012) Rio da Vida Coletivo: empoderamento, emancipação e práxis. Rev Adm Pública 48(1):111–130 Calvelli HG, Loreto MDS, Silva EC (2014) As relações de gênero e a Agricultura Familiar de Pesqueira (PE): o empoderamento feminino a partir da produção de matérias-primas para o biodiesel. In: 19
Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais, ABEP, São Pedro, 24–28 November. http://www.abep.org.br/ ~abeporgb/publicacoes/index.php/anais/article/viewFi le/2256/2211. Accessed 23 Feb 2018 Camargo W, Fontoura R (2014) Mulheres e Sustentabilidade. Gazeta do Povo [on line]. http:// www.gazetadopovo.com.br/blogs/giro-sustentavel/mul heres-e-sustentabilidade/. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 Carmo JC, Pires MM, Jesus JG, Cavalcente AL, Trevizan SDP (2016) Voz da natureza e da mulher na Resex de

487 Canavieiras-Bahia-Brasil: sustentabilidade ambiental e de gênero na perspectiva do ecofeminismo. Rev Estud Fem 24(1):155–180 Couto SFM, Wivaldo JNS (2017) Aspectos da relação entre empoderamento feminino e desenvolvimento sustentável. In: Anais do congresso internacional de políticas públicas para a américa latina: educação, saúde e meio ambiente, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Biguaçu, 21–23 June. https://siaiap32.univali.br/seer/ index.php/aemv/article/view/11279/6365. Accessed 23 Jul 2017 Foladori G (2002) Avanços e limites da sustentabilidade social. Rev Paranaen Desenvolvimento (102):103–111 Fonseca SMM, Silva AP, Teixeira Filho JGA (2017) O Impacto do Ciberativismo no Processo de Empoderamento: O Uso de Redes Sociais e o Exercício da Cidadania. Desenvolvimento Questão 15(41):59–84 Freire P, Shor I (2011) Medo e ousadia, 13th edn. Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro Horochovski R, Meirelles G (2007) Problematizando o conceito de empoderamento. In: Anais do 2
seminário nacional de movimentos sociais, participação e democracia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 25–27 April 2007. https://periodicos. ufsc.br/index.php/ref/article/view/44285. Accessed 12 Feb 2018 Kleba ME, Wendausen A (2009) Empoderamento: processo de fortalecimento dos sujeitos nos espaços de participação social e democratização política. Saúde Soc 18(4):733–743 Lyons M, Smuts C, Stephens A (2001) Participation, empowerment and sustainability: (how) do the links work?. Urban Stud 38(8):1233–1251 Nações Unidas (2015) Conferência das Partes Vigésima primeira sessão Paris, 30 de novembro a 11 de dezembro de 2015. Adoção do Acordo de Paris. https://nacoesunidas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ Acordo-de-Paris.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2017 Oakley P, Clayton A (2003) Monitoramento e avaliação do empoderamento (empowerment). Instituto Pólis, São Paulo Oliveira MR, Freitas CC (2017) Meninas da vila: uma perspectiva transdisciplinar do empoderamento feminino. In: Anais 6ª semana de integração, Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Goi^ania, 7–10 June 2017. http://www.anais.ueg.br/index.php/semintegracao/ article/viewFile/8993/6917. Accessed 26 Feb 2018 Romano J (2002) Empoderamento: recuperando a questão do poder no combate à pobreza. In: Romano J, Antunes M (eds) Empoderamento e direitos no combate à fome. ActionAid Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, pp 9–20 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20 Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2017 Vasconcelos EM (2003) O poder que brota da dor e da opressão: empowerment, sua história, teoria e estratégias. Paulus, São Paulo

E

488 Villacorta AE, Rodrígues M (2002) Metodologias e ferramentas para implementar estratégias de empoderamento. In: Romano J, Antunes M (eds) Empoderamento e direitos no combate à fome. ActionAid Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, pp 45–66 Wallerstein N, Bernstein E (1994) Introduction to community empowerment, participation, education, and health. Health Educ Q 21(2):141–170

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development Cristian Guzmán Quaharre and Edgar Enrique Miranda Sandoval IRE, Galileo University, Guatemala, Guatemala

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

of all university center inhabitants. It is also necessary to create green offices in order to research and promote alternative energies and efficient energy use in harmony with the guidelines of sustainable development. Sustainable Development Goal number 7 of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development states that universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy must be ensured. Higher education centers are like a substitute home for students, professors, and administrative staff; therefore it is important to adapt and promote coexistence in these spaces responsibly and taking into consideration respect for the environment.

Introduction Definition Energy is an important element for development. The assumption that greater technological and economical advances of society cause increasingly greater amounts of energy consumption must be considered true as each day more devices – which are powered by electricity – become part of the basic needs of people and/or industries; this causes an increase in energy consumption. Where does the energy that power our basic and comfort needs come from? This question is recurrently posed to university professors, students, and administrative staff. The answers obtained most often lack solid arguments and evidence on the importance of promoting efficient and intelligent energy consumption in university buildings, in order to position themselves as an educational facility with awareness, responsible with its environment, and a leading example for the development of the country. Executive Summary Energy demand in buildings represents 30–40% of global energy consumption (Mehreen and Sandhya 2014), which corresponds to 20% of anthropogenic CO2 equivalent emissions (WBCSD 2015). Higher education institutions must incorporate to existing programs courses that foster responsibility of sustainable energy and environmental management

Energy is a necessary good that allows us to stay communicated and informed of what is going on in any place on the planet; plus it has also become a means that allows us to obtain different levels of comfort. It is common for society not to notice the contribution of energy to said comfort which contributes to create inhabitable places, isolated from cold or heat, gives lighting at night, or powers multiple household appliances, all with a simple on or off button that activates any device or equipment that will satisfy human needs. In order to supply this demand, it is necessary to generate electricity, and when it comes from thermoelectric power plants that use nonrenewable resources like petroleum products, coal, natural gas, or LPG, it generates gases that pollute the atmosphere. Human beings are part of a vicious cycle which, without warning, contributes to the pollution of the planet. Air pollution has been defined as the accumulation in the air of substances in levels of concentration that cause provisional or permanent damage to humans, animals, plants, and property. There are five pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, and particulate matter that contribute to more than 95% of the total amount of all pollutants emitted (Caselli, p. 39). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the predominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas which affects the radioactive balance of Earth. This gas is used as reference to measure

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

other greenhouse gases and therefore has a global warming potential of 1. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, changes in climate during the twenty-first century will be greater than those of the twentieth century (IPCC et al. 2007). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a reference point for the assessment of our environment; goal 7 states that access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy must be ensured (Naciones Unidas, 2018). How will this be accomplished? Higher education facilities can provide creative ideas implemented in their buildings, for example. Another reference point is the Paris Agreement, which establishes greenhouse gas management goals through mitigation, adaptation, and resilience (IEA 2017). The following article describes how universities have worked to reduce energy consumption and include within their environmental strategy education on energy and sustainability, using its facilities as workshops, creating awareness and the role they play in this search.

Energy Demand Energy demand in buildings represents 30–40% of global energy consumption (Mehreen and Sandhya 2014), which corresponds to 20% of anthropogenic CO2 equivalent emissions (WBCSD 2015). China, the United States, and India are among the countries that use the most energy to power their buildings (WBCSD 2008), thus contributing to climate change. Reducing energy consumption in buildings, especially in universities, presents an opportunity for positioning as an aware, conscious, and exemplary education facility regarding energy consumption management and through their experiences provide real-life examples for SDG compliance and the Paris Agreement. According to Schwartz et al. (2017), the main energy consumption in buildings are air conditioning, lighting, and electronics. To calculate and analyze energy consumption, there are energy efficiency indicators; the International Energy Agency (IEA 2017) recommends prioritizing the most important actions to ensure building functioning at adequate comfort levels. Participation

489

of all inhabitants is important when transitioning from analysis to action; a commitment from the entire group of inhabitants is necessary. In order to achieve a sustainable building, important obstacles need to be overcome, working under the following ideas: each person should know what and how valuable their contribution is, building staff should understand the importance of an efficient building, and managers and administrators should support the idea or action; in conclusion, stakeholder engagement and commitment must exist (WBCSD 2008). Some of the recommendations of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development for overcoming barriers to reduce energy demand are access to information and education, economic instruments, management instruments, and concern for the environment (WBCSD 2008). An example of education and information is the awareness concerning energy labeling in household appliances which provides important information regarding energy usage of the device and thus enables the customer to compare two or more similar appliances prior to purchasing or using it. To implement energy-saving measures in a building, it is important to work on reducing energy consumption and use efficient electric equipment. Working in energy efficiency leads us to two paths: passive and active measures. In the passive approach, measures are implemented to reduce building consumption without having to install electric or mechanic equipment to achieve it, for example, the location and placement of the building in order to optimize natural lighting and ventilation (de Vivienda and Territorio 2015). The active approach includes the implementation of efficient equipment to create a comfortable environment within the building, including artificial lighting, air conditioning and heating, and proximity sensors, among others. Clean Air-Cool Planet, organization that promotes climate change solutions, designed a program called Campus Carbon Calculator to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated in universities (CA-CP 2010). After measuring the amount of emissions generated, actions that promote a reduction in GHG emissions can be implemented; energy consumption reduction is considered among these.

E

490

Low-Cost Measures Some of the low-cost options to reduce energy consumption in universities are lighting, proximity sensors, and energy efficiency certified equipment, among others. A few of these are explained below: • Lighting: Changing incandescent lights to LED technology can save up to 80% of energy consumption plus have a longer duration period and higher levels of lumens. • Office equipment: Adjust the parameters of the appliances (like projectors, printers, and computers) to shut down automatically during nonoffice hours. • Air conditioning: In offices where there are electronic devices, air conditioning should be kept at optimal comfort temperatures. It is important to keep doors closed to avoid unnecessary work from the cooling system, suitable insulation of walls and windows, etc. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a voluntary program called Energy Star, for monetary savings and environmental care. This program includes energy labeling of appliances, where the manufacturer uses it to divulge that the appliance uses energy efficiently and thus protects the environment (Energy Star ® 2018). Through its programs, Energy Star ensures a 30% reduction or more in electricity bill when using products with their logos (Energy Star ® 2007). An efficiency model of a system using appliances with this type of labeling was carried out by Tulane University students. They equipped a dorm room with Energy Star appliances and energy-efficient practices in order to encourage better energy consumption habits and use it as an educational tool to promote energy efficiency and sustainability (Kahler 2003). In 2018, the Energy Star program held an award ceremony for energy efficiency practices in buildings. Northwestern University received the 2018 Energy Star Partner of the Year Award; some of their highlighted accomplishments are achieving energy reduction of 12% per square meter compared to base year 2010, despite having

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

added an additional 815,000 square meters to its campus (Yates 2018).

Energy Monitoring, Building Certification, and Policies Monitoring energy consumption in universities is a useful tool for analyzing electricity consumption and serves as the basis for creating an energy efficiency policy. One of the advantages of monitoring energy consumption is to avoid penalties to the university from its energy supplier due to exceeding the hired energy amount. Energy consumption of a university is much higher than that of a household; therefore a contract must be made with an energy distributing company where a monthly net consumption of power can be set. Monitoring energy consumption will allow us to: Program alarms when consumption peaks or there are anomalies in the system. Have greater control of internal consumption within the university. Calculate the carbon footprint of energy consumed. Identify the hours with greatest consumption. Monitoring within the university will help create a policy, which in turn will promote energy efficiency and the sustainable use of resources. Making universities sustainable is increasingly important, and there are many campuses around the world that have taken significant steps toward achieving this goal. One of several universities devoted to researching consumable energy systems, which also excels in this endeavor, is Stanford University through the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center (PEEC). Their research can be categorized as follows (Stanford University 2018a). Researchers in charge of the project analyze and evaluate these three aspects in their search for solutions to reduce energy consumption of a building and the industry and thus contribute responsibly to sustainability (Fig. 1). Technologically speaking, “smart meters” are used, to help automate building installations. The following

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Research aspects. (Source: Created using PEEC data)

actions can be implemented to measure and at the same time influence the behavior of people: social media, work groups with defined goals, and an incentive system that promotes changes in consumer habits, which are reflected in energy savings. In 2007, the University of Notre Dame created an office that promotes sustainability, the university currently has nine buildings with LEED certification. LEED certification is a program that certifies green buildings and is globally recognized. The university has accomplished the creation of programs to promote efficient use of energy through the “Megawatt Madness” event which helps promote reductions in electricity consumption, events to promote recycling, and an office to promote green offices, aimed at students from campus. In its environmental policy, Stanford University includes the following actions: incorporating environmental education and energy efficiency programs into the different curricula, integration of environmental consciousness in campus – like “zero waste” programs – and energy efficiency improvement in buildings and solar photovoltaic panels. Colorado State University has been recognized for using sustainability and energy efficiency in its buildings; it was the first university to obtain five Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE 2017). AASHE recognizes institutions around the world that have good sustainability practices; some of the evaluation criteria are campus powered by renewable energy, solid waste management, water usage, building design, and construction and innovation, among others. The University of Maryland implemented a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and achieved desired results, among which are a 27% reduction of their carbon footprint from 2005 to 2015, first semester program on the challenges and opportunities of

491

sustainability, 20% reduction in energy consumption, and 86% of their energy from renewable sources for the year 2016 (University of Maryland 2009). To this day only four universities have a fivestar certification granted by AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2018a): Colorado State University, Stanford University, the University of California Irvine, and the University of New Hampshire. In the area of innovation, a program implemented by Colorado State University can be highlighted; they developed a bicycle program with the goal of reducing passenger car use and promoting bicycle culture in and out of campus (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2018b). The environmental policy of Colorado State University aims to power its facilities using 100% clean energy sources by the year 2030; it currently has 26 LEED certified buildings (Colorado State University 2018).

University Laboratories Energy consumption in laboratories is usually three to four times higher per square meter than that of an office (HEEPI 2011). Implementing sustainable practices in laboratories has shown 20% to 40% energy saving (U.S. Department of Energy). The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has created a program to reduce energy use by 20% in 10 years or less; the program is called Smart Labs Accelerator and it is led by energy efficiency experts from all over the country. The objectives of the program are to divulge standards for identifying energy cost reduction opportunities, promoting technology improvement, and recommendations to achieve energy efficiency, among others. The University of California, Irvine (UCI), has reduced 50% of energy use in their laboratories through the Smart Labs Program (University of California, Irvine 2016). S-Lab is another nonprofit initiative from England, whose mission is to promote low energy consumption, handling, and design in laboratories, mainly for research facilities in universities (S-Lab 2011).

E

492

Harvard University has created a program called Green Lab Certification (GLC), which promotes sustainable laboratories within their facilities with the objective of fulfilling its 2015–2020 sustainability plan (Harvard University 2018). Among the highlights of its environmental policy is the implementation of energy reduction measures – which has resulted in over $9 million in savings a year – and the monitoring of energy consumption per building as can be observed in Fig. 2. Some of their outstanding solutions are solar energy generation of over 1 MW, LEED-certified buildings, and sustainability offices with expert staff and students who promote sustainability. Based on these findings, it is evident that energy technology is now seen as a sustainable and safe option for the energy system, but its implementation is still limited by lack of policies that promote its use. The annual report titled Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 states that energy systems planning tools need to be developed and regulations that support energy systems implemented and greater

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

political participation is necessary (International Energy Agency 2017). Lack of integrated energy systems with long-term policies that enable the adoption of energy efficiency technologies in buildings through incentives that facilitate efficient systems and a reduction in polluting emissions. Lack of robust policies that guide the energy market will not promote the use of efficient technologies in the long term, because currently there is not the impulse to be implemented (Energy Efficiency in Buildings: How to Accelerate Investments? 2017). In relation to the COP21 and the SDGs, the International Energy Agency (IEA) states that the governments should create visionary political systems that promote an energy future and fulfills the commitments of the Paris Agreement. New political mechanisms should guarantee an energy-efficient and sustainable transition to be achieved with cooperation and international programs that seek to fulfill the established environmental goals. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL by its name in

Building Energy Use by Building Type, FY16 49% Lab/Studio

18% Residential/Dorms

7% Library/Museums

12% Office

4% Classroom

3% Athletic

6% Campus Operations

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Energy consumption based on building type, Harvard University. (Source: Harvard University Sustainability)

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development

Spanish) launched a program called Base Indicators for Energy Efficiency (BIEE) with the goal of establishing a methodology to analyze energy efficiency progress in countries at a political level (Carpio and Coviello 2013). Some of the obstacles mentioned are: the lack of continuity of institutions that promote energy efficiency in effect, causes professionals to search other areas, a general deficiency of knowledge in the topic, limited funding to promote efficient equipment and efficient projects, consumption habits versus comfort and lack of initiative from relevant sectors to undertake energy reduction policies or strategies.

Conclusions Energy is a necessary good that allows us to stay communicated and informed of what happens anywhere on the planet, and it has become a means that allows us to access different levels of comfort. It is common for society not to notice the contribution of energy to everyday life. The electronic device market offers accessories and equipment which are powered by electricity, which causes an increase in energy demand. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that some of the ways to overcome the barriers to energy reduction are access to information and education, economic instruments, administrative instruments, and concern for the environment. University buildings are not alien to this situation. It is an ideal place for generating information as in the same place live people with different customs, habits, and ways of living. University centers represent a substitute home for students, professors, and administrative staff. One of several universities devoted to researching consumable energy systems, which also excels in this endeavor, is Stanford University through the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center (PEEC). Their research revolves around three categories (Stanford University 2018b): technology, behavior intervention, and data assessment. These are three axes on which work is required in order to achieve substantial change that will favor sustainability of buildings. The first steps to achieving reduction of energy consumption is the creation of a voluntary

493

committee that establishes idea debate and analysis which help establish strategies or actions that promote shared responsibility for care of the environment among all community members. The committee should be led by academics, which, along with directors from different university areas, establish the basis to create a relevant sustainable policy, after having involved interested students in the creation of an operative work plan and innovation in solutions. Within the university, an interdisciplinary program that integrates environmental knowledge and energy efficiency, so that the student is aware that the environmental factor must be taken when developing professional projects. University buildings must establish energy efficiency measurement parameters and disseminate the results among all inhabitants; it is important to generate awareness, discussion, and debate on the measurements disclosed, with the objective of adapting the everyday vocabulary of people with these terms. The policy must include strategies with incentives that promote efficiency: like using bicycles as transportation to and from the university, using reusable bags as a substitute to plastic, using efficient appliances that are marked or certified for being efficient, and using appliances that enable individual carbon footprint measurement and shared spaces. The need to invest in energy efficiency in university buildings involves all those who inhabit it. The way of acting of the university must reflect good practices that promote spaces free of contamination and models to replicate in other environments. Undoubtedly, universities must incorporate green offices with the objective of researching and promoting alternative strategies and the use of energy efficiency in harmony with sustainable development guidelines.

References Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2017) Stars technical manual. Retrieved from aashe: http://www.aashe.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/07/STARS-2.1-Technical-Manual-AdministrativeUpdate-Three.pdf Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2018a) Sustainability tracking,

E

494 assessment & rating system™. Retrieved from STARS participants & reports: https://stars.aashe.org/institu tions/participants-andAssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2018b) Sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system™. Retrieved from Colorado State University: https://stars.aashe.org/institu tions/colorado-state-university-co/report/2017-02-07/IN/ exemplary-practice/IN-14/ Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2018) sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system™. Retrieved from STARS overview: https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/stars-overview.html Carpio C, Coviello MF (2013) Eficiencia energética en América Latina y el Caribe: avances y desafíos del último quinquenio. Retrieved from CEPAL: https:// repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4106/1/ S2013957_es.pdf Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) (2010) Campus carbon calculator. University of New Hampshire, Durham, United States. https://sustainableunh.unh.edu/calculator Colorado State University (2018) Colorado State University. Retrieved from state of sustainability: https:// green.colostate.edu/ Energy Efficiency in Buildings: How to Accelerate Investments? (2017). Retrieved from global alliance for buildings and construction: https://www.globalabc. org/uploads/media/default/0001/01/a0c731049c9eb35 07901f56de50c5e92e6ed36c3.pdf Energy Star® (2007) Higher education: an overview of energy use and energy efficiency opportunities. Retrieved from Energystar.gov: https://www.energystar. gov/sites/default/files/buildings/tools/SPP%20Sales% 20Flyer%20for%20Higher%20Education_0.pdf Energy Star ® (2018) Retrieved from about energy star 2017: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ asset/document/Energy%20Star_factsheets_About% 20EnergyStar_508_1.pdf Harvard University (2018) Our plan. Retrieved from sustainability at Harvard: https://green.harvard.edu/cam paign/our-plan HEEPI (2011) S-Lab briefing 2: understanding laboratory energy consumption. Retrieved from International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories: http://www.i2sl. org/elibrary/documents/somervell_nuttall.pdf IEA (2017) Meeting climate change goals through energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency Insights Brief. Retrieved from iea.org: https://www.iea.org/publica tions/freepublications/publication/MeetingClimateChange GoalsEnergyEfficiencyInsightsBrief.pdf International Energy Agency (2017) Energy technology perspective 2017. IEA Publications, Paris, France IPCC, Core Writing Team, Pachauri R, Reisinger A (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. In: Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assess-. (IPCC, Ed.). IPCC, Geneva Kahler S (2003) The ripple effect: how one dorm room can affect a university's energy use. Int J Sustain High Educ 4(3):230–238. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676370310485429

Energy Demand Reduction and Sustainable Development Mehreen SG, Sandhya P (2014) Understanding the energy consumption and occupancy of a multi-purpose academic building. Elsevier, Paris, France, pp 155–165 Ministerio de Vivienda, Ciudad y Territorio (2015) Anexo No.1 Guía de Construcción Sostenible para el ahorro de agua y energía en edificaciones, Colombia. Retrieved from minvivienda.gov.co: http://www.minvivienda. gov.co/Documents/ViceministerioVivienda/ANEXO% 201%200549%20-%202015.pdf Naciones Unidas (2018) Energia Desarrollo Sostenible. Retrieved from un.org: https://www.un.org/sustainable development/es/energy/ Schwartz L, Wei M, Morrow W, Deason J, Schiller S R, Leventis G, . . . Teng J (2017). Electricity end uses, energy efficiency, and. Retrieved from Energy.gov: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/ Electricity%20End%20Uses%2C%20Energy%20Effi ciency%2C%20and%20Distributed%20Energy%20 Resources.pdf S-Lab (2011) S-Lab environmental good practice guide for laboratories. Retrieved from HEEPI: https://www.ed. ac.uk/files/imports/fileManager/S-Lab_Good_Practice_ Guide.pdf Stanford University (2018a) Teaching & research. Retrieved from sustainable stanford: https://sustain able.stanford.edu/teaching-research Stanford University (2018b) Technology, precourt energy efficiency center. Retrieved from Peec.stanford.edu: https://peec.stanford.edu/research/behavior-initiative/ technology U.S. Department of Energy (2018) Smart labs accelerator. Retrieved from Better Buildings U.S. Department of Energy: https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/ sites/default/files/attachments/Better%20Buildings%20 Smart%20Labs%20Accelerator%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf University of California, Irvine (2016) Better buildings U.S. department of energy. Retrieved from Smart Labs Initiative: https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy. gov/sites/default/files/tools/UCISmartLabsInitiative_ Feb222016.pdf University of Maryland (2009) University of Maryland action plan. Retrieved from: https://sustainability.umd. edu/sites/sustainability.umd.edu/files/climate_action_ plan.pdf World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2008) Energy efficiency in buildings facts and trends: business realities and opportunities (full report). Retrieved from wbcsd resources: http:// wbcsdservers.org/wbcsdpublications/cd_files/datas/ business-solutions/eeb/pdf/EEB-Facts&Trends-Full Report.pdf World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2015) Action plan, energy efficiency in buildings. Retrieved from Lctpi.wbcsd.org: https:// lctpi.wbcsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LCTPiEEB-Action-Plan.pdf Yates J (2018) Northwestern earns prestigious ENERGY STAR award. Retrieved from News.northwestern.edu: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2018/april/energystar-award/

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs Edward Kweku Nunoo1,2, S. Mariwah2 and S. Shafic Suleman2 1 Department of Environment and Development Studies, Central University Miotso, Miotso, Ghana 2 Institute for Oil and Gas Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

Definition HEIs are looked up to as the fulcrum for providing leadership in innovations. These include energy efficiency initiatives. This entails management and stakeholders managing energy to provide the same level of service by consuming less energy to conserve resources, safe cost, and mitigate CO2.

Introduction In recent times, HEIs in Ghana are under increasing pressure to manage electricity demand deficit, beat down cost of electricity, and reduce carbon emissions by becoming energy efficient (AsumaduSarkodie et al. 2016a). Residential energy consumption in Ghana has increased by over 60% from 1983 to 2017 with corresponding increase in electricity tariff by over 200% over the same period (Kumi 2017). The increasing energy cost faced by HEIs comes at a time when universities operating budgets face competing demands with very limited opportunities to income (Maistry and McKay 2016). In addition, Ghana’s main source of energy supply (Hydro power supply) is unable to keep up with demand resulting in periodic load shedding (locally referred to as “Dumsor”). To supplement for such losses, a mix of thermal and diesel engines that burns fossil fuels are operated by HEIs. These sources tend to be highly disruptive and costly, and also contribute much more to carbon dioxide (CO2) emission levels (Asumadu-Sarkodie and Owusu 2016b). Managing energy costs down and promoting a culture of energy saving on university

495

campuses has become essential, especially, when HEIs are looked up to as the fulcrum for providing leadership in innovations and energy efficiency initiatives. There is, generally, a high presence of HEIs in Ghana: public and private universities, vocational and polytechnics, and colleges of education (Nunoo 2018). All of them, in one way or the other are operational with energy and thus cannot remain unperturbed about the global and national drive towards energy efficiency, hence, sustainable development (Unachukwu 2010). According to IMANI Ghana (2014), close to over 70% of the bulk electricity generated in Ghana is consumed by households and institutions. This imply that strict adherence to sustainable energy management practices (SEMP) could greatly reduce waste in energy use (ECG 2015). Amos-Abanyie et al. (2016) recount that efforts by government and other relevant stakeholders to educate the public on the importance and benefits of efficient use of energy over the past decades have not yielded expected impact as the public, including universities, still exhibit poor attitude towards energy saving and conservation. This entry assessed EE policies, systems and consumption practices in two sectors; infrastructural designs and energy consumption in Central University’s Miotso campus (CUM).

Overview of the World’s Energy Demand and Energy Efficiency The world’s energy demand is expected to increase by 37% come 2030 with most of the demand envisaged from developing countries where energy consumption is driven by increasing economic and demographic growth (IEA 2014). With global energy consumption primarily still dependent on oil, the energy sector is still in danger, falling short of the hopes and expectations placed on it in three key areas: sustainability, emissions, and cost. It is expected that improvements in energy efficiency, reduction of waste, and subscribing to novel energy technologies (solar, wind, waste to energy, etc.) could pave way for relieving the stress on conventional global energy systems (ES). Hence a shift in global

E

496

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

energy trends toward a decentralized low-carbon ES is inevitable to ensure access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for all (AmosAbanyie et al. 2016). Efficient energy use, according to IEA (2014), is a calculated attempt to maximize the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, proper insulation of an office or lecture theater allows the building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain thermal comfortable (Djamila et al. 2013; Peng 2010). In the same vein, installing LED lights, natural skylights, or fluorescent lights have a tendency to reduce the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared with using traditional incandescent light bulbs which still persist in some universities. Thus, moving towards a sustainable campus must be met with sustainable energy in HEIs, where energy consumption levels are at insignificant rates compared to its supply and with manageable collateral environmental effects (Koranteng 2010). Energy Conservation and Efficiency Policies in Ghana The Ministry of Energy, allied agencies, and stakeholders have rolled out and implemented three major sustainable policies since 2005 to manage inefficient distribution and use of energy, ranging from incentive-based to mandatory measures to regulate demand for energy products in the country (Ministry of Energy 2011). The Ghana energy and efficiency policy, with key initiatives mentioned below, are part of the broader National energy policies designed to address all issues in the energy sector of the economy. The goal of the policy was to ensure efficient energy production, transportation, and use of energy in Ghana (ECG 2005) by establishing appropriate pricing regime to induce domestic and industrial consumers to voluntarily manage their energy and also to support the education and awareness creation on the methods and importance of energy conservation. Energy Efficient Standards and Labelling Regulation (LI 1815, 2005)

The energy efficiency standards and labelling regulation (LI 1815) was passed in 2005 to ensure

labelling of all electric appliances such as nonducted air conditioners and self-ballasted lamps (ECG 2005). The legal instrument mandated manufacturers, importers, and retailers of non-ducted air conditioners and self-ballasted lamps to abide by efficiency standards and to label their appliances with stickers showing the various efficiency rating of the various appliances sold in the domestic market. The Efficient Lighting Project 2007

To achieve the policy directions of the energy efficiency and conservation policy (LI 1815), the Energy Commission of Ghana (ECG) implemented the efficiency lighting policy in 2007. Under this, the government was to procure and distribute for free, 6 million compact florescent lamps (CFL) to replace an estimated 6 million incandescent lamps (locally called onion bulbs) envisaged to be in the country. This was a load reduction strategy to reduce power outages in Ghana at the time. ECG (2013b) reported substantial reduction in the use of light crude to power thermal plants by 148, 000 barrel, saving about 112,320 tons of carbon emissions after a 3-year period of implementation. The Energy Efficiency Regulation (LI 1932, 2008)

In 2008, the Energy Efficiency Regulation LI 1932 was passed to prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of incandescent filament lamps, used refrigerators, used refrigeratorsfreezers, used freezers, and used air-conditioners (ECG 2013b). Following up on the prohibition, ECG introduced the refrigerator exchange and rebate scheme to phase out existing used refrigerators and freezers in homes and in the market to prevent further purchase and use (ECG 2017). Promoting Energy Efficiency in Ghana The core objective of energy management was to reduce cost and wastage envisaged to be achieved through energy efficient practices among users of the energy (Carbon Trust 2011). Energy management activities could range from relatively inexpensive and easily implementable actions, referred to as “low hanging fruits.” This include turning off lights and switches when not in use,

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

adhering to use of energy efficient appliances to expensive technology such as using electric submeters to monitor and improve consumption and alternative energy sources (Maistry and McKay 2016). Capehart et al. (2003) explain that it is advisable to work on the easier actions (“low hanging fruits”) and use the benefits accrued to continue with higher levels until policy targets are attained and the gains sustained and improved on. In the same vein, the International Energy Agency (IEA 2014) also sees EE as “a critical tool to relieve pressure on an already over burdened energy supply in developing economies.” Responding to this challenge, Ghana’s energy sector assented to the Renewable Energy Act (832-ACT) in 2011 to accelerate and give legal backings to a novel project which started in 2005 to develop, manage, and judiciously utilize solar energy off-grid in remote towns. The National Off-Grid Rural Electrification Program (OEP) targeted remote communities to provide reliable electricity through renewable energy technologies. The aim was to achieve a substantial level of penetration of solar electrification as a platform for the promotion of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems for basic lighting in rural off-grid communities. Solar battery charging service centers for the promotion of solar photovoltaics (PVs) were established to endorse ownership of solar home systems. The initiative also led to the establishment of a solar photovoltaic (PV) market in Ghana while improving the socioeconomic conditions in rural communities as a result of the extension of electricity coverage in rural areas. Currently, there are more than 5,000 solar home systems in Ghana (ECG 2017). The National Off-grid Rural Electrification Program was scheduled for implementation in six phases throughout the country for a period of 15 years. A total of 19,000 communities were targeted for electrification and 2,000 satellite solar battery charging centers were planned for installation to serve communities within a 5 km radius (ECG 2015). With over 2 million refrigerators and air conditioning units in Ghana consuming up to three times more energy than the maximum allowed due to inefficient appliances at the time (ECG 2017), the program replaced inefficient electrical

497

appliances with efficient ones. Use of inefficient electrical appliances was translating into extra electricity bills every month making the cost of energy very expensive. Again inefficient appliances were generating over 0.7 tons of carbon emissions each year. When not properly discarded, it could release up to 2 tons of ozonedepleting substances into the atmosphere annually (Kumi 2017). To tackle this issue, the Energy Commission of Ghana (ECG), with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), introduced a “rebate and turn in” program in 2012. The scheme encouraged consumers to exchange their old refrigerators for new and efficient ones at discount prices. A massive campaign was launched in the media (television and radio), reaching out to the general public on why the need to switch to energy efficient appliances. The scheme also set out standards of electricity required for air conditioners to operate in Ghana at Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) 2.8 Btu/hr/watt or higher. This was because air conditioning was identified to be the largest energy consuming item in offices, including academic institutions. When air conditioning is not available, thermal discomfort is such that most buildings become unbearable. Outcome of this directive resulted in significant reduce in the importation of second hand appliances by 63% with beneficiaries of the scheme saving substantially on monthly electricity bills (ECG 2017). Energy Efficiency in HEIs University campuses were found to be large users of energy (Energy Client Organizations – ECO) because they contain all the major building purpose groups on the same physical site served by the same energy plants. This makes them unique from other establishments such local authorities, large industrial parks, and other commercial installations. Increasing growth in student population in Ghanaian universities, coupled with high energy demand against low levels of generation and high energy cost (AmosAbanyie et al. 2016) thus, call for urgent effective energy management practices to cope with these challenges.

E

498

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

The Built Environment

Sustainable energy infrastructures are needed to promote energy efficiency in HEIs. Most HEI campuses in Ghana, until the turn of the millennium, were not designed for energy efficiency (ECG 2017). They were mostly constructed in an era when environmental concerns and energy optimization were not integral part of key management targets. It was seldom seen as a core university function. Integrating EE into mainstream university boards and council decisionmaking is an evolving concept in Ghana and therefore challenged with a number of conceptualization and implementation barriers (Krizek et al. 2012). They include: inadequate expertise and information, misplaced priority, limited access to funding, and power struggle within academic freedom (Eriksson et al. 2014). Key building materials for university infrastructure have been cement, sand, water, and cement blocks. In recent times, use of burnt clay bricks and the partial or entirely glazing of buildings on university campuses is on the rise due to modern western culture. Infiltration of western designs (suitable for temperate weather) in HEIs built environment in the tropics, such as Ghana, does not take into consideration environmental damage and cost. For instance, it is now common to see poorly insulated university buildings in Ghana with sliding doors and windows, and heavily fitted air conditioners. These buildings tend to be a drain on energy consumption (waste) and contribute significantly to the high cost of electricity consumption in HEIs. To safeguard thermal comfort, large amount of energy is needed which invariably contribute to environmental damage. With sustainable campus building infrastructures, energy consumption and thermal comfort is paramount. Thermal comfort is defined in this study to mean the state of satisfaction felt in a thermal environment-building. It is achieved when the body feels neither hot nor cold (Appah and Koranteng 2012). Building material properties play important role in thermal comfort. Thermal insolation in a building depends mainly on the thermal conductivity of materials. Dense and heavy materials will store the freshness of the night due to high inertia while low dense and

light materials will not retain such freshness (Kartiwi et al. 2014). The two most important parameters of building materials, with respect to thermal comfort, according to Appah and Koranteng (2012), are thermal conductivity and the thermal inertia. Diffusion of heat which is the result of the two effects is called thermal diffusivity of the construction materials, which enhances the phase shift and damping of thermal wave in buildings. Energy Efficient Culture in HEIs

To date, very few studies on energy efficiency culture exist in Ghanaian HEIs. Absence of data and university management with limited experts in environmental issues who wants to inculcate the culture by implement energy efficiency measures may not even know how to approach or get the process going. As a result, university management, personnel, and students are found to be completely disengaged with energy conservation dynamics. What pertains in some campuses has reached an extent where both students and HEI management are unaware of how much electricity is consumed, wasted, and how much it costs them monthly or annually. So it is not strange to, more often than not, see a university community fighting with the service providers (Electricity Company of Ghana) over electricity availability, intermittent supply, and billing.

Study Context and Methods CUM was selected for the case study in this survey. It is Ghana’s largest residential private university, with a student population of roughly over 7000 and personnel complement of approximately 360. Apart from the main Miotso campus, comprising 32 buildings or 76,719 m2 of built environment, there are other three satellite campuses: Mataheko, Christ Temple, and Dansoman (Nunoo 2018). The study was limited to the Miotso campus based on the assumption that, as a private university, CUM does not receive any form of subvention from government and that University management and students were mindful of high utility bills (Adam 2015).

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

Employing the survey design for the study, first, semi-structured questionnaires were administered to key informants (University staff: n = 25) based on purposive sampling in Block G offices and the main administration blocks. Using a mix of simple random and cluster sampling methods, students (n = 223) were selected from four halls of residence to assess the sustainability of university buildings in terms of energy consumption and energy efficiency in the use of electrical appliances between April 2018 and June 2018. All ethical considerations were adhered to and consent from university management and the ethical committee were obtained. The narrow range and limited number of participants was, however, a shortcoming as the inclusion of more academic and administrative staff would have been preferred. Fifty-two questionnaires could not be analyzed because they could not be retrieved or completely filled out. Based on Mehta’s (2002) recount, one of the key input of Ghana’s construction industry is the use of concrete mixed (cement, sand, stones water, gravel, etc.) material with high cement content. This material mix accounts for approximately 7% of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (Mehta 2002). A key finding the study sought to elicit from respondents (management, estate, students, and faculty) was to find out whether deployment of smart building materials and energy efficient technologies were considered in retrofitting university buildings. Respondents were asked to “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not sure,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree” to the preposition: “environmentally friendly building materials are not considered for the built environment.” To assess students’ level of awareness in energy efficiency practices, the study conducted energy audit on use of electrical appliances in four selected students’ halls of residence by inspecting the manufacturers’ manual of the appliances on average daily energy consumption in Watts/hr and KWh. This was reconciled with the actual average energy consumed as registered on billing meters to estimate average total energy wasted (Table 2). In all, 300 electrical appliances were audited (Table 2).

499

Results and Discussions Diffusion of Energy Efficiency Culture A national energy efficiency program in Ghana started in the form of off-grid solar electrification penetration in remote towns and villages. It commenced with diffusion of energy efficiency culture in 2005, targeting 19,000 communities at an average penetration rate of 6.6% over a 15-year period. Scheduled for implementation in six phases, the program performed well in the first three phases, where off-grid solar penetration targets were achieved (Fig. 1), even though between 2006–2008 and 2009–2011, the targets peaked at 10% and stagnated over the period. From Fig. 1, subsequent targets for phases 4 (2012–2014) and 5 (2015–2017) actually fell short by 27% and 10%, respectively. The poor performance, according to ECG (2017), could be attributed to a number of bottlenecks, including inadequate solar energy expertise, limited funding to service and replace installations, low level of knowledge in energy efficiency culture to embrace solar technology. Energy Efficiency in Buildings Energy efficiency in buildings, primarily, aims at minimizing the amount of energy required to maintain thermal comfort in buildings (Peeters et al. 2009). In the HEI built environment, it is merely about compliance to minimum requirements for building materials, or the installation of particular energy-efficient equipment. To design effective buildings for sustainable HEI campus in the tropics, one need to choose carefully materials that will reflect the sun’s radiation, insulate the house from the external air heating, store the nocturnal freshness at night for daytime, and reduce indoor air temperature (Peeters et al. 2009). When participants were asked to respond to the statement: “Energy efficient building materials were not considered for the HEI’s built environment,” Table 2 shows the responses put forward. From Table 1, 76% of the respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that, “Energy efficient building materials were not considered for the HEI’s built environment.” Twelve percentage either “strongly disagree” or “disagree” and

E

500

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs, Fig. 1 Diffusion of energy efficiency initiatives in Ghana. (Source: Based on ECG (2017) data)

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs, Table 1 Level of agreement with energy efficient considerations in buildings Responses to the statement: “Energy efficient building materials are not considered for the HEI’s built environment” Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Key university staff

Male (Frequency) 7 2 2 1 1 13

% 54 15 15 8 8 100

Students

Female (Frequency) 6 4 1 0 1 12

% 50 33 8.3 0 8.3 100

Male (Frequency) 23 22 15 11 23 94

% 24.5 23.4 16 12 24 100

Female (Frequency) 24 30 26 24 25 129

% 19 23 20 19 19 100

Source: Field survey, 2018

12% were “not sure” as to whether “Energy efficient building materials are considered for the HEI’s built environment.” Interestingly, whereas, all staff from management (n = 5) either “strongly disagree” or “disagree” to the statement, all estate facility staff (n = 3) were “not sure.” On the one hand, staff from the teaching faculty, however, “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement that: “Energy efficient building materials were not considered for HEI’s built environment.” Responses from students were similar to that of key university staff. Some students (45%) either “strongly agree” or “agree” that “Energy efficient building materials were not considered for the HEI’s built environment.” There were some responses (37%) which “strongly disagree” or “disagree” to the premise and 18% were “not sure” of their opinions on the statement. The line

of opinions, expressed by the respondents, confirm studies by a school of thought (AmosAbanyie et al. 2016) that diffusion of energy efficiency culture in the built environment, especially in HEIs, will be better integrated into the system when university staff and students are well informed to become knowledgeable in sustainability measures.

Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling Regulations Ghana operates a mandatory appliance standards and labelling regime. Importers and retailers of electrical appliances, including room air conditioners and compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) are required to import and sell only products that meet minimum efficiency and performance standards approved by the Ghana Standards Authority

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

501

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs, Table 2 Selected building energy audit in Central University

Electrical appliances 1. Refrigerators 2. Printers 3. Computers 4. Kitchen appliances 5. Microwaves 6. Television sets 7. Phone chargers 8. Incandescent floor lamp 9. Incandescent desk lamp 10. Overhead light 11. Bathroom appliances 12. Ironing appliances 13. Sound systems 14. Air conditioners 15. Fluorescent desk lamps 16. Fluorescent floor lamps Total

Average daily energy consumption Energy Actual required Quantity consumption (Watt (#) (Watt hours) hours) 30 275,162 241,370 25 1078 784 20 4916 1477 5 43 271 15 527 2292 20 668 3338 25 189 418 30 1928 11,340 10 402 2364 24 444 2462 16 96 1072 22 448 3444 18 158 598 11 352,000 440,000 5 94 551 24 350 2058 300 39,906 27,916

Average annual energy consumption Wasted energy (Watt hours) 33,792 294 3439 315 2819 4006 606 13,268 2766 2906 1168 3892 746 88,000 645 2408 10,067

Annual energy (KWh) 32,705 279 1533 75 677 962 146 3184 664 698 280 934 180 84,480 155 578 7971

Wasted energy (KWh) 8110 103 353 10 126 160 46 463 96 106 22 108 36 21,120 22 84 1935

Waste (%) 24 35 10.3 3.2 4.5 4 7.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.9 2.8 4.8 24 3.4 3.5 8.7

Source: Field audit, 2018

(ECG 2017). Per the energy efficiency standards and labelling regulations (LI1815), appliance manufacturers who export to Ghana, and retailers who sell in Ghana are obliged to display labels indicating the energy efficiency rating of the product before the first retail sale (ECG 2017). It becomes an offence under LI1815 to import, display for sale or sell air conditioners and compact fluorescent lamps in Ghana unless they meet the minimum performance standards. All residential buildings, including university accommodations are subject to these standards. The minimum acceptable energy efficiency standard for non-ducted air conditioners in the country is those with energy efficient ratio (EER) of 2.8 watt of cooling per watt of electricity input or higher EER. The higher the EER is, the more efficient the product. The energy guide label affixed to the product provides important information on the model, manufacturer, and energy efficiency star ratings, from one star to five star, in which the ascending number of stars represents a

higher EER. It also gives the estimated annual energy consumption, cooling output, and type of refrigerant (ECG 2005). These labels are expected to be on all gadgets displayed and inform authorities on the number of efficient air-conditioners available in the market for sale (ECG 2005). To enhance acceptability and penetration of ESLs, the government subsidized the products by waiving import duties and value added tax (VAT) to make them affordable to the general public as a measure to save energy and reduce electricity cost paid by consumers (ECG 2005). The energy guide label provide consumers with information on the lamp’s wattage, average rated life in hours (a minimum service life of 6,000 h), and an estimate of the lamp’s energy consumption for a year. Energy Audit The number of electrical gadgets, the rate at which they are used in residences and their efficiency level highly influences energy consumption. According to Sardianou (2007), these characteristics affect

E

502

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

households’ conservation behaviors that warrant in-depth studies to assess household energy conservation culture and practices, especially on university campuses. According to IEA (2014), household appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dish washers, and television sets, together with small miscellaneous appliances such as personal computers, mobile phones, personal audio equipment, accounts for over 65% of household’s electricity consumption in developing countries. The more electrical appliances own by households, the more energy it will require to operate them unless they invest in energy efficient appliances which is environmentally friendly, conserves energy, and utilizes less energy for maximum energy services (ECG 2017). Based on the prudent energy efficiency initiatives in Ghana aforementioned, energy audit was performed in four students’ halls of residence, selected offices of lecturers (Block G, Miotso), and key management offices (Administration block) to ascertain the specific energy-use patterns of CUM Miotso campus (CIPEC 2010). The gadgets were made up of basic daily office, kitchen, bathroom, reading and lightening electrical appliances, outlined in Table 2. From Table 2, a total of 300 electrical appliances with cumulative average daily energy consumption level of 27,916 watt/h were audited. The appliances were however found to be actually consuming, averagely, 39,906 watt/h over the same period, representing 36.1% of energy (10,067 watt/h) loss. This translates into 8.7% of the actual annual average energy consumption level of 7971 KWh. This finding confirms ECG’s assertion in 2017 that energy consumers using inefficient electrical appliances were spending between $5 and $18 more on electricity bills every month. Appliances with outlier average daily energy waste were air conditioners (88,000 watt/h), refrigerators (33,792 watt/h) and incandescent floor lamps (13,268 watt/h). Percentage wise, the most inefficient gadget contributing to annual energy consumption waste was identified with printers (35%), followed by refrigerators (24%), air conditioners (24%), computers (10.3%), and mobile phone chargers (7.6%). Three, out of the four possible reasons that could account for the

waste, were collaborated by Mensah and Adu (2013), IMANI Ghana (2014), and Koranteng (2010) to be, extensive use of second hand (old gadgets) appliances, fake star labels on appliances and substandard electrical gadgets in the buildings. The fourth reason was identified to faulty reading meters for electricity billing. The outcome of this study is to guide and inform management.

Conclusion and Recommendation Ghana’s energy efficiency initiatives have been acknowledged by the international energy community and energy experts to be laudable (OfosuAhenkorah 2008). However, the policies lack capacity in human resource, finance, and the needed political will to effectively conclude implementation of energy conservation programs. This fundamental challenge permeates all sectors in Ghana, including HEIs. Managing university campus infrastructure systems, as business as usual, is fraught with inefficiencies within the energy units as campus infrastructures in Ghana have developed without thermal comfort and environmental considerations. Attempts to imbibe sustainable energy culture into campus operations are fraught with a number of challenges. As a result, management and students were found to be completely disengaged in energy conservation dynamics. From the audit (Table 2), CUM was wasting an average of 8.7% of their average annual energy consumption which translate to between US$5 and US$18 a month in energy bills. This is an indication there is a need to implement sustainable energy measures in the built environment including HEI. It also present a unique opportunity for HEIs to adapt smart energy technologies to improve efficiency and decrease energy costs to minimize cost, waste, and mitigate CO2 by setting out realistic reduction targets. The study recommends CUM to invest heavily in infrastructure upgrades to increase energy efficiencies. This should include innovative ways to renovate buildings to make them more energy efficient and developed an organizational structure that brings together all stakeholders to chart a new path towards a “Lean and Green” HEIs.

Energy Efficiency Processes and Sustainable Development in HEIs

These baseline changes can be achieved with consented effort amidst significant risks. HEIs, as resource-limited institutions, need to foster a practical attitude and the ability to develop creative strategies and partnerships to embrace the sustainable energy effort at all levels. To achieve these, HEIs need to outlaw incandescent lighting appliances, inefficient office, and residential electrical gadgets and ensure effective implementation of the policy by, for instance, instituting an “Energy Star” labels awards for residence halls and office buildings. HEIs may also empower their procurement units to establish purchasing agreement standards that requires Energy Star labels for all office and residential equipment and appliances. Last, but not the least, HEIs need to tackle the daunting task of educating all stakeholders and campus building users in how to embrace energy efficiency technologies and utilize the smart central controls in building facilities on campuses. This means installing electrical gadgets with sensors that give users limited level of personal control in the control of the appliances such that when there is no one in an office or building lighting systems will automatically go off and vice versa or an appliance can go to the standby mode. The most significant results of such an integrated effort will be realized in conserving energy, minimizing waste (higher electricity bills), and CO2 mitigation, which are vital for sustainable university campus.

References Adam MA (2015) Value for money: Ghana’s electricity cost highest in West Africa. ACEPGhana Publication. Accessed on 23 July, 2018 from http://www. acepghana.com Amos-Abanyie S, Kwofie ET, Asare ES (2016) Students’ awareness of and adherence to energy management practices in selected Students’ halls of residence at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. J Sci Technol 36(2):96–107 Appah D, Koranteng C (2012) A thermal comfort evaluation of junior high school building in Accra, Ghana. J Constr Proj Manag Innov 2(2):403–423 Asumadu-Sarkodie S, Owusu PA (2016a) A review of Ghana’s Energy Sector National Energy Statistics and Policy framework. Cogent Eng 3(1):1155274 Asumadu-Sarkodie S, Owusu PA (2016b) The potential and economic viability of solar photovoltaic in

503

Ghana. Energy Sour Part A. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15567036.2015.1122682 Capehart BL, Turner WC, Kennedy WJ (2003) Guide to energy management, 4th edn. The Fairmont Press. 4th ed. New York: The Fairmont Press Inc.:1,155. Carbon Trust (2011) An introduction to energy management. 4th ed. New York: The Fairmont. Press Inc.:1,155 CIPEC (2010) Energy savings toolbox – an energy audit manual and tool (ed: Canada NR). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation, Ontario Djamila H, Chu C, Kumaresan S (2013) Field study of thermal comfort in residential buildings in the equatorial hot-humid climate of Malaysia. Build Environ 62(1):133–142 ECG (2005) Energy efficiency Standards and appliance labeling regulation LI 1815. Accessed on 16 June 2018 from www.energycom.gov.gh ECG (2013a) Energy commission supply and demand 2013 report. Accessed on 19 May 2018 from www. energycom.gov.gh/files/Energycommission ECG (2013b) Energy efficiency drive-the story of Ghana. Accessed on 16 June 2018 from http://www. worldfuturecouncil.org/file ECG (2015) Ghana energy commission report. Accessed on 19 May 2018 from http://www.energycom.gov.gh ECG (2017) National Energy Statistics (2007–2016). April, 2017 Accra. Strategic Planning and Policy Directorate. Accessed on 11 June 2018 from www. energycom.gov.gh Eriksson P, Hermann C, Hrabovszky-Horváth S, Rodwell D (2014) EFFESUS methodology for assessing the impacts of energy-related retrofit measures on heritage significance. Hist Environ Policy Pract (5):132–149. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750514Z.00000000054 IEA (2014) Energy efficiency indicators. Essen Policy Mak 15(1):18 IMANI Ghana (2014) Price and deregulation of the energy sector in Ghana: challenges and prospects. Imani Publication. Accessed on 23 July 2018 from http://www. imanighana.com Kartiwi M, Hasan H, Gunawan TS, Husein BA (2014) Green IT attitude and behaviour in higher educational institutions: a gender perspective. J Appl Sci 14(7):714–718 Koranteng C (2010) Energy performance of office buildings in Ghana. J Sci Technol 30(2):114 Krizek KJ, Newport D, White J (2012) Higher education’s sustainability imperative: how to practically respond? Int J Sustain High Educ 13(1):19–33 Kumi EN (2017) The electricity situation in Ghana: challenges and opportunities. CGD Policy Paper. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC. Accessed on 16 June 2018 from https://www.cgdev.org Maistry N, McKay TM (2016) Promoting energy efficiency in a South African University. J Energy South Afr 27(3):1–10 Mehta KP (2002) Greening of the concrete industry for sustainable development. Concr Int 3(1):23–28 Mensah JT, Adu G (2013) An empirical analysis of household energy choice in Ghana. Swedish

E

504 Ministry of Energy (2011) Towards efficient lighting and appliance market in Ghana. Accessed on 19 May 2018 from http://energycom.gov.gh/files Nunoo EK (2018) Sustainability Assessment in Ghana’s higher educational Institutions using the assessment questionnaire as a tool. In: Filho L (ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Basel, Swizerland, pp 81–95 Ofosu-Ahenkorah AK (2008) Ghana’s energy resource options: energy conservation in energy and Ghana’s Socio-economic Development, Development and Policy Dialogue Report One, George Benneh Foundation, Accra, pp 51–65 Peeters L, Dedear R, Jan Hensen J, D’haeseleer W (2009) Thermal comfort in residential buildings: comfort values and scales for building energy simulation. Appl Energy 86(5):772–780 Peng C (2010) Survey of thermal comfort in residential buildings under natural conditions in hot humid and cold wet seasons in Nanjing. Front Archit Civ Eng China 4(4):503–511 Sardianou E (2007) Estimating energy conservation patterns of Greek households. Energy Policy 35(7):3778–3791 Unachukwu GO (2010) Energy savings opportunities at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. J Energy South Afr 21(1):2–10

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability Filipe Tadeu Oliveira and Hermano Bernardo School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal Institute for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Definition Energy management tools are those used to gather knowledge on how energy is consumed, define and select energy conservation measures, and assert the level of effectiveness of those measures once they are implemented.

Introduction Higher education institutions generally own a large stock of buildings, with a significant overall energy consumption and associated high financial

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

costs. Energy efficiency is one of the fundamental pillars of sustainability in higher education buildings, allowing them to provide an adequately comfortable environment without excessive energy consumption. Energy management tools are instruments that a building’s energy manager can resort to when addressing this issue. This entry will outline some of these tools, describing part of the existing normative framework (European/American/international norms) and providing some details on specific issues concerning their application on higher education buildings, with insights from the authors’ field experience.

Energy Management Tools There are several tools an energy manager can use to improve energy management practices and increase energy efficiency in a building or facility. Energy management tools mainly focus on obtaining (through measuring, estimation, calculation) and organizing data on quantities related to energy consumption. Energy Audits and Surveys Energy audits are considered to be the obvious and indispensable starting point of any energy efficiency assessment. An energy audit is an adequate form of answering the main questions concerning energy usage: how much energy is consumed and where it is consumed. In this sense, it bears a certain similarity to an accounting system. Depending on the detail level of an energy audit, usually it follows an integrated phased approach to identify, evaluate, and recommend energy conservation measures. Recently launched ISO 50002 standard (ISO 2014) defines three levels of detail (types 1 to 3) for energy audits, which should be adjusted according to the requirements of each organization. Before that, ASHRAE (2011) also provided an approach with three levels of detail for energy audits to commercial buildings. The basic steps of an energy audit to a higher education building are similar to any other nonresidential building. However, higher education buildings have specific characteristics that make the energy audit task different from that performed

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

in other types of buildings. These include buildings dedicated to lecturing, offices, canteens, laboratories, and other research facilities, libraries, and others. They are usually grouped into campi and sometimes share the energy supply infrastructures. Since in most cases the buildings/systems are not equipped with partial energy meters, the task of determining individual consumption can be a true challenge. Also, some laboratories may rather resemble industrial facilities, involving different audit strategies. Energy audits are described in more detail in the entry “Energy Audit and Sustainable Development” of this encyclopedia. Energy Benchmarking In the European Union, in recent years, energy benchmarking in buildings has gained prominence with the adoption of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in 2002 (EPDB was revised in 2010 and amended in 2018), particularly through the requirements for Operational Rating Certificates and Display Energy Certificates. However, long before EPBD, benchmarks were widely recognized as important for comparing the operational energy efficiency of buildings and for influencing energy policy within building management (Liddiard et al. 2008). Benchmarking is a widely used method of comparing energy performance of buildings with similar characteristics, such as type or activity (Borgstein et al. 2016). Benchmark analysis usually establishes one or more performance indicators, which are then calculated for each building involved. It is performed on annual data, allowing comparison among buildings and with published benchmarks, when available, to give an indication of absolute and relative efficiency (Agdas et al. 2015). Although performance indicators are generally rated in terms of net floor area, other normalizing factors, such as building volume and amount of trade, are sometimes used. This “normalization” is intended to improve comparison between buildings in different climatic regions and with different occupancy patterns. However, this approach should be used carefully, as it can often distort the data and mask real patterns in energy consumption (CIBSE 2004).

505

The output of a benchmarking process may be a ranking of buildings, a number (grade), or a classification into categories (e.g., good/average/ bad; 1–10; A–G). Several challenges arise when applying energy benchmarking to higher education buildings. As previously stated, these include lecture halls and rooms, offices, canteens/cafeteria, laboratories and other research facilities, libraries, student residences, and others. While sometimes buildings have a single typology, more often a higher education building comprises several typologies (e.g., a pedagogic building that includes lecture halls, offices, labs, and a cafeteria), making it difficult to perform a fair benchmarking process, since different typologies/activities have different energy needs. Figure 1 shows an example of energy benchmarking applied to a number of buildings from a Portuguese higher education institution (Bernardo and Oliveira 2018). The approach used was to divide buildings into typologies and compare same typology buildings only; multipleuse buildings were categorized according to the dominant use. In this example, buildings were grouped according to typology/use, and only buildings with similar typology were compared. In each category, a single performance indicator was calculated, and buildings were ranked accordingly, with an above average, average and below average scale based on fixed percentiles. As stated before, it is usual to calculate one or more performance indicators to support the benchmarking process. Most often, these indicators are specific energy consumption (taken as a whole or disaggregated according to energy form) using different divisors; other indicators include “environmental efficiency,” relating energy consumption to pollutant. Similar to other nonresidential buildings, in higher education buildings, the most usual performance indicators are energy per area and energy per user; however, for some uses other indicators may be more appropriate such as energy per meal served in a canteen, energy per room in a residence, or energy per unit of information in a data center. The idea behind building energy benchmarking raises some pertinent discussions on the concept of

E

506

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 1 Buildings ranked by energy indicator, for each typology (green bars correspond to buildings categorized

as “above average,” yellow bars to “average,” and red bars to “below average”) (Bernardo and Oliveira 2018)

efficiency and the “fairness” of the benchmarking process. If, for a particular piece of equipment, efficiency can be defined, rather straightforwardly, as an output-input ratio, for a building this is not so. For example, from an energy benchmarking point of view, a building equipped with a highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system with a larger area may be taken as “worse” than another with a smaller area and a less efficient HVAC system if an energy per user indicator is used. Also, buildings (big or small) with lower numbers of occupants may be penalized when an energy per user indicator is used, however efficient the HVAC. Different opening hours can also affect the process significantly. Another important point to consider is that, often, lower energy consumption in buildings is associated with poor working conditions (such as inadequate or even inexistent heating/ cooling, poor ventilation, insufficient lighting, etc.). Unless user comfort and environmental quality is included in the benchmarking process in some way, these buildings are likely, rather unfairly, to be ranked higher in a benchmarking process.

In order to deal with the shortcomings of more simplistic but potentially unfair building energy benchmarking studies, multi-criteria approaches can be used with advantage. If carefully selected, additional criteria may improve the benchmarking process significantly and provided added relevance to this energy management tool. Nevertheless, any results from energy benchmarking should be taken carefully and individual circumstances taken into consideration. This reinforces the idea that some sort of in loco energy audit is indispensable to make accurate considerations. Building Automation and Control Systems/ Technical Building Management An important part of the energy conservation savings potential in higher education buildings relies on the use of ever more sophisticated automation systems to monitor and control the active systems providing heating, cooling, lighting, etc. to the building. Manual control or inadequate scheduling in many buildings results in inefficient operation of lighting, HVAC, and other environmental control systems. Much of the energy used to heat, cool, ventilate, or light a building may be wasted

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

in periods of low or even zero occupancy while also being insufficient in higher occupancy periods. An artificial lighting system may be at once excessive in daylight periods and insufficient without daylight. Some buildings have simultaneous heating and cooling necessities (due to solar orientation, particular uses, etc.) which are provided by non-integrated/interlocked HVAC systems, duplicating the energy needs compared to an adequately integrated system. These are just a few examples to illustrate the potential savings that can be obtained through building automation. According to EN ISO 16484-2:2004, a Building Automation and Control System (BACS) is a “system, comprising all products, software and engineering services for automatic controls (including interlocks), monitoring, optimization, for operation, human intervention, and management to achieve energy-efficient, economical, and safe operation of building services”. Some systems known as Building (Energy) Management (and Control) Systems (BMS, BMCS, or BEMCS) fit the BACS definition in EN ISO 16484, and should therefore be designated as BACS. These systems have gained a prominent role in the management of daily maintenance and energy-related operations with significant impact on the energy performance and indoor environmental quality of buildings. A BACS can be described as a centralized, automated system that receives and monitors information from the various sensors installed in the building, allowing building management staff to control actions based on schedules, inputs from sensors, and preferences expressed by occupants. It can be programmed to control all building energy-related systems, including heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water production, lighting, on-site energy generation, mechanical systems for shading devices, window actuators, double façade elements, and also non-energy functions, such as building security/intrusion, fire alarms, etc. While some of these systems may be very limited (such as only performing system monitoring and data visualization), others may integrate all the building’s systems and include automated control, enabling the automation of various physical tasks that would otherwise have to be performed manually and in situ.

507

From the surveys available, it is patent that most BACS in higher education buildings are used to perform basic plant control functions only. However, some BACS have a limited number of more sophisticated functions, such as night purge (pre-cooling) or peak demand limiting. Furthermore, the relatively low levels of lift monitoring, security management, and fire management functionalities, to name but a few, suggest that most BACS are not fully integrated with other building systems. An important effort to create a standard framework to characterize energy efficiency in these systems was introduced by European standard EN 15232-1:2017 (prior versions in 2007 and 2012). This norm presents an energy efficiency classification of BACS (into four efficiency classes, A to D) based on a structured list of BACS and Technical Building Management (TBM) functions that systems should be able to implement, as well as minimum requirements for these systems for different building complexities. It also provides standard, simplified methods to estimate and detailed methods to assess the impact on the energy performance of buildings when such systems are introduced, upgraded, or retrofitted. The standard includes reference user (occupancy) profiles, including a normalized level of occupancy, according to building type. Figure 2 presents a standard user profile for a lecture hall building. It also sets boundary conditions for several environmental parameters, for each building type and each of the four efficiency classes. Table 1 presents these parameters, again for a lecture hall. Upgrading and/or retrofitting older and less efficient BACS can provide substantial energy efficiency gains. Apart from a common framework, this norm provides methods for estimating energy efficiency gains from introducing more efficient control systems, including a simplified, factor-based method and a detailed method, based on building energy computational simulation (which will be addressed later in this entry). Energy management systems such as those based on the ISO 50001 standard (also addressed later in the entry) can also integrate BACS in a structured, pre-defined way.

E

508

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 2 User (occupancy) profile for a lecture hall building (CEN 2017)

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Table 1 Boundary conditions for BAC efficiency classes: lecture hall (CEN 2017) Lecture hall Heating

Cooling

Lighting Gains Ventilation Solar User profile

Efficiency class Temp. set point Operation time Temp. set point Operation time Power Persons Equipment Air change Shading factor Workday/ weekend

D Non-energy efficient BACS 22,5
C

C Standard BACS 22/15
C

B Advanced BACS + some TBM 21/15
C

A High-energy performance BACS+TBM 21/15
C

05:0022:00

06:0021:00

07:0020:00

08:0019:00

22,5
C

23
C

23
C

TC = f(Tamb)

05:0022:00

06:0021:00

07:0020:00

07:0020:00

0,7 (200 W/m2)

10/h (occupancy detection) 0,7 (130 W/m2)

25 W/m2 1 m2/Pers. 4 W/m2 10/h 0,3 (manual)

0,5 (manual)

5/2

Building Energy Simulation Modelling Building energy simulation modelling consists in developing deterministic computational models to predict the energy performance of buildings, allowing an evaluation of the impact of improvement measures, and supporting the choice of the most cost-effective. Those models

use fundamental principles of physics and engineering to compute thermal loads and detailed energy consumption on a time series basis. When carefully designed and adequately calibrated, they provide remarkably accurate predictions of the actual energy consumptions of a building.

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

509

Once primarily used for sizing HVAC systems, building energy simulation tools nowadays consider several energy end uses, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, daylighting, and building systems’ control and operation. An increasingly range of energy simulation software tools have been launched in the last few years with ever more sophisticated capabilities to address complex energy requirements, considering more detailed approaches. The Building Energy Simulation Tools web directory (BEST-D) provides an extensive list of currently available software tools (IBPSA-USA 2014). The information required for simulating a building can be extensive, and ensuring the collection of all relevant data to develop accurate simulation models is fundamental to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency improvements. Collecting comprehensive baseline data about the building’s energy consumptions and systems demand is recommended; even if not all data collected is incorporated into the model, it may be used to assess specific model accuracy requirements. All collected information and inputs should be organized and documented

Weather

to allow effective reviews and verifications of the model results. Input data for energy simulation tools includes building geometry, construction components, internal loads, HVAC systems and weather data, operating strategies and schedules, and specific simulation parameters (Maile et al. 2007). Figure 3 presents the general data flow of building energy simulation software tools. The model is started by introducing building geometry, with structure, components, and dimensions according to the architecture of the building. It is substantially easier to use a pre-processing software with 3D modelling that allows importing geometry data from CAD or BIM software tools. Geometric simplifications can be adopted to keep the model as light as possible, by grouping spaces with similar characteristics into thermal equivalent zones (TEZ). Building envelope and glazing solutions (heat transfer coefficient and solar factor) must also be introduced to the model. The location of the building should be defined, with a matching weather data file so that the simulation software is able to calculate the weather dependences of energy consumption.

HVAC Internal loads

Building uilding geometry

Operation schedules

Simulation engine

Other simulation parameters

Simulation results

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 3 General data flow of simulation software tools

E

510

Figure 4 presents an example of a geometry model drawn using DesignBuilder, a user-friendly pre-processor/post-processor interface software to the EnergyPlus building energy simulation program (DesignBuilder Software Ltd. 2018). The HVAC solutions installed in higher education buildings are fairly diverse in terms of technology and operation profile. Thermal energy distribution depends mostly on the supply source. In most cases, fan coil units are used, together with wall and/or ceiling units. Air renovation in spaces is usually provided by air handling units (AHU) including, in some cases, heating and/or cooling coils. It is important to model the HVAC system with the appropriate level of detail so that it closely resembles that of the building. In Fig. 5 a detailed HVAC loop network is shown, again using DesignBuilder. For each TEZ, internal load information related to occupancy density, lighting power density, computer power density, equipment power density, and fresh air flow rate is then added to the model. The power density of the catering equipment in canteens should also be introduced, when applicable. Operation profiles with the time schedule and load operation data for each internal load are also defined. After the model is complete, it must be calibrated, so that a simulation with “real” parameters yields energy consumption values similar to those

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

obtained from monitoring or utility bills. It is an iterative process where several input parameters can be adjusted to actual operation conditions of the building. For existing buildings, calibration is accomplished by adjusting simulation input parameters (such as equipment and internal load power density, building envelope characteristics, HVAC parameters, usage and occupancy schedules) to actual operating conditions and comparing simulation results with real data until the model is considered calibrated according to some defined criteria. Comparing energy use predicted by simulation with monthly utility bills is the minimum level of calibration for any model of an existing building where such data is available. The most common statistical indices used as calibration criteria are the mean bias error (MBE) and the coefficient of variation of the root mean squared error CV(RMSE). The ASHRAE Guideline 14-2014 (ASHRAE 2014) stipulates that the calibrated computer simulation model should be accurate to within 5% for the MBE and 15% for CV(RMSE) relative to monthly measured data. The application of building energy simulation tools is very extensive, from building code compliance assessment and building energy certification to decision-aid in design options in all stages

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 4 View of a building geometry 3D model

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 5 Partial example of a detailed HVAC model

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability 511

E

512

of buildings’ life cycle. In new buildings and major retrofits, they are used to predict the impact of design features and to compare different design scenarios, determining the most optimized energy performance design. In existing buildings, they are used during certification and to assess the expected cost-effectiveness of potential energy conservation measures. They can be used as an energy savings M&V tool, such as in option D of IPMVP (M&V and IPMVP are addressed in the next section of this entry). Improving facilities operation and management throughout the life cycle of buildings is also an important feature of this type of tools, since they could be used for selecting the most adequate control strategies to diverse building end-uses and climatic conditions. Building energy modelling tools can help higher education institutions by reducing both initial construction investment costs and life cycle operational energy costs. It can also, significantly, be used as a tool in R&D projects in higher education institutions dedicated to science/engineering areas. Future developments in this field may include real-time building energy simulation for optimization of automation and control systems and full integration of building energy simulation modelling with BIM, constituting an important step towards the development of a new generation of more flexible and accurate tools to build and maintain increasingly sustainable buildings. Measurement and Verification Measurement and Verification (M&V) is the process of using measurement and statistical techniques to quantify the actual energy savings achieved after the implementation of an individual energy conservation measure (ECM) or a global energy efficiency program. In this sense, measurements are analyzed to compute the savings relating to a reference situation before the implementation of ECM, differing from traditional energy monitoring which consists in tracking the current energy consumption. At present, the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) is the most widely recognized standard for M&V (EVO 2016). It defines the main steps towards the implementation of an M&V process, as well as a standard terminology.

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

The main activities of an M&V project consist in establishing the pre-implementation energy baseline, developing the M&V plan, and developing the post-implementation report, which can be periodically repeated and reviewed to evaluate the persistence of the savings. When there are changes in buildings or facilities operation conditions (e.g., weather, production, occupancy, schedules, etc.), it is required to adjust the measurements carried out in the preimplementation period (baseline), thus, allowing a valid comparison to be done with postimplementation period (reporting period). The adjustment can be done using independent variables gathered in the baseline and reporting periods. Figure 6 presents an example of the savings evaluation process, showing the energy consumption trend of an industrial boiler before and after the implementation of an ECM. After the ECM installation, plant production has increased, and, therefore, the baseline had to be adjusted accordingly, in order to determine the avoided energy consumption related to the baseline conditions. Energy consumption in baseline and reporting performance periods can be determined by using different methods associated with several different M&Vapproaches. IPMVP has four options for performing M&V: Option A (retrofit isolation with key parameter measurement), Option B (retrofit isolation with all parameter measurement), Option C (whole facility measurement), and Option D (calibrated simulation). These M&V options are summarized in Table 2. Although M&V procedures can be adapted to determine savings from ECM installed under any project, regardless of its funding source, they become an absolute requirement when energy performance contracts (EPC) are established. Higher education institutions could benefit from EPC, consisting in the implementation of energy conservation measures in buildings or facilities by an Energy Services Company (ESCO), which guarantees a minimum level of energy savings that cover the cost of the project. Whether investment is provided by the ESCO, the higher education institution, or shared between them, the formalization of an EPC

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

513

E

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 6 Example of an energy consumption trend (EVO 2016)

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Table 2 Summary of M&V options. (Adapted from EVO 2012) System/ component level (retrofit isolation)

Option A

Option B

Facility/subfacility level

Description Combination of measured and estimated parameters: - Measurements should include the key performance parameters - Estimated factors are supported by historical or manufacturers’ data (operation hours, load, etc.) All parameters measured: - Short-term, periodic, or continuous measurements of baseline period (before the ECM) and reporting period (after the ECM)

Option C

Continuous measurement of energy use at facility or sub-facility level: - Measurement during the baseline and reporting periods - Example data: Utility billing data

Option D

Computer simulation software is used to model energy performance of a whole facility (or sub-facility): - Model is calibrated with actual hourly or monthly data from the facility - Other inputs to the model may include facility characteristics, performance specifications of equipment or systems, estimates, measurements, and long-term utility meter data

Example Lighting retrofit projects: - Key parameter is the electric power and quantity of retrofitted lighting fixtures - The operating hours are estimated

Installation of a variable-speed drive on an electric motor: - Electric power is measured during the baseline period - Electric power is also measured during the reporting period Replacement of a gas boiler: - Using billed natural gas use data for 12 months during the baseline period - A baseline regression model is developed of monthly natural gas use with monthly heating degree days Comprehensive retrofit involving multiple interactive ECM in a large building: - A simulation model of the building with baseline equipment is developed and calibrated to a minimum of 12 months - Retrofit measures are implemented in the simulation model - Model is run to estimate the post-retrofit energy use in a typical year

514

requires well-established and transparent procedures for quantifying the resulting savings from the implemented energy conservation measures, so that costs and profits (or avoided costs) can be shared fairly. Measurement and Verification (M&V) guidelines and protocols are useful tools to standardize the quantification methodology of the reported savings with accuracy and credibility that should be accepted by all parts involved in an EPC. The characteristics and the complexity of the implemented ECM are determinant to decide which M&V option will be used to evaluate the savings, balancing the required accuracy level with the M&V cost, and the risk sharing level between the ESCO and the building owner. Energy Management Systems: ISO 50001 An energy management system is defined as a set of interrelated or interacting elements to establish an energy policy and energy objectives, and processes and procedures to achieve those objectives (ISO 2011). The ISO 50001:2011 standard aims to provide organizations with a recognized framework for integrating energy management into their current management practices, providing the requirements to implement an energy management system (EMS). ISO 50001:2011 does not set absolute energy performance criteria, rather requiring a commitment to continual improvement of energy performance, with measurable results. It follows a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) continual improvement framework, similar to that of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, allowing compatibility and integration of energy management into everyday organizational practices, as illustrated in Fig. 7. Planning is the most important phase of developing an EMS according to ISO 50001 and the most time-consuming. It is where the present situation is analyzed, plans for improvement are made, and the energy policy is defined. The organizations’ top management has a vital role, defining and approving energy policy and designating a management representative with adequate skills and competencies to oversee the whole process. Depending on the size and complexity of the organization, the management representative may

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

work alone or coordinate a team responsible to ensure that the EMS is established, implemented, maintained, and continually improved in accordance with the goals set by top management. An appropriate energy policy shall include a commitment to achieve energy performance improvement, defining the framework foundations to establish, document, implement, maintain, and continually improve the EMS. A general commitment with achieving energy performance improvement should also be stated in this document. Top management must also ensure that there is strong commitment to implement an ISO 50001 EMS across the organization, including all staff. In the case of higher education buildings, nonstaff users, such as students, should also be involved to enhance improvements. One of the core tasks to carry out for the implementation of the EMS is the energy planning process. The definition of the baseline energy consumption is the first step, consisting in the compilation and quantification of current and historical energy usage and associated costs. Apart from this, it is important to identify relevant variables that may influence energy consumption, allowing future adjustments to the baseline, which involves conducting an energy review (The energy review, as defined by ISO 50001, falls into the usual definition of an energy audit.) or using a pre-existing energy audit. The energy review should identify significant energy uses (e.g., cooling, heating, lighting, etc.), analyzing the current organization’s energy usage profile and related performance toward the identification of opportunities to improve energy performance. The identified opportunities are the inputs for the definition of objectives and targets to include in the energy performance improvement action plans that are consistent with the energy policy. After the planning is done, the plan must be implemented accordingly. A set of documents produced during the planning process is now used in operational control, consisting in identifying the operations and maintenance activities which are related to significant energy uses and that should be conducted under specified conditions of energy performance.

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability

515

Do

Plan

Check

Act

Top management

Management review

Energy planning process Planning inputs

Energy review

Operational control

A. Analyse energy use and consumption Past and present energy uses

Relevant variables affecting significant energy use

Performance

B. Identify areas of significant energy use and consumption

E

Planning outputs

• Energy baseline • EnPI(s) • Objectives • Targets • Action plans

C. Identify opportunities for improving energy performance

Legal requirements and other requirements

Design

Monitoring, measurement and analysis

Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy

Competence, training and awareness

Communication

Internal audit

Nonconformities, correction, corrective action and preventive action

Documentation

Energy Management Tools for Sustainability, Fig. 7 Requirements of an EMS based on a continuous improvement framework

Also, when designing and upgrading facilities, systems, and processes that have significant impact on energy performance, improvement opportunities should be taken into account. Energy requirements and specifications should also be included in procurement of energy services, products, equipment, and energy acquisition. Continuous improvement means that energy planning elements should be reviewed at planned intervals, and the effectiveness of the action plans should be assessed. Monitoring, measurement, and analysis are vital to verify if there are significant deviations in energy performance. Energy performance indicators, set during the planning process, are useful tools to track the energy performance. Results and other relevant information about the EMS should be regularly evaluated and communicated to all areas of the organization,

recognizing the achievements. Internal audit, identification and treatment of nonconformities, corrective actions, and preventive actions are systematic support control procedures to ensure the system is performing according to the established energy objectives and targets. To close the cycle, all should be reviewed by top management, at planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness to the organization’s strategic goals. The outputs of the management review should then be incorporated in the review of the energy policy and energy planning process. The implementation of an energy management system according to ISO 50001 in a higher education institution can be done in a formal way, with an external audit leading to certification, or in an informal way. It may be applied at the building

516

level, by campus or for an institution as a whole. In any case, it is crucial that administrators and rectors make a commitment regarding the improvement of energy performance in their institutions by defining an adequate energy policy and establishing the basis for a regular communication of energy issues within and outreaching the higher education institutions, to raising awareness and leveraging the behavioral change within the community. In order to increase the awareness of energy use and performance objectives, staff and those who work on behalf of the organization should be informed and trained to develop skills and practices adequate to improve energy performance.

Final Considerations and Outlook The entry described a number of energy management tools that can help higher education institutions to improve energy efficiency, contributing to a more sustainable operation. While the tools described are common to other non-residential buildings, higher education buildings have specific characteristics. Many of these specificities pose added difficulties, but others can be seen as opportunities. Students and other users of these buildings are usually more aware of energy and environmental challenges, thus being easier to engage in projects promoting energy efficiency. Students, teachers, and support staff should be engaged in energy management activities, since they are key elements for implementing and disseminating energy performance improvement practices. To improve general awareness, it would be important to include energy management topics in the curricula, particularly, but not exclusively, in science and engineering courses.

References Agdas D, Srinivasan RS, Frost K, Masters FJ (2015) Energy use assessment of educational buildings: toward a campus-wide sustainable energy policy. Sustain Cities Soc 17:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scs.2015.03.001 ASHRAE (2011) Procedures for commercial building energy audits, 2nd edn. American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development ASHRAE (2014) Guideline 14-2014: measurement of energy, demand and water savings. USA Bernardo H, Oliveira F (2018) Estimation of energy savings potential in higher education buildings supported by energy performance benchmarking: a case study. Environments 5:85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ environments5080085 Borgstein EH, Lamberts R, Hensen JLM (2016) Evaluating energy performance in non-domestic buildings: a review. Energ Build 128:734–755. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.018 CEN (2017) EN 15232-1: energy performance of buildings – part 1: impact of building automation. Controls and Building Management, Belgium CIBSE (2004) CIBSE guide F: energy efficiency in buildings. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), London DesignBuilder Software Ltd (2018) DesignBuilder software package V5.4.0.021 EVO (2012) International performance measurement and verification protocol (volume 1), Washington EVO (2016) International performance measurement and verification protocol – core concepts, Washington IBPSA-USA (2014) Building energy software tools directory. http://www.buildingenergysoftwaretools. com/home. Accessed 21 June 2018 ISO (2011) ISO 50001: 2011. Energy management systems – Requirements with guidance for use ISO (2014) ISO 50002: 2014, energy audits – requirements with guidance for use. ISO (International Standardisation Organisation), Geneva Liddiard R, Wright A, Marjanovic-Halburd L (2008) A review of non-domestic energy benchmarks and benchmarking methodologies. In: International conference on improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings (IEECB’08), Frankfurt Maile T, Fischer M, Bazjanac V (2007) Building energy performance simulation tools – a life-cycle and interoperable perspective. Stanford University, Stanford

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development Chukwuemeka Jude Diji Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Introduction Energy and Economic Development Energy which is the ability to do work has been described as the golden thread that connects the tripod of economic growth, social equity, and

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

environmental sustainability. It is a critical enabler, which has provided advanced and developed economies through modern access to energy services the impetus that has underpinned their development and growth in economic prosperity. In developing countries, access to affordable and reliable energy services has been identified as a fundamental factor to reducing poverty and improving health, increasing productivity, enhancing competition, and promoting economic growth. Energy is available in two major forms for economic development. It is available as either energy resources or energy commodities. Energy resources are natural resources which can be harvested to produce energy commodities – e.g., crude oil, natural gas, coal, biomass, hydro, uranium, wind, sunlight, or geothermal deposits. These energy forms are commonly referred to as primary energy sources, while energy commodities are commodities used for providing energy services for human activities, such as lighting, space heating, cooking, motive power, or electronic activity – e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, propane, coal, or electricity. These forms of energy are referred to as secondary energy sources. In recognition of the key role of energy as a major factor for global economic, social, and sustainable development, it is currently receiving a lot of attention in the global development agenda. In 2011, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) objectives for 2030 which has the three goals of achieving universal access to modern energy, doubling the rate of improvement of energy efficiency and doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. In 2015, the UN adopted Sustainable Development Goal 7 with the objective to “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” building further on the three SEforALL objectives. Also, later in 2015, at the historic Paris Climate Conference (COP21), countries from around the world committed themselves to nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which in essence is calling for progress on the sustainable energy agenda.

517

Energy Systems The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) fifth assessment report defined energy system as all components related to the production, conversion, delivery, and use of energy (Vaughan et al. 2013). It is an interrelated network of energy sources and stores of energy connected by various transmissions and distribution systems to where it is needed. Energy systems can also be understood as systems that are primarily designed to supply energy to end users. In the field of energy economics, energy systems are treated as technical and economic systems that satisfy customer demand for energy in the forms of heat, fuels, and electricity (Groscurth et al. 1995). Within the social context, energy systems can be understood as any general system made up of a set of interacting component parts located within an environment, while from a process perspective, energy systems are defined as constituting of an integrated set of economic and technical activities operating within a complex societal framework (Hoffman and Wood 1976). With regard to engineering, energy systems are seen as a representation of flow networks that connect components like power stations and pipelines as well as edges map to the interfaces between these components. Energy systems can range in scope and forms from local, municipal, national, regional to global depending on the issues under consideration. The concept is also evolving with new regulations, technologies, and practices. Energy Services An energy system is made up of an energy supply sector and energy end-use technologies. The overall goal of every energy system is to deliver energy to end users. The overall objective of any energy system is to provide energy to meet human needs and desires. The term energy services are used to describe these benefits which in households include illumination, cooked food, comfortable indoor temperatures, refrigeration, and transportation. Energy services are also required for virtually every commercial and industrial activity. The energy chain that delivers these services begins with the collection or extraction of

E

518

primary energy that, in one or several steps, may be converted into energy carriers, such as electricity or diesel oil that are suitable for end uses. Energy end-use equipment – stoves, light bulbs, vehicles, and machinery – convert final energy into useful energy, which provides the desired benefits: the energy services. Energy services are the result of a combination of various technologies, infrastructure (capital), labor (know-how), materials, and primary energy. Each of these inputs carries a price tag, and they are partly substitutable for one another. From the consumer’s perspective, the important issues are the economic value or utility derived from the services. Consumers are often unaware of the upstream activities required to produce energy services. The consideration of available energy services – per capital – and how much energy services contribute to human welfare and individual quality of life is central and paramount to the debate on sustainable energy and provision of modern energy services.

Energy Transformations and Energy Transitions Energy Transformation Energy was defined as the ability to do work in the nineteenth century, due to the development of steam engines and other work-producing machines, with the ability and capability to transform energy resources and energy commodities into useful energy forms for both domestic and industrial uses. This process is referred to as energy transformation. Two fundamental principles govern the energy transformation process. These are the principle of conservation of energy and the principle of energy quality and energy efficiency. The principle of conservation of energy is expressed in the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another but with the total energy in the universe remaining constant. The principle of energy quality and efficiency is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics which states that

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

within each process of converting energy to produce work, there results in the increase in unavailable energy and disorder (entropy). This is because during the energy transformation process, engines and other energy transformational technologies perform work and produce heat that represents waste energy. The implication of this is that even though the amount of energy in the universe is constant, energy transformation processes result in the quality of energy available; this is why we cannot harvest all the energy coming out of an energy transformation process. This has led to the definition of the concept of energy efficiency, which is a ratio comparing the amount of work output with the energy input into a given process; hence the higher the energy efficiency, the better the energy system. Energy Transitions Energy transitions refer to a programmed and paradigm shift from the current energy-producing and consumption systems, which are based on the use of primarily high-carbon nonrenewable energy sources to a more efficient lower-carbon energy mix. It is a long-term structural change in energy systems both in the use of resources and processes and designates a significant change for a better energy system that could be related to one or a combination of system structures, scale, economics, and energy policy. Energy transition is also a global energy sector transformation process of decarbonizing the energy system to meet the twin global need to reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change. The ultimate goal of the energy transition process is to introduce renewable energy technologies into the energy over a period of time to replace the current fossil fuel-based energy technologies. This is one of the major goals of the Sustainable Energy for All initiative of the UN. History of Energy Transitions Energy transitions are not new global phenomena. It is a process that is as old as man itself and has been influenced by the human need for energy in response to the economic, domestic, and

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

environmental demand of the period under consideration. In the pre-industrial age, the energy forms predominantly in use were primarily muscle power and biomass. While muscle power was the predominant energy used for agricultural and domestic purposes, biomass consisting mainly of wood or peat was used for cooking and heating purposes. Both forms of energy were grossly limited and had very low efficiency. With increase in population and the need to expand agricultural and industrial activities, the energy transition was from the use of muscle power to animal power, and the use of naturally occurring energy sources such as water and wind was introduced into the energy mix. While animal power, in the form of horse mills, was introduced into agricultural production, wind power in the form of windmills and water power in the form of waterwheels were used for industrial uses. The industrial revolution brought about further global energy transitions, with the inventions of new machines, equipment, and other sophisticated mechanical devices. Energy use during this period was motivated by the search for more powerful energy sources and services to meet the needs of a rapidly growing industrial society that needed energy for energy services, industrial uses, and provision of large quantities of accessible, dependable, and transportable energy sources. This period also coincided with great inventions in energy technologies and discovery of new energy systems. The industrial revolution also expanded the energy mix to include a greater use of coal, oil, nuclear power, and electricity. It also led to a limited development and use of solar energy systems. During the period of the industrial revolution, coal and wood were the most prominent energy sources (between 1600s and 1800s) due to the invention of heat engines and steam power. The heat engine was based on the principle of using heat to produce steam, which could then do mechanical work. It was used in conjunction with coal mining to help pump water out of the mines. The first commercially successful steam engine was invented by Thomas Savery (1650–1715) and refined by Thomas Newcomen (1663–1729) in 1712, while it was James Watt in

519

1763, who improved on all the previous designs of the steam engines and built a more efficient one, which he sold or rented out to mining companies charging them for the “power” in the rate of work the engine produced. Today the unit of power is called a watt. The development of various infrastructures in the early nineteenth century also influenced the energy transition during the period. In 1820, the advances in mechanical and materials engineering made the railroad, using coal as primary energy source, the most efficient and fastest means of transportation. The locomotive also changed society’s perception of travel and transportation. The drilling of petroleum in Titusville, Pennsylvania, in 1859, led to the discovery of kerosene that was used to replace whale oil and used for lamps. This replaced the dwindling supply of whale oil during the period. Oil as an energy source further got into the energy mix with the invention of the internal combustion engine (ICE) by Nikolaus August Otto in 1861. The invention of the ICE was a major invention during the industrial revolution and made it possible to produce enough work to move a large metal vehicle for distances. The fuel for use in the ICE engines was easier than shoveling coal into a furnace to power a locomotive. Also, the advent of liquid fuels provided the greatest impetus for development in the global transport industry. The invention of incandescent bulbs by Thomas Edison in 1879 was based on the use of DC (direct current), and the subsequent discovery of alternating current (AC) by Nikola Tesla, once again, changed the energy mix in the nineteenth century. These two inventions became a major step in human use of storable energy eventually leading to large-scale use of electricity for domestic, commercial, and industrial use. The discovery of AC electricity with the advantage of easy generation and long-distance travel of electricity led to the development of power plants and led to the introduction of electricity into large-scale industrial production processes. The introduction of electricity also spurred the development of the steam turbine in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, using coal as fuel, providing a cheap power source that

E

520

generated electricity. In 1882, the first functional steam turbine by Charles Parsons was a major step in the use of turbines to produce electricity. In 1893, George Westinghouse demonstrated a “universal system” of generation and distribution of electricity at a Chicago exposition. The universal system meant that power or energy could be used in a variety of ways at many different voltages. Westinghouse, using Tesla’s invention of the transformer and the electric motor, as well as steam turbines, transformed Niagara Falls into one of the first hydroelectric plants in the world. The work of Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, in 1938, on nuclear fission expands the energy mix to include the use of nuclear power as a major source of energy for various uses. Within 4 years of completion of their work, in 1942, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was chosen as the first site for a functional nuclear reactor plant and for the preparation of uranium and plutonium which was used to create the atomic bomb at Los Alamos. During this period also, by December 1942, the first nuclear chain reactor was demonstrated at the University of Chicago, and in July 1945, the first atomic bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, demonstrated that the release of nuclear energy can be used on a large scale. The first commercial nuclear power plant was opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. The eighteenth and nineteenth century also coincided with the development of renewable energy especially solar and wind energy. In 1767, the first solar thermal collector was developed by the Swiss scientist, Horace-Bénédict de Saussure, and it became a major energy source in the American west for cooking until oil and natural gas became a more reliable way to generate cooking energy. In 1839, the discovery by Alexandre Becquerel that electric current could be generated through the sun and the subsequent explanation by Albert Einstein as the concept of photo electricity in 1905 became the basis of the photovoltaic cells now used to convert light into electricity. Also during this period, wind energy was developed on a large scale in the United States as an energy source for farms and railroad stations, using tall windmills to pump water from underground wells.

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

From the foregoing, it can be seen that energy transition over the past generations was motivated by the need to produce more and more energy to meet the growing needs for domestic and commercial energy in the forms of electricity, oil, and gas and nuclear energy to meet needs for a rapidly expanding industrial age. Today’s energy transition is motivated by the need to use energy more efficiently due to environmental concerns and climate change. Process and Challenges of Energy Transition The process of energy transition is a long-term timely implementation strategy, with a strong local context, and enabled by information technology, smart technology, policy frameworks, and market instruments. It also involves energy conservation schemes and improvement in energy efficiency, playing a major role. The energy transition process is also very complex and involves different sociopolitical and cultural context, with far-reaching global implications. The process can only have meaning when aggregated at the local, sub-national, and national context with clearly defined energy pathways intended to achieve common energy and environmental and other societal goals. The process throws up its own challenges as well. These challenges were summarized into the following issues by Turnheim et al. (2015) as: (a) Scale and temporality – this involves the analytical scale and multi-linkages adopted, as well as the time frame selected and the time orientation utilized. (b) Treatment of Complexity – it is expected that every sub-national entity will encounter complexity peculiar to its environment. This section examines how these complexities are addressed within a methodological strategy, explanatory forces, predictive inclinations, and treatment of uncertainty. (c) Innovation and inertia – technology innovation will underpin the energy transition process; this stage examines issues around source of innovations and how the sub-national entity intends to deal with systemic barriers during the process.

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

(d) Normative goals – this involves the adoption of a normative goal and adoption of sustainability indicators to measure the success at various stages of the transition. (e) Governing transitions – this involves conceptualization of policy and representation for decision-making and measures the effectiveness of energy intervention programs.

Energy Transition and Sustainable Development Dynamics of Energy Transition From the history of energy transition in the world, two major facts emerge; the first is that energy is fundamental to economic systems and to life in general, while the second fact is that global economic development has been accompanied by a characteristic energy transition from one major fuel source to another. This second fact accounts for the various inequalities in the economic development of nations across the globe. The more the availability of energy in various forms, the greater the economic development accomplished. Thus there is dynamism in the energy transition process among nations, and the general consensus is that there will be no global move in a specific direction, rather the process will be country specific, with no single mix that will be ideal globally and the success of the process will depend on several factors including several technological breakthroughs and radical changes in energy use and preferences by consumers. Other important factors that will affect the spread and speed of the process will also include government policies, energy prices, energy subsidies, and available energy infrastructures. Sustainable Energy Development “Sustainable development” has been defined best by the Brundtland Commission as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). Sustainable development is essentially about improving quality of life in a way that can be sustained, economically and environmentally, over the long

521

term supported by the institutional structure of the country. For this reason, sustainable development addresses four major dimensions: social, economic, environmental, and institutional. Sustainable energy (SE) is defined as the sustainable provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs. It is an energy system that provides clean energy options that will allow the Earth to sustain balanced, healthy ecosystem and human life. SE is an energy system that encompasses all forms of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and ocean energy, which are sustainable, stable, and available in large supply. Sustainable energy development (SED) is the process of developing sustainable energy system and making them a major component of the global energy mix. The development of the concept of SED has evolved over a considerable period of time and has taken its present forms due to various interventions and understanding of the growing role of energy in economic development. In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development, under Agenda 21, discussed the complex challenge of energy and sustainable development which highlighted the fact that the level of energy consumption and production in the 1990s was not sustainable, especially if demand continues to increase and stressed the importance of using energy resources in a way that is consistent with the aims of protecting human health, the atmosphere, and natural environment. In a similar vein, at the ninth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-9) held in 2001, which discussed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it was agreed that stronger emphasis should be placed on the development, implementation, and transfer of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies and that urgent action was required to further develop and expand the role of alternative energy sources. Also the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 that developed the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) which addressed energy in the context of sustainable

E

522

development agreed among other things called for action in seven major areas, namely: (a) Improve access to reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable, and environmentally sound energy services. (b) Recognize that energy services have positive impacts on poverty eradication and the improvement of standards of living. (c) Develop and disseminate alternative energy technologies with the aim of giving a greater share of the energy mix to renewable energy and, with a sense of urgency, substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources. (d) Diversify energy supply by developing advanced, cleaner, more efficient, and costeffective energy technologies. (e) Combine a range of energy technologies, including advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technologies to meet the growing need for energy services. (f) Accelerate the development, dissemination, and deployment of affordable and cleaner energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies. (g) Take action, where appropriate, to phase out subsidies in this area that inhibit sustainable development. In furtherance of the JPOI of 2002, in 2004, the UN-Energy was created to coordinate and plan coherent programs on energy activities by UN agencies. Two programs CSD-14 in 2006 and CSD-15 in 2007 focused on a cluster of thematic issues, which included energy for sustainable development. Also in 2011, the Sustainable Energy for All initiatives was created by the UN secretary-general to pursue three major objectives by 2030; these objectives are ensuring universal energy access to modern energy services, doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency, and doubling the share of renewable energy use in global energy. In 2012, a resolution of the UN General Assembly declared 2012 as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All which was successfully implemented with many activities

Energy Transition Process and Sustainable Development

and commitments promoting a sustainable energy future. Also, in the outcome of the 2012 Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, with the theme “The Future we want.” Member States in attendance agreed on the following three issues: (a) Recognize the critical role that energy plays in the development process. (b) Emphasize the need to address the challenge of access to sustainable modern energy services for all. (c) Recognize that improving energy efficiency, increasing the share of renewable energy, and cleaner and energy-efficient technologies are important for sustainable development. In 2014, by another resolution of the UN General Assembly, the decade 2014–2024 was declared the United Nations Decade of Sustainable Energy for All. The decade is expected to bring into effect many activities and commitments, including the establishment of several technical hubs around the world to accelerate the objectives of this SG’s initiative. The sustainable energy development objectives were further consolidated in 2015, when the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and included a dedicated and stand-alone goal on energy, SDG #7, with the objective of “ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.” From the foregoing and considering SDG goal #7, the issue of sustainable energy now stands at the center of global efforts to induce a paradigm shift toward low-carbon energy systems, green economies, poverty eradication, and ultimately sustainable development. Energy Transition Futures Energy transition is a pathway toward transformation of the global energy sector toward sustainable energy by transitioning from fossil-based to zerocarbon energy resources, with the objective of reducing CO2 emissions to acceptable levels and limiting climate change. Decarbonization of the energy sector requires urgent action on a global scale. While various energy transition initiatives

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

and actions are currently taking place at local and global scale, further action is needed to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change. Renewable energy and energy efficiency measures can potentially achieve 90% of the required carbon reductions. The future of the global energy transition will depend on the ability of national and regional governments and groups to balance the following three issues: 1. Energy security, which is the reliability of energy supply to meet current and future demands. 2. Energy equity, which is the ability to ensure accessibility of energy and energy services, in emerging and current energy markets at affordable costs. 3. Environmental sustainability, which calls for improving energy efficiency programs and the development of renewable and lowgreenhouse gas (ghg) energy sources to stem global warming.

References Allwood J, Bosetti V, Dubash NK, Gómez-Echeverri L, von Stechow C (2014) Annex I: glossary, acronyms and chemical symbols. In: IPCC (ed) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1249–1279 Böhringer C, Rutherford TF (2008) Combining bottom-up and top-down. Energy Econ 30(2):574–596 Groscurth H-M, Bruckner T, Kümmel R (1995) Modeling of energy-services supply systems. Energy 20(9):941–958 Herbst A, Toro F, Reitze F, Jochem E (2012) Introduction to energy systems modelling. Swiss J Econ Stat 148(2):111–135 Hoffman KC, Wood DO (1976) Energy system modeling and forecasting. Annu Rev Energy 1(1):423–453 Nye DE (1999) Consuming power: a social history of American energies. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Ramachandran, Hughes N (2009) Pathways to a low carbon economy: energy systems modelling—UKERC Energy 2050 Research Report 1. UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), London Smil V (1999) Energies: an illustrated guide to the biosphere and civilization. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

523 van Ruijven B, Urban F, Benders RMJ, Moll HC, van der Sluijs JP, de Vries B, van Vuuren DP (2008) Modeling energy and development: an evaluation of models and concepts. World Dev 36(12):2801–2821 Vaughan DG, Comiso J.C, Allison I, Carrasco J, Kaser G, Kwok R, Mote P, Murray T, Paul F, Ren J, Rignot E, Solomina O, Steffen K, Zhang T (2013) Observations: cryosphere. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen S.K, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, NY Turnheim B, Berkhout F, Geels FW, Hof A, McMeekin A, Nykvist B, Van Vuuren DP (2015) Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environ Chang 35:239–253 WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development Sonja Oliveira, Elena Marco and Bill Gething Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader Architecture and Environmental Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Introduction Energy-Efficient Design in the Built Environment It is now widely acknowledged that designing buildings that are energy efficient, healthy, and comfortable requires an underlying combination of scientific and creative skill and understanding (Sassi 2006). In order to make informed design decisions that deliver energy-efficient and sustainable buildings, a holistic understanding and demonstration of the core areas that underpin the design and engineering of well-designed building environments are needed particularly in higher education and practice. There are many approaches to defining these “core” areas in both the architectural and engineering literature and practice, some of which include at a conceptual

E

524

level: thermal comfort, natural ventilation, solar gains, and associated solar protection and daylighting (Pelsmakers 2012; Gething and Puckett 2013). Energy efficiency in buildings needs to be seen within the context of how buildings are designed, built, commissioned, and used (EU energy performance directive), with the building occupant viewed as an integral part of this process (EPBD 2016). Within the UK and the EU, there has been a growing emphasis placed on reducing energy use and demand in order to meet carbon reduction commitments (EPBD 2016). On an international level, the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Paris Agreement show a global commitment to reducing carbon emissions significantly (Chang et al. 2012). In the UK, targets to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 have been set (CCC 2016). Furthermore, the EU requires all new buildings to be nearly “zero carbon” by 2020 (Zero Carbon Hub 2008), which will require on-site renewable generation, even in areas where this may be extremely difficult. At present, EU targets and directives drive UK climate change and energy efficiency policies, but with Brexit on the horizon, this may soon change. Part of the future challenge is to sustain the ambition of reducing carbon emissions while maintaining achievable targets that can be met by all and in particular the construction industry. Built environment professionals are seen as key to ensuring commitments on carbon reduction is achieved in new and existing retrofitted buildings in the UK (Janda 2009, 2011). The UK Practice Context in a Climate of Change

In the UK, in particular, between 30% and 50% of the CO2 emissions are related to the built environment and represent a significant contributor to climate change (Zero Carbon Hub 2008; DECC 2009, 2011). Over recent years, the construction industry has responded to a mitigation agenda by trying to implement low-carbon strategies, leading to tighter EU and UK regulations, codes, and frameworks (HM Government 2008). However, in the wider context of climate change, a clearer set of adaptation strategies is needed to ensure

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

changes in how buildings perform as well as how they are constructed and embedded, enabling buildings that are not only fit for purpose in the present but also in future climate scenarios. Climate change has been described as a “moving target” that requires climate prediction models to put forward a number of scenarios to help devise adaptation strategies (Gething and Puckett 2013). Tackling climate change and the way the design of buildings is approached needs to reflect this new set of “moving targets” and conditions. While climate change design strategies require long-term strategic adaptation, the UK has focused its energy regulatory framework and its associated environmental design strategies largely on reducing energy consumption and the associated carbon emissions in the short-term. In order to engage in issues of climate change now and in the future, a shift toward addressing future adaptation strategies becomes key (Gething and Puckett 2013). Energy efficiency in building design requires a balance of considering building performance in the context of a changing climate. This is especially important with regard to building performance issues of higher airtightness standards and more controlled ventilation as well the developing agenda on overheating. Applying careful design indicators to the fabric of the building can have a positive impact on the energy use of its active systems. However, there needs to be an understanding of the environmental science behind these indicators, to ensure robust strategies for now and in the future. Also, while there are numerous design guidance indicators, policy, and practice approaches for professionals to achieving energy efficiency, there are few published indicators of how higher education, particularly in the context of architecture, approaches energy efficiency teaching and learning at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. There are widespread concerns in recent practice discussions and policy documents, of an urgent need for upskilling and retraining of architects to enable an “energy-literate” workforce (RIBA Journal 2017; Zero Carbon Hub 2014). The UK Construction Strategy 2016–2020 continues to call for upskilling and retraining of built environment professionals to meet the needs of a

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

low-carbon economy (HM Government 2016). Outside the UK, in the USA, there have been calls on the architecture profession to promote greater energy analysis in design (AIA 2012). Despite the widespread calls for upskilling, the UK architecture professional body RIBA that validates courses and provides guidance on graduate attributes makes no mention of how higher education or the profession should respond. There are also no accounts of how higher education institutions are preparing future architecture graduates and in particular what students’ views may be on the topic. Similar concerns are voiced in a range of domains on sustainability wide agendas. In 2004, Martin and Jucker (2004: 421) highlighted that graduates across a range of disciplines were not equipped to meet the future challenges of the sustainability agenda. Energy-Efficient Design: The Educational Approach in UK Architecture

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Architectural Registration Board (ARB) monitor and validate architecture education in the UK. Criteria for validation and prescription of courses are based on the requirements of Article 46 of the EU Qualifications Directive as well as the Quality Assurance Agency Subject Benchmark Statement (RIBA 2011). Prescription/validation criteria include specific learning outcomes across a range of built environment concerns. Energy efficiency issues are not prominent within descriptions of required graduate attributes; however, broad aspects relating to wider environmental and sustainability issues are included. The following discussion outlines key energy-efficient design parameters as viewed by the authors, suggesting a greater need for their systematic inclusion in architecture education at an early stage of an undergraduate pathway. The subsequent section examines two studies conducted by the authors on how energy efficiency parameters are being taught, learned, and viewed across UK architecture-accredited institutions. The teaching and learning of energy-efficient and sustainable design principles in architecture (among many design and construction issues) tend to emphasize the passive performance of

525

the built fabric, including the type of construction, layout, orientation, and color of the building, all of which play a role in a building’s performance. In addition to these “passive” considerations, there is also a requirement for acknowledging “active” measures and systems including mechanical and electrical building services (primarily heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems). These systems need to be carefully designed, coordinated, and specified to reduce in-use energy while helping provide a healthy and comfortable environment. More recently, electrical building services have taken a more central role, not only within lighting design but also in the changes to requirements for space for equipment, the routing cables for IT, security, and fire. Both the mechanical and electrical systems require an understanding of user behavior, all of which can constrain or enable the design of energy-efficient buildings. Energy used by the intrinsic performance (regulated loads) of the building needs to be considered in relation to and with the energy demands arising from the use of buildings. User behavior becomes key when considering the overall energy demand of a building (unregulated loads). At present, there is a growing interest from building occupiers and owners to monitor the energy use in buildings over time through metering and monitoring systems. This is reinforced by the need to display an energy certificate to comply with the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive for any building above 500 m2, and these need to be renewed yearly if the building is over 1000 m2 (EPBD 2016). In addition to developing skills and understanding on energy-efficient and sustainable design principles, knowledge on the national and international measurement, monitoring, evaluation, and certification of building performance is also needed. A growing number of sustainability assessment schemes (the UK BREEAM and CSH, the American LEED, the Japanese CASBEE, the Australian GREEN Star, the French HQE, the German DGNB, etc.) have been and are being developed globally. Energy-efficient design learning and teaching need to be considered not just within a national domain but also on a global level

E

526

in order to meet the wider challenges of the global sustainability agenda. For over 20 years, the UN has been championing for a greater inclusion of a sustainable development principles and indicators within higher education (QAA 2014; UNESCO 2014). Today, even with firm commitments within higher education institutions, these principles seem still slow in the uptake (QAA 2014). The 17 UN global goals for sustainable development include no poverty, no hunger, good health, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, renewable energy, good jobs and economic growth, innovation and infrastructure, reduce inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption, climate action, life below water, life on land, peace and justice, and partnerships for the goals – as well as the core knowledge of energy-efficient designs need to be at the heart of any curriculum, but are they?

Learning from Architecture Design Education: A Case of Two Studies In order to explore the approaches to teaching and learning energy-efficient design in the UK, the authors draw on research from two separate case studies undertaken in UK architecture undergraduate curricula. The premise of both studies was to understand how students and educators accounted for energy efficiency in design studio learning, in terms of teaching approaches and assessment. Study 1 examined students and educators’ views of teaching and learning energy efficiency in a third year architecture design studio in one institution (Oliveira and Marco 2016), while study 2 discussed views across nine institutions throughout the UK (Oliveira et al. 2017). Though the empirical settings varied, the unit of analysis (“students and educators’ view of teaching, learning, and assessing energy efficiency”) was the same across studies. Up until now, most studies that have examined some aspects of energy efficiency teaching in higher education curricula have not focused on particular disciplinary approaches nor have they included design professions. Rather the emphasis has been mostly placed on measuring energy

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

literacy and understanding students’ energyefficient behavior in campus buildings. Cotton et al. (2015) examine a large sample of 1100 university students, with an emphasis of measuring attitudes, behavior, and knowledge, suggesting curricula in higher education need to enhance knowledge on energy-saving measures as a way of improving informed decision-making. Within built environment research, there has been some work carried out to understand how sustainability wide issues rather than specifically energy efficiency is taught. Pan et al. (2012) reflect upon conflicting approaches to how sustainability should be taught among and between students, lecturers, and the institution. Cotgrave and Alkhaddar (2006) outline barriers to achieving environmental literacy in the construction education sector. Limitations are described as being contained within the nature and structure of higher education in the UK in areas such as academic indifference and approaches to teaching, lack of communication between industry and academia, and lack of student engagement. Altomonte et al. (2012) suggest that deficiencies lie at a European level in university architectural education structural curriculum setups. They explore the outcomes of a European project “Environmental Design in University Curricula and Architectural Training in Europe” (EDUCATE), suggesting that barriers to implementing sustainability in architectural education lie in educational policy and organizational barriers at a strategic European level. For a more detailed account of the literature, see also Oliveira et al. (2017). The following sections discuss key themes that emerge in the two studies: “The Design Studio as Disabling or Enabling Energy Efficiency Teaching and Learning Practice,” “The Importance of Personal Journeys,” and “Explicit Versus Implicit Assessment Practice.” Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how educators’ views and students’ experiences may lead to a new approach to design studio energy efficiency pedagogy that allows for prescriptive reflective elements not necessarily shaped by design studio staff or the need for a portfolio with overwhelming emphasis placed on visual attainment.

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

The Design Studio: Disabling or Enabling Energy Efficiency Teaching and Learning Practice? The design studio is central to how architecture curricula are delivered in the UK (Salama 2015). Within the two studies, several aspects of the design studio shaped how and if energy efficiency was accounted for including the design studio brief/portfolio (study 1) and design studio staff priorities (study 2). See also Fig. 1 below. The Design Studio Brief/Portfolio (Study 1)

In most discussions with educators across the institutions, the importance of the design studio brief would be regularly brought up. The design studio brief was viewed as the locus of overall learning, where content taught elsewhere would be “tested and trialed.” Educators who taught other aspects of curricula, however, observed how their views would often be excluded when design briefs were being written. Study 1 examined the effects of a non-prescriptive design brief on student’s experience of a design process. Students were given freedom and flexibility to develop their own interpretations of site and explain in a group setting the “needs” of a site. Students were found to group objects of place STUDENTS Experience

Students’ ‘personal’ brief dependence

Design studio brief

527

(routes to site, ways out of site, within the site) in relation to individual interpretations of “what a city needs” through three areas of focus: usage, activity, and motivations. For instance, students were asked to imagine possible site using drawing on experiences (individual and group) of a city as well as learning on architecture urban theories and history. In addition, students were encouraged to discuss and debate future possibilities of site use based on learning within and out with the course to date. In most instances, students would discuss their decisions in the context of how it “may appear in a portfolio” rather than how it could address the brief or fulfil a city need. Design Studio Staff Priorities (Study 2)

In study 2, most students and educators viewed curricula within programs as driven primarily by a school “design agenda” and largely shaped by design studio staff. Design studio staff were viewed to set parameters of what is valued in design with many students noting how particular motivations and ambitions set the scene regardless of a student’s interests. In most cases issues of energy efficiency were described as secondary to “form, shape, and aesthetics.” For educators

DESIGN STUDIO EDUCATORS’ Priorities

Personal Motivations Ambitions

primary

Energy Efficiency

secondary

NON-DESIGN STUDIO EDUCATORS’ Views

Disengaged from wider school ‘design studio’ agenda

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Design studio across students, design studio, and non-design studio educators’ views

E

528

not teaching design studio, the school design agenda was described as setting the tone of the course. Overall, educators discussed a strong placement of design studio teaching at the core of the curriculum overshadowing other aspects of curricula such as environment and technology. One participant initially conveyed a successfully integrated course, describing energy-related content as central to research in the school but not a big design driver. . . .Well, it’s very central in terms of our research and that does filter down a little into our teaching but . . . It’s not a big driver in terms of the design agenda and to be brutally honest, I think it’s considered as an add-in when it comes to design agenda in the school . . .. (Participant 16 Case 26)

A number of participants discussed curriculum changes over time and a sense of losing “a very explicit thread of thinking things through sustainably” (Case 21). The syllabus overall is described as containing the required energyrelated content but somehow “losing its thread in design studio.” When discussing how the content related to energy efficiency was delivered, educators who mainly taught in design studio conveyed a sense of uncertainty and need for implicit outcomes. For one student, energyrelated content was not rated highly, or it was not viewed as part of the overall architectural ambition on the agenda of the studio module. In terms of tutorials . . . energy related content in my experience is not (on) the agenda so to speak . . . if you choose to push it yourself you’ll probably find support. (Participant 25 Case 26)

Other students noted how their design projects’ integration of energy content depended on tutors’ personalities; this experience varied from year to year. Student 28 (Case 21) observed the importance of having an inspirational technology lecturer “who was capable of igniting interest.” She also noted how exposure to practical examples was paramount to the understanding of environmental issues including energy discussing how “there is a difference between passing a brick in a lecture theatre and going on a site” (Case 26). Another student similarly discusses how learning on sustainability issues often does not occur through formal teaching but through passion from particular tutors.

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development Yeah, tutor Y is passionate about it, but we’re not taught it in studio, you’re encouraged to apply it by the different tutors. For example, last year, we weren’t that encouraged to apply it, this year we have been . . .. (Participant 27 Case 26)

Students conveyed challenges with managing an architectural aspiration and a building that fulfilled all the required environmental and energy efficiency credentials. For many students in study 2, studio tutors are seen to initially “push” an architectural ambition and then laterally ask students to “see how it works energy wise” (Case 26). Students recognize the fact that their initial starting point in design often “had nothing to do with sustainability.” For most students, schools are seen as being “relatively nonprescribed in terms of architectural style.” However, energy-related content is often viewed as a practical “prescribed” aspect of research rarely “filtering into teaching.” For many students, the starting point in a project was seen as a clear pathway to how the project and career in some cases might end up. Though most students reflect upon not being able to fully explore their interests including with regard to energy efficiency in design studio, in study 1 students are seen to revert to group dynamics when given the choice to pursue individual interests in a studio brief. The Importance of Personal Journeys (Studies 1 and 2) Educators as well as students discussed their experience of teaching and learning as a personal journey in both studies, often comparing life experiences to experiences in education settings. Overall, both emphasize the need for energy-related content and current lack of application. However, although both identify need, there is a shared observation of difficulties of adapting or extending current complex curricula. Educators discuss their teaching as being driven by a personal stance, while students discuss their learning being guided by a tutor’s particular personal approach. See also Fig. 2 below. Educators’ Evaluation: Personal Experience, Need, and Motivation

Educators often discussed how particular approaches needed to change by reflecting upon personal judgement or knowledge in a particular area.

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

Teaching Personal stance

DESIGN STUDIO reflections and dependencies

Life, education journey

529

Learning Educator’s personal approach

Individuality

E

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Design studio students and educators’ reflections and dependencies My personal take on it – ‘cos I teach a lot of similar simulation, digital simulation and I think, probably from my perspective because it’s now becoming so embedded in the software and still kind of user friendly, that I think it’s so easy now, why would a designer not want to run a simulation, or not want to because the actual in their design, so my view would be that that should become just part of the routine tools of an architect. Probably, with a lot of our staff because they’re not familiar with those teacher tool skills, they probably see it as a very onerous task, for example, to run an energy simulation. . .. (Case 27)

Also, educators often referred to their experience of being a student and ways energy-related content was taught. One participant discussed his experience of being a student as not very user-friendly and not particularly enjoyable as one of “doing spreadsheets and calculations.” He compared his experience to current students’ environment filled with “user-friendly tools” and being highly enjoyable making learning an approachable one. Students’ Evaluation: Increasing Individuality

During study 1 students were tasked with discussing future site needs in a city context. During this phase most students focused primarily on personal hobbies, individual preferences, and likes as a way of developing the brief with less attention devoted to the site overall or to environmental requirements such as energy efficiency. Students discussed their interpretations and

views of (phase 1) group work where they were asked to assess how the project could address a city needs. At this point during phase 2, they combine individual interests, and a city needs to find common ground in devising their briefs. One of the students discusses her interest and passion for books noting the practice of reading books is being lost and needs to be revived. She then goes on to highlight the lack of literature festivals in Bristol or spaces where writers and book enthusiast could meet. I want to consider the revival of the book. . .what people need in city B is a place to write. . .to retreat. (Student A)

Throughout phase 2 students combine group thinking with individual motivations for the brief by advocating site uses based on personal interpretations and likes. In the case of the student motivated by cycling, the site use was motivated by a personal ambition and passion. The student viewed cycling as an essential part of everyday life; in his view it was necessary for city B to have a site where cycling was a celebrated activity. Explicit Versus Implicit Assessment Practice (Studies 1 and 2) Assessment of energy-related content was mostly loosely discussed with most educators not engaging in describing technique or detail. For some,

530

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

there was an uncertainty of how the issues were assessed at all:

shortage of time was seen as an important factor that contributed to a lack of in-depth teaching.

. . . thinking about the construction teaching narrative across the undergraduate programmes and it’s made me think about it and think that, actually, it’s not particularly explicit, so I might be being slightly over critical, self-critical, but I’m not sure how well we are assessing it now . . .. (Case 21)

And I do wonder, we move so quickly through the curriculum, that you just never get the chance to really slow things down and to start to really have long discussions about some of the work they’re doing. (Case 21)

For other participants being specific about what was assessed, it became a difficult issue to describe noting how many aspects of architectural curricula are often not explicit. . . . one of the things that’s probably true, and will remain true no matter what we do to some extent, but what we, collectively, not just our institution, but what we do often, I think, on architectural courses, is we cover a whole load of stuff that is not explicitly mentioned in learning outcomes, or criteria, or even synopsis, or whatever in a module and part of the task. (Case 12)

For many students, time and confidence to pursue a project’s sustainable ambition were seen as a major stumbling block. Students conveyed a sense of having to rush through modules, complete work quickly, and move on to the next task without being able to explore and experiment fully. . . . I feel like I haven’t totally resolved my building as much as I would have liked to, to the point of really understanding exactly how all the details work, how the windows fit. At the moment, it’s like resolving the outside, it takes so long, that the inside kind of suffers as a lack of it. Even just thinking about, like I don’t know every material finish on the interior of my building . . .. (Case 26)

Although most participants recognized the need for change, many observed difficulties in implementing any change. For educators, curricula were seen as stretched whereby new issues would continually be added, while current ones “were never taken away.” This “packing in” of curricula was viewed as making students engagement more difficult. For others, lack of engagement was viewed as widespread among staff and students. Staff was increasingly given additional tasks “asking many to do something extra, even if it is just respond to, can sometimes be a problem.” Staff were then viewed to “stick to what they know” and defer expertise to others. For many,

For students, growing complexity of curricula was also discussed. However, in students’ discussions, complexity was viewed as covering subjects broadly, disengaged staff and curricula needing to respond to students’ needs more readily and in more integrated ways. We need inspiring tutors to show us that and off we go, we’re good, we can take it from there I think, yeah, get some interesting engineers, or crazy builders, or something like that. (Case 26)

Another student recognized the increasing complexity of curricula and time limitations suggesting “inserting more” meant that something had to get taken out unless it was condensed.

Embedding Energy Efficiency in Architecture: Toward a Porous Design Studio Practice? There have been long-standing historical concerns regarding the content and mode of delivery in UK architectural education, overall in relation to the mode of delivery (Salama 2015) and specifically with environmental concerns including knowledge of energy efficiency not being sufficiently well attained by its graduates (The Oxford Conference 2008). In contemporary schools of architecture, it is acknowledged that many students find it difficult to relate their experiences in lectures (through which in most instances environmental teaching including energy efficiency is delivered) to their experiences in studios (Altomonte et al. 2012). Although it is known that extensive information in the lectures regarding building technology, human behavior, and culture are conveyed, little of this information seems to in most cases influence directly the forms and the practice of design in studios (Altomonte 2009).

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

At the heart of the problem, as the discussion in this chapter and existing research on design studio pedagogy suggests, is a mistaken conception – built deep into the modern curricular structure – about how knowledge is acquired and applied (Gelernter 2014). Gelernter (2014) examines alternative models of knowledge as offered by Jean Piaget and Bill Hillier, finding ways through which the acquisition of design knowledge can be integrally related to its use. In the final section of this chapter building upon suggestions made by Gelernter (2014), the consequences of these alternative models for design education are discussed, and the outline of an alternative curricular structure is proposed; essentially a case is made for a more “porous” studio whereby knowledge delivered via lectures on environmental concerns including energy efficiency devolves to the studio in a more fluid reciprocal manner (than currently observed in the two studies examined here). The studies discussed in this chapter highlight students’ views and their calls for a more ambitious approach to teaching and learning energy efficiency. Scholarship in the field of architecture design education suggests student led individuality building, and non-prescriptive design briefs are needed (Batterman et al. 2011; Rutherford and Wilson 2006). Study 1 shows, however, that this may not be a sensible path to take with lack of prescription often leading to brief dependence and a “fallback” on personal preferences, likes, and motivations. The deep engagement with brief development for many students in study 1 became a personal voyage (into highlighting importance of cycling, foraging, or literature, for instance) to the detriment to fully developing and engaging with environmental aspects of energy-efficient design. Studies discussed in section “Learning from Architecture Design Education: A Case of Two Studies” also highlight the issue of disengagement between education delivered via “lectures” and the design studio approach not just in students’ views but also in educators’ reflections. For many educators difficulties were found in a lack of perceived communication, disciplinary differences, and (mis)understanding between different forms of delivery and assessment in lectures (where most of energy efficiency content was

531

delivered) and studio. Structural complexities associated with modular delivery have been highlighted in prior work by Salama (2015) suggesting some solutions lie in restructuring makeup and delivery of the lecture content. Discussions conveyed in this chapter extend his view, offering a qualitative examination of the issues, highlighting also the need for a potential reexamination of the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed of design studio educators, who conveyed a disengagement (in most instances) with the content delivered via lectures. There is a dearth of research that has analyzed how particular areas of the syllabus such as energy efficiency have been included by different architecture institutions, especially within design studios. Detailed analysis of both how skills, knowledge, abilities, and awareness has been interpreted in architectural education regarding energy efficiency content as well as a wider consideration of the effects of incorporating specific approaches such as non-prescriptive briefs or transdisciplinary methods is needed. Future work could examine views and concerns from students across institutions and between different built environment curricula within courses that set non-prescriptive briefs within transdisciplinary environments. Also, further research could delve deeper into understanding how increased levels of brief flexibility, interpretation of energy efficiency learning, and assessment impact on both the student and educator experience in design education domains.

References Altomonte S (2009) Environmental education for sustainable architecture. Rev Eur Stud 1(2):12 Altomonte S, Rutherford P, Wilson R (2012) Mapping the way forward: education for sustainability in architecture and Urban Design. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(3):143–154 American Institute of Architects (AIA) (2012) An Architect’s guide to integrating energy modeling in the design process. AIA, Washington Batterman SA, Martins AG, Antunes CH, Freire F, da Silva MG (2011) Development and application of competencies for graduate programs in energy and sustainability. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 137(4):198–207

E

532

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

Chang L, Lee KT, Mohamed A (2012) Global warming mitigation and renewable energy policy development from the Kyoto protocol to the Copenhagen accord—a comment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(7):5280–5284 Committee on Climate Change (2016) UK climate action following the Paris agreement. Committee on climate change. The Committee on Climate Change, London Cotgrave A, Alkhaddar R (2006) Greening the curricula within construction programmes. J Educ Built Environ 1(1):3–29 Cotton D, Miller W, Winter J, Bailey I, Sterling S, Leal Filho W, Sima M (2015) Developing students’ energy literacy in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(4) DECC (2009) UK low carbon transition plan. Department for Energy and Climate Change, London DECC (2011) Statistical release – UK sustainable development Indicator: 2009 greenhouse gas emissions, final figure. Department for Energy and Climate Change, London EU Energy Performance Directive (2016) Energy performance directive. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/ energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiencydirective. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 Gelernter M (2014) Reconciling lectures and studios. J Archit Educ 41(2):46–52 Gething B, Puckett K (2013) Designing for climate change. RIBA Publishing, London HM Government (2008) Strategy for sustainable construction. Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, London HM Government (2016) UK construction strategy 2016–2020, London Janda K (2009) Buildings don’t use energy: people. In: PLEA2009 – 26th conference on passive and low energy architecture, Quebec City Janda K (2011) Buildings don’t use energy: people do. Archit Sci Rev 54(1) Martin S, Jucker R (2004) Educating Earth literate leaders, systems thinking and professional practice. In: Proceedings of the international sustainable development research conference. ERP Environmental, Shipley Oliveira S, Marco E (2016) Preventing or inventing? Understanding the effects of non-prescriptive design benefits. Int J Technol Des Educ 27(4):549–561 Oliveira S, Marco E, Gething B (2017) Towards an energy ‘literate’ architecture graduate – UK educators’ and students’ evaluation. Archit Eng Des Manag:1–13 Pan W, Murray P, Cotton D, Garmston H (2012) Integrating research-informed teaching into sustainable construction education. J Educ Built Environ 7(1):94–117 Pelsmakers S (2012) The environmental design pocketbook. RIBA Publishing, London QAA (2014) Education for sustainable development: guidance for UK higher education providers. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester RIBA (2011) Procedures for the validation of UK courses and examinations in architecture,’ published Sept 2011, effective from Sept 2011 and the Criteria for Validation (2003). www.architecture.com. Accessed 16 Dec 2017

RIBA Journal (2017) How can we make energy efficiency sexy. Article on Birtley Roundtable Discuss 124(9) Rutherford P, Wilson R (2006) Educating environmental awareness: creativity in integrated environmental design teaching. In: Architecture (ed) Challenges for architectural science in changing climates. Adelaide, ANZAScA Salama A (2015) Spatial design education: new directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. Routledge. Oxford Conference Sassi P (2006) Strategies for sustainable architecture. Taylor & Francis, London/New York The Oxford Conference (2008) 50 years on- resetting the agenda for architectural education. University of Oxford UNESCO (2014) Sustainable development begins with education. United Nations educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization, Fontenoy Zero Carbon Hub (2008) Zero carbon homes and nearly zero energy buildings. The Zero Carbon Hub, London Zero Carbon Hub (2014) Closing the gap between design and as built performance end of term report. London

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development Umesh Chandra Pandey1 and Chhabi Kumar2 1 IGNOU Regional Evaluation Center, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Bhopal, India 2 Department of Sociology and Social Work, Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Definition The terms “Engagement”, “Involvement”, “Participation” etc. are often used interchangeably to describe a continuum of engagement types. Community’s Engagement is a very broad term and its meaning varies in different contexts. It is, therefore, difficult to give any widely accepted definition. The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Division for Public Administration and Development Management (DESA/DPADM) define citizen engagement as: “the involvement of citizens in decision-making process of the state through measures and/or institutional arrangements so as to increase their influence on public policies and programs ensuring a more positive impact on their social and economic lives” (UN 2013).

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

A Perspective for Community Participation The focus on community participation is largely based on the recognition of the knowledge pool embedded in the community and the need to capitalize on this knowledge and, thereby, develop locally sustainable models (UNDP 2009). It has given rise to a surge of participatory methodologies leading to a paradigm shift from top-down approaches towards building institutional linkages between government leaders and the citizens (Head 2007). The need for community involvement for sustainable development has been well documented in the international declarations ever since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 those who advocate for citizen engagement relate its intrinsic value to human capabilities. The argument is that citizen engagement gives people a voice in development process and enables them to speak up against injustices and discrimination (Sen 1999 as cited in UNDP 2016). The United Nations (1956) has visualized community development as a process which unites efforts of the people with that of the government authorities with the objective to improve the social, economic, and cultural conditions of the community. This emphasis on participation shifts the focus from material well-being to the empowerment of the poor (Mansuri and Rao 2003). There is now a strongly emerging belief that communities should own, design, direct, implement, and sustain developmental interventions themselves. There is anecdotal and empirical support for the positive impact of community participation on project outcomes and sustainability (Narayan 1995; Isham et al. 1995). As an example, a comprehensive “Voices of Poor Study,” conducted by Narayan et al. (2000), based on interviews with 60,000 poor people in 60 countries, concluded that poor people demand a development process driven by their communities. They also felt that local ownership of funds and direct assistance through community-driven programs would make the biggest difference in their lives. Community Engagement and Higher Education The system of Higher Education has emerged as a major role player in the contemporary development

533

scenario. OECD (2007, p. 20) highlights the economic contribution of Higher Education in the following words: Higher education makes considerable direct economic contribution to the local and regional economy. Higher education institutions are employers and customers as well as suppliers of goods and services. Their staff and student expenditure have a direct effect on income and employment in the cities and regions.

There are today, around 200 million students enrolled in various institutions of Higher Education (up from 89 million in 1998). This figure is further expected to increase in the future, especially in regions like South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa. This rising demand for tertiary education has made it a critical public policy issue (World Bank 2017b). Communities and Higher Education Institutions have an obvious functional relationship between them. For example, the communities provide requisite manpower for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to function, whereas, they in turn train community members who can fill the job vacancies. This inevitable and symbiotic relation is engrained in the concept of Universities (Jacob et al. 2015). This concept of Community engagement in Higher Education, which may take the form of formal and nonformal ways of establishing relationships, collaborative initiatives, etc., has been referred to as “community engagement” in Higher Education (Jacob et al. 2015). This process may involve several strategies like creating sustainable networks, forming partnerships, using communication media, and organizing various activities between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and communities at local, national, and international levels. Such community engagement strategies with HEIs have been well documented (Jacob 2015). The HEIs and community engagement have multifaceted relations. The Graduates of higher education are environmentally more conscious, have healthier habits, and have a higher level of civic participation (World Bank 2011). Hence higher education can be instrumental to promote a strong culture of civic participation which will

E

534

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

help to utilize the knowledge embedded in community for locally sustainable models. Though Higher Education has a positive impact on the civic engagement processes, the actual role of Higher Education for community engagement is far greater. The Universities have to develop rapport with communities to integrate community engagement with other missions of the University, i.e., research and teaching. It will help the Universities to stay locally relevant and globally competitive. In this context, the role of community engagement in Higher Education is critical. Community engagement in Higher Education unfolds a new approach of University Education which treats the community as equal partner, reorients the systems and procedures of the University to meet this requirement and recognizes its huge pool of Knowledge embedded in its culture, practices, and system of belief of the community. Practice of Higher Education has therefore been a major area of policy reforms across the world (Jacob et al. 2015). Different HEIs have different level of potential for community engagements. Therefore, HEIs need to establish partnerships among themselves to share their rapport with the communities, reduce the cost of operations, and enhance their reach within various communities. However, such partnerships should be based on strategy, a shared vision and equality. The partnerships should be aimed at sharing networks, forge strategic alliances, and explore new networks and clienteles. However, all the partnerships between HEIs are not viewed positively. Some of the alliances have been accused of damaging wider public interest through commoditization, trivializing knowledge, and pedaling credentials of dubious worth (Jacob et al. 2015). However, despite all such reservations, the relationship between HEIs and the community is a domain of endless possibilities for synergetic partnerships.

Linking Higher Education to Sustainable Development Community Engagement and Sustainable Development The need for Community Engagement is explicitly identified in the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs). For example, Goal 16 calls for responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels (Clark 2016). One of the targets (SDG 16, target 16.7), categorically says in the following words. “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” SDG 16 target 16.7

Community Engagement has been linked to the pursuit of Sustainable Development in several reports in the past. Brundtland Commission (1987) emphatically advocated for the effective say of local communities for management of their resources. This report further called for promoting citizen initiatives, empowerment of people’s organizations, and strengthening local democracy. In an Expert Group Meeting on “Citizen Engagement and the Post-2015 Development Agenda,” organized by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) in Beirut, Lebanon, from third to fourth December 2012, it was concluded that “Good Governance” and “Citizen Engagement” can be instrumental to achieve sustainable development after 2015. Subsequently, Governments and Civil Society Organizations (CSO) were called upon to enhance participation of people in policy-making processes (UN 2013). At present, there is a major consensus across the world, that Community Engagement will be the key to achieve the Post 2015 Development Agenda (UNDG 2012). It is well realized and understood that Sustainable Development cannot be achieved only through the efforts made by the governments. It will require the active participation of diverse stakeholders. The increased participation of citizens will foster the democratic principles as it will be built upon the notions of rights and principles. Further, the involvement of people, private companies, CSOs, and special interest groups will help to address common good and goals more effectively (UN 2013). A community approach to development effectively brings out the interests of all the stakeholders and converge them for a sustainable future. As a result, any specific section of the community will

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

not be able to take undue benefit of developmental outcomes due to its favorable position. Hence, community involvement gives rise to a moderating effect on such conflict of interest among the various interest groups. Community involvement, thus, leads to inexorable democratization of public life which ensures equitable distribution of development outcome, makes it sustainable, and ensures that community will have sustained interest to carry on the developmental activities. It further strengthens the resolve to bring about community empowerment and in the process, enables the people to create the change they desire to see at the local level (Stone 2012). Growing Expectations and Challenges in Higher Education The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have brought Higher Education to the forefront of developmental agenda. Apart from core functions of research and innovation, and teaching and training, HEIs have started playing a vital role in community development as well (Jacob et al. 2015). Communities need to take responsibility for implementing the goals and to plan context-based strategies for SDG implementation. New expectations have been generated which call for paradigmatically different ways of working, engagement of diverse stakeholders, and collective efforts at the local, regional, and global scale (World Economic Forum 2016). The Community Engagement in higher education is intimately linked to the whole issue of Sustainable Development Goals. It is well realized and understood that developmental strategies, based on community engagement can certainly be instrumental to accomplish the SDGs because the inclusiveness is at the heart of these SDGs. Research studies have revealed that communities have tremendous capacity to plan and implement programs if adequately empowered through participatory approaches. Olukotun (2008) has given an account of studies which conclude that participatory approaches create prosperity and sustainability by empowering community. It further lists several factors which create such empowerment. Starkey (2002) concludes that participatory userfocused network motivates and encourages stakeholders to work together and learn from each other.

535

The community’s access to knowledge resources to implement SDGs and their capacity to articulate their problems and implement their plans will be vital for the realization of SDGs. It has given rise to renewed interest in Universities’ engagement with the communities at local, national, and international levels. Policy decisions to meet the SDGs need to be informed by policyrelevant evidence, co-designed and co-produced with the pertinent stakeholders, taking into consideration local and political contexts (Fadi et al. 2018). Universities are uniquely placed to lead the cross-sectoral implementation of the SDGs and advance the 2030 agenda. Community Engagement is not just an “add on” or fringe activity but paradigmatically a new approach which embeds this activity into the entire work approach of research, knowledge exchange, teaching, and social responsibility. There is a wrong perception about Community Engagement as charity exercise. As cited in “The Engaged University” (Watson et al. 2011). We need to change the perception among faculty and community partners from thinking of [university-community engagement] as philanthropic activity to one of reciprocity that respects that knowledge exists both in the university and the community.

Information and Communication Technologies: A Unique Opportunity to Build Collaborations Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) present a unique opportunity for Community Engagement. Universities can share their knowledge resources through innovatively designed online repositories, involve communities to further build upon their knowledge resources and reach out to ever growing and diverse categories of learners spread over large geographical areas. It gives rise to interesting possibilities to engage with communities for content development, build Open Educational Resources, and offer academic programs through ICT supported methods. The technology has opened several new avenues for community engagement in higher education. The digital media’s influence has a much dominant role in teaching, research,

E

536

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

and extension activities in the developed countries. Their influence is growing fast in the developing countries as well. The satellite technologies, television, and radio are other popular mediums for the community engagement which have attracted the attention of policy makers in the developing countries. For example, the Government of India has launched an exclusive satellite for the cause of Education and also created a network of FM Educational Radio Stations with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) as its nodal agency. Dumova (2014) (as cited in Jacob 2015) has introduced the term “Community Informatics,” which has been defined as “interdisciplinary area of knowledge concerned with application of technology in community setting.” The digital media offers remarkable opportunities to serve the knowledge requirements of geographically dispersed target groups to customize their training requirements and build up innovative and flexible systems of educational delivery. Further HEIs need to be flexible enough to grab all the potential opportunities to enhance outreach. The ICT enabled ways of collaborations can be immensely useful for the developing countries, where the most of the SDG target groups live in, mostly in the geographically isolated and far flung areas, often having poor transport connectivity. Further, it becomes easier for other stakeholders like the government, to effectively carry out sensitization operations. It has opened up new possibilities for Sustainable Development through ICTenabled Community Engagement in Universities. The HEIs have also taken successful initiatives in post disaster recovery period to engage community and operationalize teaching learning activities. Engaged Universities: A Developmental Imperative in Global South The idea of Engaged Universities makes a lot of sense to the Global South where HEIs are increasingly concerned with developmental issues like alleviating widespread poverty, improving public health, achieving universal primary and secondary education, and spreading awareness on the issues related to environment among others. The

idea of community engagement for development survives on the assumption that if the communities are adequately empowered, informed, and financed, they can be the best judge to plan improvement in their lives and livelihoods. There has been a growing realization that the poor can be made active partner and benefiter of development if they are informed participant in the process of designing and implementation of developmental projects, with external agents acting primarily as facilitators (Chambers 1997). Chambers (1997) has strongly argued for inclusion of poor with control over decisions in implementation process of large-scale developmental assistance. Okafor (2005) says that community’s partnership in their own projects leads to their empowerment, better project outcomes, greater transparency, and donor harmonization among others. Mandated largely by the Governments, Universities are in pursuit of developing, transmitting, and applying knowledge for the wider public good. Performance of the University is now gauged by how well Universities can collaborate for larger developmental goals. The underlying motivation for university, community engagement is to blend the structured knowledge generated in Universities and the tacit knowledge embedded in community to address the key developmental challenges, enhance the reach of university up to the doorsteps of people and complement the development activities. Need for Policy Reforms Community Engagement is recognized as part of core functioning of University Education along with other two crucial components, namely, Teaching and Research. However, there appears to be compartmentalized thought processes in the Higher Education, at least, in some instances, which make it difficult for the concerns of Community Engagement to come to the fore. Higher Education systems have not been able to fully reap the benefits of synergistic relationship between teaching, research, and extension which are its three vital areas of activities. Community engagements in Higher Education are difficult to be achieved without careful

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

planning for involvement of key stakeholders groups (e.g., students, faculty members, staff, administrators and alumni, parents of students, policy makers, and community members among others). The participation of stakeholders in every aspect of planning, development, implementation, evaluation, and feedback will be the key for the long-term sustainability and ownership in any community engagement initiative. It is believed that Higher Education Policy reforms can have strong impact on the community engagement initiatives. If carefully planned, policy reforms can strengthen the University-Community participation and thereby, strengthen the regional economies. Several success stories have been documented from countries like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (Jacob et al. 2015). The existing research literature gives a mixed indication about how community engagement can lead to sustainable outcomes. Though community participation makes a lot of sense, there is a great deal of work on why participation fails. A major reason for community participation not leading to intended results is that we are not able to comprehend sustainability issues in right perspectives. It would require paradigmatically a new world view. However, ironically people are looking for sustainability within the same framework which threatens it. Hes (2017) has described some of the major drivers which decide the success and failures of the participatory developmental interventions. The systems of Higher Education need to learn from several community-driven projects.

Universities and Community Engagement Higher Education has important connections with other policy areas. It provides crucial inputs for the development of different sectors of economy and also gets affected by the policy priorities in respective sectors. The system of Higher Education has been dynamically evolving with changing socioeconomic conditions across the history (Kromydas 2017). Whereas in ancient societies, the reach of Higher Education was perpetuated by

537

dominant class of the society, we find that in present day’s world it has turned in to a mass movement. Rising democratic value systems and technological revolution has opened up new possibilities to enhance the reach of Higher Education up to people and places hitherto unreached. As higher education systems are becoming more and more mass oriented, people are getting opportunities to be part of Higher Education systems while they earn their livelihoods. The Higher Education Policy can promote social integration, smooth out socioeconomic inequalities, and foster economic development. It is due to this reason that Higher Education has intimate relation with democratic governance and civic participation. There is great deal of empirical support that Higher Education leads to more civic participation and democratic politics (Glaeser et al. 2007). Such an atmosphere will create conducive atmosphere for Community Engagement. The Community Engagement can be instrumental for the Universities to discharge their responsibilities of teaching, research, and extension more effectively. In the context of Sustainable Development Goals, it has much wider implications for Universities. The Universities need to set up mechanisms for effective knowledge transfer up to grassroots and to decide how concerns of grass roots can be incorporated in the research. The strategic role of Universities in stimulating innovation and economic growth is well realized and understood (Hughes and Kitson 2012). Integrating classroom, community, and applied research can lead to excellent results. The Universities need to inculcate a sense of civic responsibility, make communities effective partners in their research and thereby empower the communities. Such interventions will help the Universities to establish a rapport with communities and take strategic research level interventions. The strategies should be embedded in the Vision and Mission statements of the Universities to bring about focused interventions. Such CommunityBased Learning and Research (CBLR) is increasingly becoming part of strategic interventions being made by Universities (American University 2018). A greater sensibility for the Sustainable Development Goals is required at the level of

E

538

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

Universities, and Community Engagement practices will be instrumental to achieve this objective. A carefully articulated community engagement practice interwoven in the organizational system of the Universities will help the Universities to address SDGs. Further academics also need to connect to Policy Makers and inform them about research (Goodwin 2013). It will strengthen the process of policy-making and thereby fulfill the concerns of Sustainable Development. However, the academics and policy makers belong to altogether different kinds of professions. It is a challenge to create meaningful knowledge transfer between them (Goodwin 2013). However, it is essential to create bridges of communication between academia and policy makers which will go a long way in Sustainability in Higher Education.

particularly in conflict and fragile situations, on issues including water supply and sanitation, rural areas access roads, school and health clinic construction, nutrition programs for mothers and infants, and support for microenterprises (World Bank 2017a). According to conservative calculations, World Bank’s assistance for such CDD projects had gone up from $325million to $2 Billion during the years 1996–2003 (Mansuri and Rao 2003). The rationale for such a strategic decision is given in Chapter 9 of World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Sourcebook (Dongier et al. 2003). Based on an analysis of large-scale CDD programs that received positive evaluations and in consultation with leading practitioners, ten principles have been identified to guide policy formulation (Dongier et al. 2003).

Community Engagement: A Developmental Imperative Participation of people can be ensured only if the local representative and councils have capacities to articulate people’s developmental agenda and ownership. What we need is community empowerment through active participation for sustainability (Stanley 2003). The United Nations Brisbane Declaration on Community Engagement (International Conference on Engaging Communities 2005) has endorsed the core principles of integrity, inclusion, deliberation, and influence to define Community Engagement (Brisbane Declaration 2005). The World Bank’s studies have concluded that community-driven programs operate on the basic principles of transparency, participation, local empowerment, demand responsiveness, greater downward accountability, and enhanced local capacity. The World Bank’s experience says that when given clear and transparent rules, access to information, appropriate capacity, and financial support, poor men and women can effectively organize to identify community priorities, identify local priorities, and strategize effective poverty reduction programs (World Bank 2017a). The World Bank has supported 187 active community-driven development (CDD) projects (a term originally coined by World Bank) in 77 countries totaling around US$19.1 billion,

Concluding Remarks The role of Higher Education to achieve Sustainable Developmental Goals is now well realized and understood. Contemporary societies are witnessing unprecedented rate of knowledge explosion and knowledge obsolescence. People need the opportunities for lifelong education to stay relevant at their workplaces. Universities have to take up the responsibility to continuously update the knowledge and skills of the target groups it intends to serve. It requires paradigmatic changes in its functioning. Lifelong learning is, therefore, not a matter of option but compulsion of the socioeconomic phase we are living in. It is a developmental imperative to link the systems of higher education to workplaces. These expectations and challenges cannot be addressed with a “Business as Usual Approach.” Universities need to generate knowledge as per social needs and create mechanisms for its dissemination through effective use of technology. Community engagement is a catalyst for lifelong learning and developing new ways of defining and tackling poverty (Raditloaneng 2015). However, the community’s engagement should be given due credence in entire planning process of Higher Education. It should suitably blend with teaching and research. Community’s

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

involvement will be vital for the Universities to effectively carry out their responsibilities. However, these three components should not be viewed as compartmentalized ways. There are several questions which are still unsettled (as cited in Jacob et al. 2015). For example, what does the community need and expect from higher education institutions? How effective are such policy mandates and engagement practices? How well community engagement practices be integrated with other functions of Universities? Should the scope and mode of engagement be left to the Universities or the state mandate is necessary? Should only a specific type of Universities be mandated for Community Engagement? What are the consequences of not complying with the mandates? How can a university be global and at the same time locally relevant? If community engagement or “community service” are mandatory, what are the consequences of not complying with the mandate? Innovations will be the key for successful implementation of community participation in HEIs. The HEIs have to come out of the stereotyped functioning and utilize technology to engage community at local, state, national, and international levels. Further, they need to explore collaborative possibilities with other HEIs across the world. It will help them to save on expenditures, reach out to new target groups, and create synergies with other stakeholders among others. The systems of Higher Education can learn a lot from the lessons learnt in the implementation of community-driven projects which have been extensively dealt in research literature (Khwaja 2004). Despite the successes of the community development projects across the world, we find several failures of the community-driven developmental projects. There is still insufficient understanding to conclusively believe that community participation is always desirable (Chase 2015). Research studies have indicated that community participation may not be advantageous in all the circumstances (Khwaja 2004). The World Bank’s experiences for community-driven projects are well documented and analyzed (Mansuri and Rao 2013; Wong 2012). These experiences should be utilized for effective community-driven

539

developmental projects in HEIs which will strengthen the role of HEIs as important stakeholder in emerging global developmental scenario.

References American University (2018) About community based learning and research. Retrieved from https://www. american.edu/ocl/volunteer/Community-Based-Learni ng-and-Research.cfm Brisbane Declaration (2005). http://www.ncdd.org/ exchange/files/docs/brisbane_declaration.pdf. (accessed on 04th June2019) Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Rugby International Technologies Publications, London Chase S (2015) The Hunger project: some characteristics of World Bank experience with Community-Driven Development (CDD). https://advocacy.thp.org/2015/ 06/08/some-characteristics-of-world-bank-experiencewith-community-driven-development-cdd/. Accessed on 10 Jan 2019 Clark H (2016) Sustainable development needs public participation. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/helenclark/sustainable-development-n_1_b_8412692.html. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 Dongier P, Van Domelen J, Ostrom E, Ryan A, Wakeman W, Bebbington A, Alkire S, Esmail T, Polski M (2003) Community driven development. Chapter 9. In: Poverty reduction strategy paper sourcebook (PRSP) sourcebook, vol 1. The World Bank. http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1. 533.6928&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 Dumova (2014) Engaging technology in university – community partnerships. W. James Jacob, Stewart E Sutin, John C Weidman and Johan L Yeager (eds) Pittsburgh studies in comparative and international education Fadi E-J, Ataya N, Racha F (2018) Changing roles of Universities in the Era of SDGs: rising up to the global challenge through institutionalizing partnerships with governments and communities. Health Res Policy Syst 16:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0318-9. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/ 10.1186/s12961-018-0318-9 Glaeser EL, Ponzetto GAM, Andrei S (2007) Why does democracy need education? Retrieved from https:// scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/democracy_final_ jeg_1.pdf Goodwin M (2013) The guardian, International edition, How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for better conversations. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/ mar/25/academics-policy-engagement-ten-tips Head BW (2007) Community Engagement: Participation on whose Terms. Aust J Polit Sci 42(3):441

E

540

Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development

Hes D (2017) Impact of community engagement on sustainability outcomes- there is no sustainability without community engagement. Melbourne School of Government, https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/nextgenengagement/files/20 17/07/Next_Gen_Expert_series_D_Hes-1c4ud7u.pdf. Accessed on 9 Jan 2019; http://www.ncdd.org/exchange/ files/docs/brisbane_declaration.pdf. Accessed on 26 Jan 2019; https://academic.oup.com/wber/article-abstract/9/ 2/175/1646579. Accessed on 9 Jan 2019; https://blog. usejournal.com/making-the-sustainable-development-go als-work-for-local-communities-everywhere-3f00bd5db 31. Accessed on 26 Jan 2019 Hughes A, Kitson M (2012) Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Camb J Econ 36(3):723–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cje/bes017 International Conference on Engaging Communities (2005) An initiative of United Nations and Queensland University Australia. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/pub lic/documents/un/unpan019716.pdf. (Accessed on 04th June 2019) Isham J, Narayan D, Pritchett L (1995) Does participation improve performance? Establishing causality with subjective data. World Bank Econ Rev 9:175–200 Jacob WJ, Sutin SE, Weidman JC, Yeager JL (eds) (2015) Community engagement in higher education policy reforms and practice. https://www.springer.com/in/ book/9789463000079 Khwaja AI (2004) Is Increasing community participation always a good thing. J Eur Econ Assoc 2(2–3):427–436 Kromydas T (2017) Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, Present state and future potential. Retrieved from https:// www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0001-8.pdf Mansuri G, Rao V (2003) Evaluating community based on community driven development: a critical review of the evidence. Working Paper Development Research Group. World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTECAREGTOPCOMDRIDEV/Resources/DECstudy. pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 Mansuri G, Rao V (2013) Localizing development: does participation work? https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/bitstream/handle/10986/11859/9780821382561.pdf? sequence=1. Accessed on 9 Jan 2019 Narayan D (1995) The Contribution of people’s participation: Evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. ESD Occasional Paper Series 1. World Bank. http://docu ments.worldbank.org/curated/en/750421468762366856/ pdf/38294.pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 Narayan D, Patel R, Schafft K, Rademacher A, Koch-Schulte (2000) Voices of the poor: can anyone hear us? Oxford University Press, New York. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/131441468779067441/Voices-of-the-poo r-can-anyone-hear-us. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 OECD (2007) Higher education and regions: globally competitive, Locally engaged, p 20. http://www.oecd.org/edu cation/imhe/highereducationandregionsgloballycompetiti velocallyengaged.htm. Accessed on 12 Dec 2019

Olukotun GA (2008) Achieving project sustainability through community participation. J Soc Sci 17(1):21–29. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down load?doi=10.1.1.499.616&rep=rep1&type=pdf Raditloaneng W (2015) Poverty and community engagement. In: Lifelong learning for poverty eradication. Springer, Cham Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford Stanley B (2003) Sustainability through participation. Dele Publishers, Minna, p 46 Stone C (2012) Community engagement in sustainable development for local products. http://www.palermo.edu/ economicas/PDF_2012/PBR6/PBR-edicion-especial-21. pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 UN (2013) Citizen engagement and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Report of the expert group meeting, Beirut, 3–4 December 2012. ESCWA Headquarters, Beirut. http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Docu ments/EGM%20Report-Beirut-3-4Dec-2012_FINAL_ cleared%20on%2008-07-2013.pdf. Accessed on 9 Jan 2019 UNDG (2012) Post 2015 development agenda: guidelines for national consultations – what future do you want? https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ POST-2015-ENGLISH-July-08.pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 UNDP (2009) Capacity development: a UNDP primer a report published by United Nations Development Programme Bureau for Development Policy Capacity Development Group. http://www.undp.org/content/ dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-deve lopment/capacity-development-a-undp-primer/CDG_P rimerReport_final_web.pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 UNDP (2016) Citizen Engagement in Public Service Delivery: The Critical Role of Public Officials. Global Centre for Public Service Excellence Singapore United Nations (1956) Twentieth report of the administrative committee on coordination to economic and social council. 24th Session, Annex III, Document E/2931, Oct 18th, p 14 Watson D, Hollister R, Stroud S, Babcock E (2011) The Engaged University. Routledge, New York. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203818763 Wong S (2012) What have been the impacts of World Bank Community-Driven Development Programs? CDD Impact Evaluation Review and Operational and Research Implications. The Social Development Department, Sustainable Development Network. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/967431468161087566/pdf/ 695410WP0SW0CD00Box370017B00PUBLIC0.pdf. Accessed on 09 Jan 2019 World Bank (2011) Learning for all–investing on people’s knowledge and skills to promote development. World Bank Group, Education Strategy 2020. http://wbgfiles. worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/Education_Strat egy_2020.pdf. Accessed on 3 March 2019 World Bank (2017a) Community Driven Development. Web site of World Bank as updated on 22 Sept 2017.

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/communitydriven development. Accessed on 09 Jan 2018 World Bank (2017b) Higher education. https://www. worldbank.org/en/topic/tertiaryeducation. Accessed on 3 March 2019 World Economic Forum (2016) https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2016/01/why-do-we-need-a-multi-stakeholderapproach-to-sustainable-development/

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Subarna Sivapalan1,2 and Mike J. Clifford3 1 Centre for Social Transformation for Sustainable Lifestyles, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia 2 Associate, School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 3 University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Definition The engineering education for sustainable development definition used in this chapter is adapted from the description provided by Byrne et al. (2010), i.e., education that emphasizes the need for engineers to play a significant role in developing technically, environmentally and socially responsible innovations. This entry discusses engineering education for sustainable development. The entry begins with a brief introduction of sustainable development and the engineering profession. It then proceeds to discuss current progress within engineering education for sustainable development within the context of higher education, specifically universal declarations, charters, and partnerships within the area, engineering education accreditation and the position of sustainable development within accreditation, and the manner in which institutions of higher learning integrate, adapt, and engage with engineering education for sustainable development. The entry ends with challenges associated with the integration of engineering education for sustainable development in the engineering curriculum and recommendations on the way forward.

541

Introduction Engineers are known to be the heart of a nation’s development. The engineer’s calling is not only limited to the organizations they serve but also goes beyond to the communities and people affected by the developments brought about by the associated projects the engineer works on. With the advent of climate change and globalization which has brought about much impact to the profession, the engineering profession is said to now be at a significant crossroads (Al-Rawahy 2013). This has resulted in a greater push for the engineers of today to be equipped with sustainable engineering competences, to enable these challenges to be addressed appropriately. The UNESCO Engineering Initiative (UEI) was established in November 2011 with the aim of tackling the main challenges surrounding the sector. Interestingly, besides women and youth in engineering as well as renewable and alternative energies, Engineering Education and Sustainable Engineering feature prominently as key areas addressed within the UEI (UNESCO 2017a). UNSECO defines sustainable engineering as “the process of using resources in a way that does not compromise the environment or deplete the materials for future generations” (UNESCO 2017a). Sustainable engineering has also been referred to as “practices that promote environmental, social and economic sustainability through greater resource efficiency, reduced pollution and consideration of the wider social impacts of new technologies, processes and practices” (Dowling et al. 2010, p. 333). The progression of sustainable engineering cannot be considered a recent occurrence. Professional engineering bodies globally have been pushing for sustainable engineering as early as the 1990s. Organizations, such as the World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development for one, have been advocating for an engineering focus that is appropriate to the challenges posed by the twenty-first century (Byrne et al. 2010). Interestingly also, the 2010 UNESCO report titled Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development has highlighted that the greatest threat and opportunity facing the

E

542

profession presently is its ability, or the lack of it, to deal with the challenges of climate change. The report also emphasizes that the “engineering profession must now focus the creativity and ingenuity that has delivered today’s incredible levels of human and industrial development, on the task of delivering sustainable engineering and development solutions” (UNESCO 2010, p. 59). As stated by Galloway (2008), “the need to educate the engineer of the 21st century differently – or more precisely, more strategically – is essential to the endurance of the profession” (p. 5) to avert the consequences resulting from overdevelopment. The role of the engineer as an agent of sustainability is thus pivotal in helping a nation to achieve its green targets. Engineering education is thus seen as an indispensable solution for the progress of societies, given the multitude of challenges currently faced by communities over the world with regard to climate change and unsustainable consumption patterns (UNESCO 2017).

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

leadership in taking forth the sustainable development agenda (Virtual Campus for a Sustainable Europe 2010). These are listed as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix)

(x) (xi) (xii)

(xiii) (xiv) (xv)

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Within the Context of Higher Education (xvi) This section discusses engineering education for sustainable development from the perspective of higher education. The section begins by uncovering the positioning of engineering education for sustainable development within global higher education dialogues, i.e., declarations, partnerships, and charters. Following this is the discussion on engineering education accreditation and the extent to which sustainable development features within accreditation exercises. This is followed by a review of the multitude of ways in which institutions of higher learning have adopted the inclusion of sustainable development within the curriculum of engineering programs. Declarations, Partnerships, and Charters Literature suggests that up until 2008, there have been a total of 17 declarations, partnerships, and charters developed globally to represent the involvement of higher education institutions and

(xvii)

Stockholm Declaration – 1972 Talloires Declaration – 1990 Halifax Declaration – 1991 Agenda 21: Chapter 36 – 1992 Swansea Declaration – 1993 Kyoto Declaration – 1993 Copernicus Charter – 1994 Thessaloniki Declaration – 1997 World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century and Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development in Higher Education – 1998 Handvest Duurzaam HBO – 1999 Lüneburg Declaration – 2001 Joint Declaration on Higher Education and the General Agreement on Trade in Services – 2001 Declaration of Barcelona – 2004 The Graz Declaration – 2005 Declaration on the Responsibility of Higher Education for a Democratic Culture: Citizenship, Human Rights and Sustainability – 2006 Lucerne Declaration on Geographical Education for Sustainable Development – 2007 Charter for an Alliance of French Universities in Fostering Sustainable Development – 2008

Of particular interest to the field of engineering education for sustainable development is the Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Barcelona Declaration of 2004. Settled at the 2nd International Conference of Engineering Education for Sustainable Development, the Barcelona Declaration has clearly outlined the role of institutions of higher learning as agents for change for sustainable development. Also highlighted in the Barcelona Declaration is the urgent need for new breeds of engineers, with the ability to “use their expertise not only in scientific or technological context, but equally for broader social, political and environmental

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

needs” (Barcelona Declaration 2004). The declaration also puts forth the notion that the engineers of present times should be able to: (i) Understand how their work interacts with society and the environment, locally and globally, in order to identify potential challenges, risks, and impacts (ii) Understand the contribution of their work in different cultural, social, and political contexts and take those differences into account (iii) Work in multidisciplinary teams, in order to adapt current technology to the demands imposed by sustainable lifestyles, resource efficiency, pollution prevention and waste management (iv) Apply a holistic and systemic approach to solving problems and the ability to move beyond the tradition of breaking reality down into disconnected parts (v) Participate actively in the discussion and definition of economic, social and technological policies, to help redirect society towards more sustainable development (vi) Apply professional knowledge according to deontological principles and universal values and ethics (vii) Listen closely to the demands of citizens and other stakeholders and let them have a say in the development of new technologies and infrastructures (Barcelona Declaration 2004)

To enable the development of sustainability competent engineers, institutions of higher learning have been cautioned against “adding another layer to the technical aspects of education, but rather addressing the whole educational process in a more holistic way, by considering how the student will interact with others in his or her professional life, directly or indirectly” (Barcelona Declaration 2004). The declaration also envisions for engineering education, with support from the larger context of engineering, science, and university communities, to: (i) Have an integrated approach to knowledge, attitudes, skills and values in teaching (ii) Incorporate disciplines of the social sciences and humanities (iii) Promote multidisciplinary teamwork (iv) Stimulate creativity and critical thinking (v) Foster reflection and self-learning (vi) Strengthen systemic thinking and a holistic approach. Train people who are motivated to participate and who are able to take responsible decisions

543 (vii) Raise awareness for the challenges posed by globalization (Barcelona Declaration 2004)

A call for review of present educational systems, course content, strategies of teaching and learning, and assessment, among others, has also been identified as key areas to be looked into in achieving the goals of the declaration. Sustainable Development, Engineering Education Accreditation, and the Washington Accord Sustainable development competences feature prominently within engineering program accreditation and practice. Entities such as the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) and International Engineering Alliance (IEA), which work hand in hand in the area of engineering accreditation, view sustainable development competences as an important graduate attribute under the Washington Accord. The Washington Accord is an international “multi-lateral agreement between bodies responsible for accreditation or recognition of tertiary-level engineering qualifications within their jurisdictions who have chosen to work collectively to assist the mobility of professional engineers” (International Engineering Alliance 2018). The Washington Accord is presently made up of 19 signatories. These signatories are as listed below: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xviii) (xix)

Australia Canada China Chinese Taipei Hong Kong China India Ireland Japan Korea Malaysia New Zealand Russia Singapore South Africa Sri Lanka Turkey United States United Kingdom Pakistan

E

544

The Washington Accord Knowledge Profile lists eight elements, with element WK 7 explicitly referencing sustainable development. (i) WK 1 - A systematic, theory-based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to the discipline (ii) WK2 - Conceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics and formal aspects of computer and information science to support analysis and modelling applicable to the discipline (iii) WK3 - A systematic, theory-based formulation of engineering fundamentals required in the engineering discipline (iv) WK4 - Engineering specialist knowledge that provides theoretical frameworks and bodies of knowledge for the accepted practice areas in the engineering discipline; much is at the forefront of the discipline (v) WK5 - Knowledge that supports engineering design in a practice area (vi) WK6 - Knowledge of engineering practice (technology) in the practice areas in the engineering discipline (vii) WK7 - Comprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues in engineering practice in the discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility of an engineer to public safety; and the impacts of engineering activity – economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability (viii) WK8 - Engagement with selected knowledge in the research literature of the discipline (International Engineering Alliance Secretariat 2014, p.16)

As seen above, Washington Accord graduates are expected to have a “comprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues in engineering practice in the discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility of an engineer to public safety; the impacts of engineering activity: economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability” (International Engineering Alliance Secretariat 2014, p. 16). Engineering graduates who graduate from programs accredited by the Washington Accord would thus possess the necessary sustainability knowledge, skills, and attributes to function effectively within the engineering workforce (Kelly 2016).

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

Integrating Sustainable Development Within the Engineering Curriculum Research on engineering education for sustainable development has shown that the foremost goal of the integration of sustainable development within the engineering education curriculum is to inspire and empower learners to be immersed in sustainable development-focused engineering practices and actions (Kastenhofer et al. 2010). It is also believed that besides knowledge, competences, and attitudes, professional practice and performance are critical outcomes to be tackled via engineering education to advance sustainable development competences among those interested in the profession (Kastenhofer et al. 2010). It needs to make provision for the role of the engineer as an active player within society, or, in other words, as a social, political, and ethical persona. To achieve this, education has to provide opportunities to learn and reflect upon one’s actions, the beliefs underpinning them, and their outcomes, in the context of professional agency. EE (engineering education) needs to address the way in which achieved competencies are applied in socially, culturally, and politically determined situations, including critical thinking and trying out different perspectives Otherwise, learned competencies remain merely theoretical abilities, while their actual application in real-world contexts is not considered. (Kastenhofer et al. 2010: p.47)

Interestingly, in his revolutionary work titled Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change, Sterling (2001) has noted that while the call for educational transformation had been set out during the 1970s, these reforms are seen to augment unsustainability, besides not fully addressing the “whole person – spirit, heart, head and hands” (p. 12). He further argues that educational reorientations that are in place have provided education a vastly mechanistic outlook, whereby it is: (i) still informed by a fundamentally mechanistic view of the world, and hence of learning (ii) largely ignorant of the sustainability issues that will increasingly affect all aspects of people’s lives as the century progresses (iii) blind to the rise of ecological thinking which seeks to foster a more integrative awareness of the needs of people and the environment (Sterling 2001, p. 13)

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

As such, if engineers were to play a prominent role in advocating for sustainable development, sustainability should thus promulgate as an essential component of their judgements (Sterling 2001). To accomplish this, sustainable development should be prioritized as an essential component of the curriculum of engineering education programs and not a quick fix addition to main divisions of the curriculum. Equally essential is for the context of engineering education for sustainable development within the curriculum to be reconceptualized in terms of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary learning viewpoints (Barth et al. 2007). The notion of transdisciplinarity within the engineering education curriculum is additionally advanced by Fokkema et al. (2005), who assert that a transdisciplinary sustainability move within engineering education would allow engineers to become more engaged with engineers from other specialities, in addition to stakeholders of the engineering industry. This notion of flexibility is likewise reinforced by Hanning et al. (2012), who consider this as being crucial to the advancement of sustainable development aptitudes. Abdul-Wahab et al. (2003), on the other hand, believe that environmental capabilities play a fundamental role in making headways on sustainable development competences. This is owing to the cause that engineers would inevitably confront environmental obstacles as part of their profession. Abdul-Wahab et al. additionally emphasize that engineering students must showcase more environmental consciousness, “so they can understand the importance of sustainable development and environmental protection, have a basic understanding of some of the environmental issues currently attracting public concern and to provide the scientific background and improve and reinforce knowledge about the environment as they approach the world of work” (p. 129). Given the fact that engineers play a key role in guarding the environment, Abdul-Wahab et al. (2003) are of the opinion that they should “possess the scientific

545

and technical knowledge to identify, design, build and operate systems that allow development while protecting the environment” (p. 129). In discussing the missing attributes within the engineering education curriculum, Al-Rawahy (2013) stresses that there is a crucial need to incorporate the current realities surrounding the engineering profession. To stay relevant within the workforce, Al-Rawahy cautions that engineers should be able to work within some of the key challenging global contexts listed below: (i) A global platform where inputs are obtained, marketed, and products are manufactured, and exported (ii) Competition for survival (business, self, flora, fauna, etc) (iii) Environmental ‘degradation’ due to industrial and economic development (iv) Promotion and awareness of SD and practice (v) Knowledge availability and expertise is easily and readily available (vi) Communication technology has rendered distance between sender and receiver almost irrelevant (vii) Personal and human-behavior qualities and attributes such as trust, truth, ethical and moral behavior are declining (viii) Inequality in living standard and provision of the basic necessities of life among human populace (ix) Massive and deliberate destruction of human lives and property due to wars, political and ethnic conflicts, control of resources, etc (x) A more inter-dependent world in terms of planet’s survival (Al-Rawahy 2013, p.398)

These contexts, ironically, are not fully integrated within the current engineering curriculum, thus prompting the need to relook the content and organization of engineering education, notes Al-Rawahy (2013). The inclusion of sustainable development concepts within specialized courses in the engineering curriculum, the inclusion of seminars by subject matter experts and professionals from the industry, and the use of teaching strategies such as case studies and real-world experiences are some of the means in which sustainable development can be integrated within the engineering curriculum, stresses Al-Rawahy (2013).

E

546

Conclusion Regardless of the mounting deliberations on the integration of sustainable development within the engineering education curriculum, there still exists a dearth of documented efforts on engineering education for sustainable development. There is, furthermore, a shortage of collected works on capabilities, graduate attributes, or learning outcomes linked to engineering education for sustainable development (Byrne et al. 2010). This is relatively unanticipated, given the accumulative significance for sustainable engineering and sustainability literacy outcomes within accreditation standards of engineering programs. With the global adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, there is also an increasing need to further understand the contributions of engineering education for sustainable development within this context. The discussions on engineering education for sustainable development presented in this entry are an indication of the growing demand for intensified efforts in producing sustainability literate and competent engineering graduates. With professional engineering bodies progressively calling for more engineering graduates to be sustainability skilled, it is time for higher education institutions offering engineering programs to intensify efforts into developing engineering education programs that are able to address the current global demands and that of the engineering profession.

Cross-References ▶ Education for Sustainability ▶ Education for Sustainable Development

References Abdul-Wahab SA, Abdulraheem MY, Hutchinson M (2003) The need for inclusion of environmental education in undergraduate engineering curricula. Int J Sustain High Educ 4(2):126–137 Al-Rawahy KH (2013) Engineering education and sustainable development: the missing link. Proc Soc Behav Sci 102:392–401

Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Barcelona Declaration Final Version (2004) EESD Barcelona declaration, viewed 25 Apr 2018. http://eesd15. engineering.ubc.ca/declaration-of-barcelona/ Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430 Byrne E, Desha C, Fitzpatrick J, Hargroves K (2010) Engineering education for sustainable development: a review of international progress. In: 3rd international symposium for engineering education. University College York, Cork, pp 1–42 Dowling D, Carew A, Hadgraft R (2010) Engineering your future: an Australasian guide. Wiley, Queensland Fokkema J, Jansen L, Mulder K (2005) Sustainability: necessity for a prosperous society. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(3):219–228 Galloway P (2008) The 21st-century engineer. American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia Hanning A, Abelsson AP, Lundqvist U, Svanström M (2012) Are we educating engineers for sustainability? Comparison between obtained competences and Swedish industry’s needs. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(3):305–320 International Engineering Alliance (2018) Washington Accord, viewed 26 Apr 2018. http://www. ieagreements.org/accords/washington/ International Engineering Alliance Secretariat (2014) Washington Accord 25 Years – 1989–2014: celebrating international engineering education standards and recognition, viewed 26 Apr 2018. http:// www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/His tory/25YearsWashingtonAccord-A5booklet-FINAL.pdf Kastenhofer K, Lansu A, van Dam-Mieras R, Sotoudeh M (2010) The contribution of university curricula to EESD. Gaia 19(1):44–51 Kelly WE (2016) Brief for GSRD-2016 update engineering education for sustainable development, viewed 26 Apr 2018. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/970027_Kelly_Engineering%20Educa tion%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education – revisioning learning and change – Schumacher briefings. Green Books, Dartington UNESCO (2010) Engineering: issues, challenges and opportunities for development, viewed 20 Apr 2018. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189753e.pdf UNESCO (2017) Engineering education, viewed 20 Apr 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ science-technology/engineering/engineering-education/ UNESCO (2017a) Sustainable engineering, viewed 25 Apr 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ science-technology/engineering/sustainable-engineering/ Virtual Campus for a Sustainable Europe (2010) Declarations on higher education and sustainable development, viewed 25 Apr 2018. https://www2.leuphana.de/vcse/ uploads/media/Declarations_on_higher_education_ and_sustainable_development.pdf

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

Environmental Aesthetics ▶ Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs Grace M. Mwaura1, Louise Michelle Fitzgerald2 and Priyanka deSouza3 1 African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya 2 School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Definition Environment and sustainability clubs are voluntary student groups promoting participation of students in learning about and working toward the conservation and sustainability of the environment. In this entry, we specifically focus on university environmental clubs whose activities include working within and outside the university as well as globally on matters such as climate justice and sustainable development.

Introduction: Students in a Changing Planet The growing recognition that humans have tampered with the earth system, overshooting planetary boundaries, has led, since the 1970s, to the birth of widespread environmental social movements. Despite these movements, actions to stop environmental destruction have been slow. This has been ascribed to the neoliberal project of rendering ecology equivalent to the economy in importance, thereby constraining ecological sustainability within the parameters

547

of economic growth (Tulloch and Nielson 2014). This is seen continually at international climate negotiations where the effect of climate targets on GDP is used as an excuse to water down commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This dire logic has resulted in the neutralization or depoliticization of the term sustainability by its enfoldment in the neoliberal agenda (Tulloch and Nielson 2014; Pitcher 2011). Indeed, within this hidden framework, ironically enough, it is capitalism and the logic of the market that have been portrayed as a champion for sustainability and have given people the false security that “something is being done,” for example, with sustainable consumption being touted as a key environmental policy. However, scholars have exposed the devastating contradictions between market capitalism and sustainability (Williams and McNeill 2005; Pellow 2007; Parr 2012; Klein 2014). It is being increasingly recognized that a new economic framework and a move back to the formerly radical concept of ecological sustainability are required to achieve true change. In the face of this, the big question then is, are social movements capable of bringing about this radical change in our economic system? Although Marx and Polanyi, among others, have advanced theses that society regulates capitalism through class conflict and the re-embedment of economic relations in the social and cultural relations, the insidious encroachment of neoliberalism into public space has eroded it, thereby making it harder and harder for civic discourse to challenge corporate power. It has reduced individuals to “selfinterested consumers” and destroyed collective structures capable of counteracting the power of the market. Indeed, even universities, the bulwark of culture and free thought, are increasingly being “colonized” by this ideology (Giroux 2002). This is partly because the collapse of the welfare state in many parts of the world resulted in limited state support to many universities, which has required them to “reposition” themselves (Kwiek 2001). Many of these universities thus change their

E

548

teaching and funding model and become “corporatized.” The logic of a “ruthless consumerism” in many cases thus dictates that the primary task of these universities is to “sell themselves” without a critical evaluation of their role within society (Kwiek 2001). Nevertheless, by putting our gaze on three university students’ clubs, we demonstrate that student-led social movements still have the potential to transform the economy and society. Historically, students around the world have shown concern over the environment and the complex web of national and international injustices that lead to unsustainability. Clubs are one of the main avenues through which university students engage locally and nationally to address these injustices. Their actions often reflect the effects of globalization on youth aspirations and how they are turning their environmental and sustainability knowledge into action either locally or globally through new social movements within and outside their learning institutions. Drawing on three examples – Kenyan environmental clubs that shape students’ professional outlook, a decolonization movement in South Africa and Britain that questions the corporatization of the university, and a successful Irish student-led divestment movement that was followed by a national divestment decision – this entry demonstrates how environmental and/or sustainability clubs have shifted from mere knowledge acquisition and awareness creation to policy influence, consequently, shaping students’ environmental subjectivities. We focus on the discourses that shape the vision of these clubs, how they embody sustainability principles, and the implications of their existence to the students and wider society. The entry is structured as follows: the ensuing subsections present three examples of students’ clubs from Kenya, Ireland, South Africa, and the United Kingdom; the second section analyzes the contributions of these clubs to sustainability education; and the final section makes concluding remarks on the future of students’ clubs in the context of sustainability education.

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

University Environmental Clubs in Kenya In the early 1990s in Kenya, environmental clubs emerged alongside other changes in the university and the civil society such as the emergence of an environmental movement in Kenya, the introduction of environmental studies in higher education, the weakening of students’ political organization, and as well the restructuring of university education. Currently, in almost each public university, there exists an environmental club which offers an opportunity for students to bring transformative change to themselves and society. Central to the proliferation of these clubs was the role of the late Prof Wangari Maathai who led the first environmental movement in Kenya which positioned environmental challenges as socioeconomic and political issues of concern (Mwaura et al. 2017). It was during the protests against the appropriation of Uhuru Park to developers that students’ participation became visible and has continued being vibrant. While past involvement in these campaigns was marred with violent confrontations with the police (Mwaura 2018), the last two decades have witnessed peaceful environmental campaigns such as the restoration of Nairobi River, protection of the Mau forest, anti-poaching campaigns, and more recently protests against the Lamu Coal plant. Other initiatives have included tree planting, waste management, nature hikes, and environmental education in schools and communities. The clubs’ vision is to equip the students with environmental knowledge while providing a platform to become environmental subjects who champion for specific environmental concerns in the country. Over the years, these clubs have become some of the strongest professional groups with close association with communities, national and international environmental organizations, and government agencies. A study on these clubs showed that their existence is based on the students’ intrinsic environmental concerns and aspirations for better future careers and belonging (Mwaura et al. 2017). These are motivated by role models, future prospects, current threats to the environment, and

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

networks of influence to which these students belong. The clubs offer the students diverse and pragmatic learning and action spaces where they incorporate new visions of themselves and of the world around them. As they experience nature, students develop positive attitude toward the environment, while environmental campaigns help them gain practical skills and an understanding of the complexity of socioeconomic and political conjunctures that affect the environment. While university education remains significant to young people’s social mobility, they are concerned about the government inability to maintain high-quality education or even an economic growth that results in employment. Alongside their witness of increasing environmental challenges, these students often feel the need to maintain their privileged elite status in society that allows them to speak out for the society. Thus, outside the university, these clubs are the spaces of negotiating future careers through professional socialization and certified experiences and for expressing their citizenship through their depoliticized environmental activism. As such, the clubs are viewed as spaces for students’ self-improvement that help one to “figure out” their individual aspirations and reposition themselves for the competitive job market while also ensuring they are recognized in their community as environmentalists. On the other hand, in a country like Kenya where students’ political activism is admonished, student environmentalists consciously depoliticize their environmental campaigns so as to distinguish them from the political identities associated with the Student Unions (Mwaura 2018). In so doing, they are able to assert their hybrid identities which advance their individual aspirations for career progression while also advancing their collective aspiration for environmental activism. However, depoliticization must not be viewed as indicating a depoliticized environmental space in Kenya; rather, it portrays the hybrid positions that university students occupy so as to attain certain recognitions in society. Kenya’s environmental movement remains highly political, but the students displace their political perspectives into the future.

549

In effect, by joining environmental clubs, students emerge with broad range of environmental knowledge and experience making them competitive for the job market, they are well networked within the environmental movement accessing them the potential employers and clients, and as well, they are able to highlight environmental concerns through their depoliticized actions without being overly aggressive.

E Decolonization Movements: Rhodes Must Fall The rise of modern European capitalist colonialism and the neoliberal agenda has served to perpetuate modes of production conventionally associated with colonialism, which exploit black bodies as a form of cheap labor, as well as natural resources from the Global South (Hall 1980; Kapoor 2007). In this advanced version of colonialism, control is not exerted by direct political rule, but through the free market. Much like with the concept of sustainability, this free market ideology is increasingly obfuscating the language of race and whiteness. At the same time, these hierarchies of whiteness are kept alive, through policies of policing and security, thus ensuring that the only language in which these racist hierarchies are talked about by the state is the language of “discipline and control” (Kapoor 2013). Decolonization movements in universities expose the hypocrisy of the so-called innocuous nature of the free market. By explicitly talking about and decrying the hierarchies of whiteness that are the very engine of production in this framework, they open up dialogue about what needs to be done to attain radical change in our economic system. In this way they create the space to bridge the disconnect between radical ecological sustainability and our economy. In South Africa, Rhodes Must Fall and its offspring, Fees Must Fall, began in 2015 at the University of Cape Town (UCT) calling for the decolonization of the university, hence challenging the dominant neoliberal paradigm in which the university operate and opening up space for new

550

modes of thought. Although these two movements are not ostentatiously about the environment, they expose the politics behind the watered-down version of “sustainability,” opening up the space to imagine a new economic, social, and thus environmental paradigm. RMF was borne from the frustration that 20 years after the end of apartheid, structurally nothing had changed. In 2015, two thirds of the students at the university were white, only a miniscule fraction of the faculty were black South African, and the curriculum did not address the context or needs of the broader student population. The focal point of the movement at UCT was the call for the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes on the university grounds. UCT acceded to the student demands and removed the statue of Rhodes. Dialogue is still underway about how to achieve true transformation and decolonization of the university, without further burdening the black bodies and legitimizing hierarchies of whiteness. This discussion has occupied central stage in South Africa and has been magnified by the Fees Must Fall movement. The Fees Must Fall movement, born of RMF, explicitly recognized the insidious role of neoliberalism in perpetuating these hierarchies and called for making university education free in the face of impending tuition hikes. The movement successfully barred a proposed price hike in the South African university system. The conversation that was sparked at UCT regarding the role and responsibilities of the university in society today, as well as the pressing need to move beyond the root cause of destruction: the current free market framework, has resonated with students around the world. RMF has spread to universities such as Oxford in Great Britain, where similar calls for the decolonization and democratization of university spaces, as well as recognition as truly equal members of their universities, have been made. RMF at Oxford also called for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes at the entrance of Oriel College. Unlike at UCT, Oriel College refused to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes, after donors threatened to revoke nearly 100 million pounds of funding if the statue was removed (further highlighting the corporatization of the university). Despite this, it

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

sparked an important conversation about the curriculum and the relevance of the knowledge system that the university propagated. When Oxford finally did declare changes in its curriculum, it was careful to mention that these changes had been long planned and had nothing to do with RMF and they were important changes all the same. While RMF does not use the language of sustainability in its demands, at the core of its demands are tenets of sustainability such as appropriation of resources, equity, and justice. The domination and destruction of nature have been intertwined with colonialism, and as such decolonization movements are an essential part of the sustainability sphere. Therefore, we need environment movements to take an explicitly political stance and connect to decolonization movements for meaningful conversations about sustainability.

The Irish University Divestment Campaign The success of the fossil fuel divestment movement in recent years has been astounding. Beginning initially with a handful of Ivy League universities in the United States, in little over 6 years since the launch of the divestment campaign, over $6 trillion has now been divested globally, marking a new wave of environmentalism. Following in the tradition of other social movements such as the anti-apartheid campaign or anti-tobacco movement, the fossil fuel divestment movement is explicitly justice based with the clarion call, “if it is wrong to wreck the climate, it is wrong to profit from that wreckage.” The potency of the divestment movement lies in the clear presentation of the facts around the urgency of climate change while simultaneously equipping young people with the tools to take action. Furthermore, the inclusive, nonhierarchical, open-source, activist-centered nature of the Fossil Free divestment campaign (largely disseminated by 350.org) has allowed for a grassroots heterogeneous movement to flourish across the globe in universities, faith communities, municipalities, and cities.

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

The successful divestment campaign of the students of Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland, gives insights into the nature of the divestment movement globally and helps highlight the importance of such campaigns for students and universities alike, in responding to the sustainability challenges of our time. The Fossil Free campaign, set up in September 2015 in Trinity College Dublin College, is considered one of the most prestigious colleges in Ireland. By the end of 2016, the campaign had successfully persuaded the university to divest its funds from fossil fuel companies, which was followed by a government vote to nationally divest public funds from fossil fuel companies. From the beginning, the movement recognized the importance of building the capacity of the participating students. Before setting up the group, one of the founders had attended the annual European Gathering of 350.org, an essential space of networking, capacity building, and resource sharing within the movement. As the campaign grew, more student members attended other trainings such as from People & Planet UK, which gave them campaigning and organizing tools. This enabled them to run a well-executed campaign outwardly, while understanding the importance of inclusivity and facilitating the integration of newcomers, particularly those with little previous experience of activism or environmental knowledge. The general tone of the divestment movement has been “to change everything, we need everyone,” and the essence of this has been to celebrate diversity and inclusion. This was reflected in the workings of the Trinity College group throughout emphasizing the importance of looking after one another within the movement. The divestment campaign provided the platform to introduce students to the issues around climate and society. The information was based on the simple Bill McKibben’s “Do the Math,” unveiling the stark reality of the fossil fuel industry and, at the same time, offering people the opportunity to take action. This has overcome much of the inertia around climate change, offering channels to tackle these systemic issues as part of a broader movement. In communicating to the wider college community, the students focused

551

primarily on the moral argument for divestment. As with other campus-based campaigns, they also noted that the university’s mission is to equip students to have the best future possible. If they, however, simultaneously contribute to the destruction of this through investing in climatewrecking industries, they fundamentally undermine their primary function. The college authorities were largely receptive to the students’ demands. In particular they saw the opportunity for TCD to be placed on the map and display leadership through a divestment policy. They invited students for consultations, and in turn the students presented the expertise surrounding the financial arguments such as “carbon bubble” and “stranded assets” underpinning the logic of divestment. The college divestment announcement was made in December 2016, as part the Divest-Invest Day of Action, allowing them to take part in this historic day and join a growing movement of change. Not only did students learn about climate change and climate justice, but also more specifically, they learnt the systemic causes of the climate crises, hence the need for solutions to be focused at a system level, rather than solely on individual actions. This marks a shift from previous environmental movements, which would have emphasized the personal, rather than political system level need for change. As one student shared, “It was very empowering to learn that there are real possibilities for change and that it is not the fault of individuals that our societies have such a tendency to pollute. Once you know the system is the problem you can hope to change the system.” This reflects the broader movement, which has always sought to connect the dots and highlight the systemic nature of the climate crises. The students emphasized this throughout their campaign taking issue with the fossil fuel industry as a whole and the system that supports this. This was reflected, for instance, in the solidarity action the students held with Standing Rock, highlighting the intersection between indigenous rights and fossil fuel extraction, and the injustices therein. They mobilized toward international days of actions tackling the root causes of climate change, including a number of them traveling to the COP

E

552

21 of the UNFCCC in Paris in 2015. Furthermore, they later coordinated with Trócaire, an NGO which was advocating for national divestment specifically on climate justice grounds. The experience of being involved was educational and empowering. The divestment win itself wasn’t the most formative aspect of the campaign; rather it provided a hook to inoculate students to climate justice ideals and action. Colm Tong, co-founder of the group who has recently completed a study of the divestment campaign, provided the insight “divestment wasn’t the most important thing, rather it was the process around training and empowering people to engage with the issues around climate change and justice.” The experience of being involved in the divestment campaign equipped the students with the resources and knowledge to address other justice issues, including contributing to the push for national divestment. A month after the campus divestment decision, a Divestment Bill proposed by the independent politician Thomas Pringle was passed in the Irish parliament. Although direct causality is hard to establish here, the momentum around the TCD campaign set a favorable context for the national divestment decision. The students’ experience and empowerment gained through involvement in the university campaign meant that they were able to support and consult Trócaire, which had worked tirelessly on lobbying for national divestment. Importantly, the students had become an epistemic community and were invited to the houses of parliament to present on the subject of divestment ahead of the historic national vote. The intersectional justice-based learning that the students had gained also equipped them to tackle broader justice issues. Following the national divestment decision, they turned focus, among other things, to campaigning to remove companies profiting from direct provision centers from the college campus. Such centers are considered by many to be unjust, in that asylum seekers spend many years there, without the right to cook or work, suffering from lack of dignity, social isolation, and institutionalization. As such students were empowered to tackle intersectional systemic injustices both on their campuses and

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

in subsequent careers upon graduating. Consequently, the university also benefited greatly from this divestment decision as it demonstrated moral leadership, which was further legitimized by the national divestment decision.

Clubs’ Contribution to Sustainability Education As presented in the three examples, intentionally and otherwise, students’ clubs align to a variety of sustainability challenges and, on many occasions, attempt to work beyond silos. This effort, however, requires them to have skills in critical enquiry and systemic thinking to explore the complexity and implications of their actions. It also requires a new pedagogy, which sees the learners develop new skills and competencies for partnerships, participation, and action (Henderson and Tilbury 2004). Evidently, young people are establishing novel ways of embodying citizenship, responsibility, and social action, and among these are micro-politics toward specific issues such as equality and environmental concerns in the broader sustainability perspective. While claims have been made that young people are becoming apolitical, indeed what we observe in these examples is an extremely well-organized form of politics that engages with specific issues which essentially challenge existing political systems and introduce a new paradigm. They are “not rejecting the political, but the politics of the land and devising new creative ways of creating social change” (Honwana 2012). A link can be made between students’ participation in environmental clubs with their academic performance and the overall university contribution to sustainability. Not only are the students challenged to learn beyond what is taught in the classroom; through these clubs, they become experts on sustainability issues to an extent they are invited to dialogue with policymakers at university and state level. Indirectly, they are positioning the university as centers of excellence, and indeed they have put an incredible effort in linking the research community with the policymakers and practitioners. The clubs reinforce this role by

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

widening their reach and introducing innovative ways that both challenge the universities to do more but also position them as models for sustainability action. Perhaps the biggest challenge with these clubs is whether they have the capacity to scale their influence, which evidently aligns with the whole-school approach to sustainability by focusing on learning in the school and in the wider society (Henderson and Tilbury 2014). The Rhodes Must Fall movement demonstrates the paradigm shift required to ensure that the current modes of production align with sustainability principles. Despite the continued erosion of public spheres for civic discourse through the insidious reach of capitalism, such student movements continue to safeguard the space of the university to have these important conversations. They further show that this generation is not ready to be foot soldiers in preserving the current destructive system and that they have the courage to mobilize internationally including through using the power of mass media. The success of the divestment movement was in the emphasis placed on capacity building of individuals and the collective in a nonhierarchical manner ensuring that the knowledge and tools are spread among members and passed on to newcomers. The moral and justice-based nature of the demands emphasized the systemic nature of the crises and the need for a global movement for justice campaigns. The lesson to draw from this would be that in listening to student activist movements, colleges have the opportunity to be progressive institutions. As Bratman et al. (2016) note, the campus fossil fuel divestment movement holds potential to change the university’s expressed values from complicity with fossil fuel economies toward an emergent paradigm of climate justice, stemming predominantly from student activism. The momentum of new social movements continues to grow. With climate change and resource degradation being some of the greatest challenges young people will face in their lifetime, students’ clubs provide spaces for learning, empowerment, and support. Involvement in these movements allows for capacity building, skills sharing, and confidence building in a way that cannot be

553

achieved within a lecture hall, which sparks further initiatives and innovation. University authorities would do well to promote and positively nourish such clubs to ensure they remain relevant, contribute to global justice, and serve their students in becoming active engaged citizens capable of addressing twenty-first-century sustainability challenges. Fundamentally, these examples demonstrate that students’ concerns in the twenty-first century have shifted from a focus on mere local issues to their interconnectedness of social, economic, environmental, and political issues. Indeed, students’ clubs provide opportunities for the individuals to incorporate new visions of themselves and the world around them as they experience the changes in the planet and society, develop positive attitudes toward the environment, and gain practical skills and an understanding of the complexity of socioeconomic and political conjunctures that affect the environment. It is the knowledge and attitudes that inspire their responsibility upon which they design sustainability solutions. Thus, students’ clubs, in their multifarious actions, are important avenues for learning for sustainability in higher education.

Conclusion An essential question to pose about environmental clubs is whether environmental motivation or the intrinsic environmental concerns are enough to uphold these clubs. It is evident that sustainability movements are dependent on institutional motivators, new governance spaces, creative participation approaches, weighting of values, and finally the perception of the future. Although students’ environmental concerns are largely shaped by global environmental narratives, they are also deeply inspired by every possible imagination of change they held of themselves first, the community, the environment, and the country. They believe that success and power are transforming their society. Power comes with responsibility, and as in all the three cases, university students have a strong desire for both. They demonstrate a responsibility to share knowledge with the wider

E

554

society and use it to protect the environment and the economy for present and future generation. These movements are opportunities to continually shape their goals and values as they interacted with one another while challenging normative worldviews on environment and belonging. In actively participating in these movements, they bring out their passion and confidence against the prevailing worldviews of youth as a hopeless and problematic and indeed introduce a paradigm shift in issues of sustainability which encompass environmental conservation, socioeconomic justice, and equity. Consequentially, they break these silos and introduce a new way of thinking of the future without fossil fuels, without social injustices, and where the concerns for the future generations are taken into consideration. Importantly, these clubs show us the centrality of generations in shaping futures. While developed countries may claim that the Second World War destroyed their future images, in Africa, colonialism, lack of democracy, and the continued plunder of the planet by neocolonial rulers may have destroyed the future images. These futures, however, are being renegotiated in various forms: civil society, multiparty politics, uprisings, revolutions, and students’ clubs among others. Environmental politics is the most recent form of negotiating future images as it prioritizes socioeconomic and political interests to stop natural resources degradation. These future images are widely supported by grassroots organizations, international organizations, governments, and even private sector. But as demonstrated in the three clubs, they have also attracted young elites who perceive themselves as responsible for the future, already denied by the present generation through their continued politics of the belly. The youth responsibility challenges the normative homogenous generational approach to social change and equally highlights the similarity in the disparities and uncertainties in future aspirations across the world. In conclusion, students’ clubs enable us to see that young people’s priorities for a better life, belonging and making a contribution to society, are not just with regard to the future but also very relevant to their everyday lives. Clubs should be recognized as integral in achieving key tenets of

Environmental and Sustainability Clubs

sustainability in higher education – leadership, whole school participation, participatory learning approaches, regular professional development for student leaders, greening of the school, monitoring, reflection and evaluation, and action research. Fundamentally, the clubs offer a student-centered learning opportunity where the learner can reflect on the content and process of sustainability. As student clubs have the potential to contribute to quality university education through experiential learning, education policies should consider their inclusion as a core curriculum component. However, there is need for a standard way of running these clubs to ensure that students benefit from working beyond their silos and interacting with people across disciplines and different scales. Universities must acknowledge that the clubs offer learners practical skills while socializing them as sustainability leaders and experts – strategies that enable their upward social mobility while enhancing sustainability more broadly.

References Bratman E, Brunette K, Shelly D, Nicholas S (2016) Justice is the goal: divestment as climate change resistance. J Environ Stud Sci 6(4):677–690 Giroux H (2002) Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: the university as a democratic public sphere. Harv Educ Rev 72(4):425–464 Hall S (1980) Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In: Sociological theories, race and colonialism. Paris: UNESCO, pp 305–345 Henderson K, Tilbury D (2004) Whole-school approaches to sustainability: an international review of sustainable school programs. Report Prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for The Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government, ISBN: 186408979 2 Honwana A (2012) The time of youth: work, social change and politics in Africa, 1st edn. Kumarian Press, Boulder Kapoor D (2007) International perspectives on education and decolonization. Int Educ 37(1):1 Kapoor N (2013) The advancement of racial neoliberalism in Britain. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Symposium Rethinking Racial Formation Theory: 36(6):1028–1046 Klein N (2014) This changes everything: capitalism vs. the climate. Penguin Books, London Kwiek M (2001) Globalization and higher education. High Educ Eur 26(1):27–38 Mwaura GM (2018) ‘Professional students do not play politics’: how Kenyan students professionalise

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development environmental activism and produce neoliberal subjectivities. In: Pickard S, Bessant J (eds) Young people re-generating politics in times of crises. Springer, Cham, pp 59–76 Mwaura GM, Pradhan M, Gitahi K (2017) Envisioning youth futures through university students’ education for sustainability initiatives. In: Corcoran PB, Weakland J, Wals AEJ (eds) Envisioning futures for environmental and sustainability education. Academic Publishers, Wageningen Parr A (2012) Hijacking sustainability. MIT Press, Boston Pellow DN (2007) Resisting global toxics: transnational movements for environmental justice. MIT Press, Boston Pitcher B (2011) Radical subjects after hegemony. Subjectivity 4(1):87–102 Tulloch L, Neilson D (2014) The neoliberalisation of sustainability. Citizenship Soc Econ Educ 13(1):26–38 Williams JB, McNeill JM (2005) The current crisis in neoclassical economics and the case for an economic analysis based on sustainable development. U21Global Working Paper No. 001/2005

Environmental Art ▶ Art-Based Teaching on Sustainable Development

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development Arminda do Paço and Rozélia Laurett Department of Management and Economics, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

Environmental Behaviour Definition This behavior involves adopting attitudes and behaviours aiming to minimise any adverse effects on natural environment.

Sustainable Development Definition Ensuring that this generation meets its needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; taking into account three main dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

555

Introduction In order to deal with environmental challenges and develop practical solutions for a sustainable world, some international organisations have actively committed to launching relevant projects, as is the case with the United Nations (UN). On January 1st 2016, the UN officially launched the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed to held attain the 2030 Agenda. These 17 SDGs are to be adopted by every country, and are the following: No Poverty; Zero Hunger; Good Health and Well-Being; Quality Education; Gender Equality; Clean Water and Sanitation; Affordable and Clean Energy, Decent Work and Economic Growth; Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Reduced Inequalities; Sustainable Cities and Communities; Responsible Consumption and Production; Climate Action; Life below Water; Life and Land; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; and Partnerships for the Goals (UNDP 2016). Hence, we may verify the relevance of this topic at a global level; however, to really put the premises of sustainable development into practice, there is a pre-requisite to accomplish: the modification of individual and organisational behaviours (Dobson 2007). Thus, one of the actions for implementation might promote sustainable consumption and production focusing on people’s lifestyles as a critical issue, pointing out the importance of understanding and promoting environmentally responsible behaviours in human life, both at the individual and the societal levels (UNEP 2012a,b). However, despite these increased efforts and commitments, and even some improvements in terms of reducing the consumption of primary resources, the degradation of the ecosystem persists. According to Pogutz and Micale (2011), the aggregate level of emissions, energy consumption, and depletion of primary stocks such as water and forests has not substantially changed. One factor that contributes largely to this encapsulates the continued growth of consumption patterns, failing to accompany progress in other areas, such as production processes (Clark 2007). Two questions arise at this point: (i) Which factors impact on sustainable behaviours and

E

556

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development

how might these behaviours be enhanced? and (ii) How can environmentally friendly behaviours contribute to sustainable development? Answering these implies gasping the significate of both concepts: environmental behaviour and sustainable development. Several authors have contributed with definitions. For instance, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) define environmental behaviour as a type that consciously seeks to minimise the negative impacts of one’s activities on the environment. Regarding the meaning of sustainable development, one of the most important definitions comes from the 1987 Brundtland Report that defines how “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, p.16). Another definition comes from the Triple Bottom Line model, proposed by Elkington (1994), stating that sustainable development must take into account three aspects: economic, social and environmental. Thus, being an environmentally friendly consumer involves adopting attitudes and behaviours designed to minimise any adverse effects on the planet (Paço and Varejão 2010). The consumer is faced with a variety of choices with impacts occurring in the consumption and postconsumption phase of product usage (Blok et al. 2015). Aware consumers, practising sustainable consumption, fulfil their basic needs while minimising their utilisation of natural resources, toxic materials, emissions of waste and pollution so as not to harm the needs of future generations (Kilbourne et al. 1997). However, several challenges arise out of sustainable development, and with one related to environmental behaviours; researchers in this field have been realising that an individual, institution or company concerned about the natural environment will not necessarily adopt proenvironmental behaviours; hence, understanding the attitudes and motivations that lead the respective actors to effective environmentally friendly behaviours is crucial to contributing towards sustainable development.

The Impact of Consumer Behaviours on Natural Environments Initially, following the Brundtland Commission, emphasis rested on the need for changes to the production systems (Clark 2007). However, since the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – UNCED) and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, the concept of sustainable consumption and production was refined by several actors that determine how the consumption and production processes prove equally detrimental to the environment (Pogutz and Micale 2011). The European Union (EU) clarified its perspective on sustainable consumption and production in its fifth Environmental Action Programme (1992–2000), which introduced new general principles, such as encouraging changes in social behaviour by involving all actors, including consumers and citizens. Furthermore, in 2008, the European Commission approved an Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production designed to develop robust policies to advance these goals (European Commission 2008). The aim was to encourage consumers to make more informed and sustainable environmental choices while simultaneously favouring the diffusion of efficient and innovative production processes and products, reducing dependency on raw materials, and incentivising optimal resource utilisation (Nash 2009). Sustainable consumption thus constitutes a practical approach and an umbrella term comprising of several key issues: “meeting needs, enhancing the quality of life, improving resource efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy sources, minimizing waste, taking a life cycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension” (Wang et al. 2014, p.154) with the core goals of: reducing the volume of consumption of goods and changing consumer habits and patterns; and achieving system sustainability. Thus, sustainable consumption is essential to achieving the principal goal of sustainability. And in order to enable sustainable consumption, individuals might start by reducing their levels of

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development

557

material and energy consumption through two different ways: by reducing their total levels of consumption or by improving the efficiency and environmental characteristics of products (Nagypál et al. 2015). In terms of the consumer dimension, changing attitudes and behaviours amounts to an even more complex challenge because of the influence of psychological factors, including human values, which play a crucial role in promoting the sustainable consumption of natural resources and energy (Kaida and Kaida 2016). As already demonstrated by research, consumer behaviour and consumption practices emerge out of the influence of several factors, comprising economic, sociological, psychological, technological, and environmental aspects. Additionally, social and behavioural issues from everyday life, cultural norms and values, options presented to consumers and the existing infrastructures, habits, and routines are all factors of influence (Tukker et al. 2006). Therefore, environmental behaviours stem from different motivations, variables and factors, and become relevant to understanding this process as environmental intentions or concerns can transform into actions favourable to sustainable development. Thus, several researches have focused on understanding and promoting pro-environmental behaviours in keeping with how human behaviour directly influences the vast majority of global environmental problems; in this way, changing behaviours amounts to an alternative for reducing environmental impacts on the planet (Steg and Vlek 2009). Minimising environmental problems and achieving a more sustainable world in the long term are crucial. Steg and Vlek (2009) identify in the literature three factors as able to influence environmental behaviour: (1) Motivation factors (weighing costs and benefits; moral and normative concerns; affects); (2) Contextual factors; and (3) Habitual behaviours. In turn, Blok et al. (2015) propose certain internal and external factors as tending to influence environmental behaviour. Other studies (e.g. Stern et al. 1993 and Schultz et al. 1995) suggest that demographic characteristics such as schooling, gender, age and income

influence environmental behaviours. Table 1 depicts some of the factors that, according to the literature, tend to influence environmental behaviour.

Strategies for Sustainable Consumption There are several strategies advocated as the means for contributing to more sustainable behaviours, for example, putting into practice recycling strategies and incentives to reduce car usage. According to Steg and Vlek (2009), when it comes to the issue of recycling, the whole process needs planning and disseminating as does reducing car usage. In this specific case, individuals require showing that other transport options are available and more beneficial. Pogutz and Micale (2011) identify two main strategies for modifying consumption levels and patterns in order to decrease environmental harm: shifting demand to low-impact consumption products, and ensuring material demand falls. These strategies must involve all the actors in the economic system (governments, businesses, and individuals). Considering the strategy of shifting demand to low-impact consumption products, the aim involves changing consumer attitudes toward environmentally friendly products and services and encouraging the propagation of environmentally friendly shopping. There have been efforts by policy makers and international agencies to foster green and sustainable purchasing habits, through administrative and economic instruments (e.g. product standards, taxes, ecolabels) as well as distributing information on responsible consumption to raise citizen awareness of the impact of their choices. The Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan, endorsed by the European Union in 2008, represents an attempt to organise these many and diverse efforts to supplement other environmental policies. As is evident, the objective includes boosting demand for more sustainable goods while also encouraging retailers and producers to educate consumers on sustainable purchases, thereby increasing their proactive roles in this process (European Commission 2008).

E

558

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Factors influencing environmental behaviour Factors Motivational factors

Contextual factors

Habitual behaviour

Demographic characteristics Internal factors

External factors

Description Weighing costs and benefits: Related to the alternatives that may offer greater benefits and lower costs (Steg and Vlek 2009) Moral and normative concerns: Moral factors are more closely related to prosocial values, altruistic values and people’s beliefs, moral obligations over acting pro-environmentally. The normative concerns relate to compulsory and descriptive norms (Steg and Vlek 2009) Affect: Affects influence environmental behaviours; for example, in the case of car usage with affection for cars relevant to some people (Steg and Vlek 2009) This reinforces how contextual factors also influence human behaviour. For example, contextual factors such as infrastructures, technical facilities, product availability and the characteristics of the product and/or service. Persons may choose to use public transportation instead of their own cars, however this requires transportation options and the entire infrastructure necessary to facilitating the exchange (Steg and Vlek 2009) Behaviour can often be considered as habitual and driven by automatic processes. Thus, carrying out interventions in habits needs to take into account how they are formed, reinforced and sustained (Steg and Vlek 2009) Demographic characteristics such as: Gender (Stern et al. 1993; Schultz et al. 1995), income, schooling, age and urban living area (Schultz et al. 1995). This also considers variables able to influence environmental behaviours Among the internal factors identified by Blok et al. (2015), there are: General values, personal norms, social norms, perceived behavioural control, attitude towards pro-environmental behaviour, environmental awareness, and environmental values Among the internal factors identified by Blok et al. (2015), there are: Situational factors, leadership support, leadership boss

However, buying intentions do not always get translated into effective purchases as already stated by previous studies (e.g. Essoussi and Linton 2010; Lee 2009). A great number of consumers have not yet crossed the line between intention and action; however, the context is changing rapidly and consumers now demonstrate higher levels of awareness around the environmental impacts of their actions and choices alongside a greater willingness to pay more for green and sustainable products (Manget et al. 2009). Dekhili and Achabou (2014) refer to another relevant obstacle to sustainable behaviours – the lack of information and scepticism. Furthermore, consumers appear confused and in need of support and information for choosing among alternatives. In this field, internationally recognised organisations have been actively working in and on package branding and certifications able to attenuate consumer scepticism and reduce the gap between intentions and behaviour. Nevertheless, some reluctance still persists because of the perceived incidence of greenwashing (Furlow 2010).

The second strategy pointed out by Pogutz and Micale (2011) strives to reduce the environmental impact of consumption patterns by pursuing lower material demand. This strategy is especially hard to implement in industrialised countries, because the current societal model fits in with a consumption system that implies destroy something in consuming it, and with such usage also implying the depletion of environmental resources. From another point of view, should consumption involve acts of purchasing, how would it ever be possible to lower material demand? This task, however, does not mean lowering expenditures but rather switching to different products, incorporates fewer materials or less environmentally intensive. This idea of reducing material consumption to promote environmental concerns while maintaining the same level of wellbeing is accordingly that defended by the UNEP sustainable consumption is not about consuming less, it is about consuming differently, consuming efficiently, and having an improved quality of life (UNEP 2001). However, changing the material consumption level to which a society has become used constitutes a huge challenge.

Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development

559

Another strategy proposed for more sustainable consumption involves the levying of taxes and providing incentives. Dobson (2007) exemplifies by mention of two examples: the collection of plastic bags in stores and supermarkets in Ireland and a traffic reduction road pricing scheme in Durham. According to Dobson (2007), these rank as two case studies of success in which both attitudes and behaviours were successfully altered. When it comes to the implementation of public policy strategies and investments aimed at improving environmental awareness, the government holds responsibility for defining which actions require the investing of greater resources as some actions may turn out more efficient than others in terms of generating greater environmental contributions (Steg and Vlek 2009). Furthermore, the government should also run awareness-raising campaigns to engage the population. Individuals often fail to engage in certain actions due to a lack of information and/or ignorance. Therefore, efforts to change actual consumption patterns have mostly targeted green shopping, which implies a shift to more sustainable purchases. Nevertheless, a slight modification in the basket of products and services purchased by consumers falls short of addressing the damaging consumption trends nurtured by materialism.

Hence, a significant challenge posed to those interested in the theme of sustainable development encapsulates the pursuit of three simultaneous aims: capturing new market trends; exploring and, eventually, predicting just how sustainable practices might turn into effective purchasing behaviours; and making the concept of sustainability a tangible resource for people and companies. In terms of future research, it may be especially interesting to carry out a systematic review of the environmental behaviour models in order to identify not only the models presented in the literature but also the environmental problems for which they were proposed. Another future research topic might seek to identify the main barriers to sustainable behaviour. Deploying longitudinal study analysis of how behaviours might be altered over a period of time, taking into account how people’s behaviours tend to undergo constant changes, also constitutes a path for following in new research projects.

Conclusion Sustainable behaviour means taking into account the need to preserve the planet for present and future generations, while taking into account economic, environmental and social development. Several challenges arise from changing the current world scenario in terms of sustainable development. One, as debated in this text, relates to understanding and attempting to change the behaviours of individuals, institutions and organisations on behalf of the planet. We correspondingly identified six factors able to influence environmental behaviours: motivational factors, habitual behaviours, contextual factors, demographic characteristics, internal factors and external factors.

References Blok V, Wesselink R, Studynka O, Kemp R (2015) Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. J Clean Prod 106:55–67 Brundtland GH (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development “our common future”. United Nations Clark G (2007) Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the United Nations environment programme’s (UNEP) supporting activities. J Clean Prod 15:492–498 Dekhili S, Achabou M (2014) Eco-labelling brand strategy independent certification versus self-declaration. Eur Bus Rev 26(4):305–329 Dobson A (2007) Environmental citizenship: towards sustainable development. Sustain Dev 15(5):276–285 Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manag Rev 36(2):90–100 Essoussi LH, Linton JD (2010) New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay? J Consum Mark 27(5):458–468 European Commission (2008). Communication on the sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan – (COM 2008), Brussels, p 397 Furlow NE (2010) Greenwashing in the new millenium. J Appl Bus Econ 10(6):22–25

E

560 Kaida N, Kaida K (2016) Pro-environmental behaviour correlates with present and future subjective Wellbeing. Environ Dev Sustain 18:111–127 Kilbourne W, McDonagh P, Prothero A (1997) Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: a macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. J Macromarketing 17:4–15 Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260 Lee K (2009) Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J Consum Mark 26(2):87–96 Manget J, Roche C, Münnich F (2009) Capturing the green advantage for consumer companies. The Boston Consulting Group, Boston Nagypál CN, Görög G, Harazin P, Baranyi PR (2015) Future generations and sustainable consumption. Econ Soc 8(4):207–224 Nash HA (2009) The European Commission’s sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. J Clean Prod 17:496–498 Paço A, Varejão L (2010) Factors affecting energy saving behaviour: a prospective research. J Environ Plann Man 53(8):963–976 Pogutz S, Micale V (2011) Sustainable consumption and production. An effort to reconcile the determinants of environmental impact. Soc Econ 33(1):29–50 Schultz PW, Oskamp S, Mainieri T (1995) Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. J Environ Psychol 15:105–121 Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317 Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Values orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:332–348 Tukker A, Cohen MJ, de Zoysa U, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Inaba A, Lorek S, Sto E et al (2006) The Oslo declaration on sustainable consumption. J Ind Ecol 10:9–14 UNDP (2016). Sustainable development goals. Available on: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/cor porate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf. Accessed on 20 Nov 2017 UNEP (2001) Consumption Opportunities. Strategies for change. A report for decision-makers. Available on: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/3000-Con sumOpportunities.pdf. Accessed on 10 Dec 2017 UNEP (2012a) Global outlook on sustainable consumption and production policies: taking action together. UNEP, Nairobi UNEP (2012b) 21 issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. UNEP, Nairobi Wang P, Liu Q, Qi Y (2014) Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: a survey of the rural residents in China. J Clean Prod 63:152–165

Environmental Concerns

Environmental Concerns ▶ TED Talks on Environment Issues for Sustainable Development

Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development Daniel S. Boshoff School of Geo and Spatial Science, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa

Definition Environmental conservation games: Activities designed with the purpose of raising awareness and enabling behavioral change toward the conservation of environmental resources.

Introduction Since conservation can be defined as “maintaining and restoring the health of ecological collectives – namely, species and native populations and ecosystems” (Vucetich et al. 2018:23) and sustainable development may entail “. . .the harmonization of economic, social and environmental aspects of development, benefitting current generations without compromising the capabilities and opportunities of future ones” (Dell’Angelo et al. 2017:120), one can realize the significant role of conservation in attaining sustainable development. Digital games provide excellent platforms and tools to advocate both conservation and sustainable development initiatives. This includes aspects such as conflict management, conservation funding, and decision-making in complex situations (Sandbrook et al. 2015). In addition, games offer learning opportunities and can reach a variety of audiences (Katsaliaki and Mustafee 2015). A wide array of tools enables game designers to introduce intricate

Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development

issues in a simpler way and provide the opportunity to develop solutions for conservation issues (Fletcher 2017; Parker et al. 2016). Dieleman and Huisingh (2006) argue that sustainable development games not only provide excellent tools for experiential learning but also for understanding different contexts and to reflect on “shared experiences.” Thus, a closer exploration of conservation games in their role of promoting sustainable development is discussed, along with challenges identified in current literature. Conservation Games In their survey of games in the literature, Katsaliaki and Mustafee (2015) found 49 games that can be classified as sustainable development games. In the year 1990, only 1 sustainable development game was released, while 11 games were released by 2010 – indicating a rapid growth in the demand for environmental conservation games (Katsaliaki and Mustafee 2015). Environmental conservation games take many different forms according to various themes or prominent issues. These issues frequently relate to energy, water resource management, ecology, conflict management, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, international climate change policy, and environmental education (Katsaliaki and Mustafee 2015; Mandani et al. 2017; Sandbrook et al. 2015; Schiele 2018). Games with environmental management themes also provide inventive ways in approaching decision-making, responsible consumption, and the development of original solutions to current issues, especially those related to sustainability. Overall, environmental conservation games can be classified into the following groups: habitat conservation games, resource consumption games, stakeholder participation games, and role-playing games. Habitat Conservation Games

Habitat conservation games mostly focus on rainforests and deforestation. Games focused on the conservation of rainforests include WilderQuest and the Rainforest Survival Challenge. WilderQuest highlights the functioning of ecosystems and was primarily

561

designed for young children as an environmental education tool. While Rainforest Survival Challenge is also focused on environmental education, it presents ethical dilemmas in rainforest conservation such as the conversion of rainforests to agricultural land (Fletcher 2017). TeamWild is an example of a game where designers attempt to address the conservation of habitats and species while achieving financial benefits through collaboration with conservation organizations. An example of a game with an indirect conservation message is Civilization where resource exploitation can result in desertification or deforestation (Sandbrook et al. 2015). Resource Consumption Games

Although a cornucopia of games that were designed to encourage responsible consumption of resources are available, this section highlights energy, recycling, fisheries, and corporate social responsibility games. Fit for Green is based on the premise of promoting renewable energy generation through physical exercise. It entails the use of specific gym equipment designed to supply energy generated through physical exercise of gym members, to the local power grid. This initiative utilizes positive peer pressure and creative game design elements through its lights challenge, whereby participants are encouraged to work in groups to power up the most lights. An essential part of the Fit for Green game is the pro-environmental behavior motivation set by the “Triple Impact Workout.” The Triple Impact Workout refers to the benefits achieved by participation, for example, the generation of renewable energy by exercise equipment, raising funds for conservation programs, and obtaining the health benefits associated with physical exercise (Schiele 2018). Awareness about energy consumption and conservation is addressed by the games PowerHouse, PowerAgent, Power Advisor, and Energy Chickens (Morganti et al. 2017; Schiele 2018). Although PowerHouse is mostly based on promoting energy-efficient behavior, PowerAgent allows players to access their actual household electricity use during the game and thereby reward the conservation of energy (Schiele

E

562

Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development

2018). Power Advisor is a mobile application which monitors energy consumption per individual player, whereas Energy Chickens takes the format of a virtual farm with animals. The animals grow according to energy consumption, and this game is played over several weeks, with multiple players, and reports are generated on the daily energy consumption of almost 300 appliances. A study conducted on a group of players showed that awareness about energy consumption through in-game information directly attributed to decreased energy use during the test period (Morganti et al. 2017). Moreover, energy conservation can also be taught through game simulations, for instance, the Residence energy saving battle (RES-battle). This simulation places significant emphasis on the financial implications of energy conservation (Dorji et al. 2015). The management of cities with regard to addressing population growth, the sustainable use of resources, and economic prosperity occurs in the game EnerCities (Morganti et al. 2017). Recycling behavior is the focus of the game Trashwar. The main aim of this game is the correct separation of waste at source and includes hazardous and biodegradable waste. Players receive instantaneous feedback on their decisions and thus become more aware of best practices and behaviors (Morganti et al. 2017). In an effort to connect the economic impacts of resource exploitation, Joosten (2015) invented a game called Small Fish War. This game incorporates the resource scarcity of fish with the “tragedy of the commons.” Data received from testing this game seem to support the sustainable management of fishery resources according to catch limits and precautionary resource exploitation principles (Joosten 2015). A number of games were designed to promote corporate social responsibility, with a particular emphasis on the consumption of natural resources. These games were classified by Lampikoski et al. (2014) into four groups: Radical, Collaboration, Clarity, and Rationality games.

After the collection of data in the field, Perrotton et al. (2017) created a co-design roleplaying game, named Kulayijana, in order to increase stakeholder participation in close proximity to conservation areas in Zimbabwe. At the time of publication, the results of only the first phase of Kulayijana were documented. However, an improvement in dialogue between different stakeholders, and in particular with communities in rural margins of conservation parks, was recorded (Perrotton et al. 2017). Dissanayke and Jacobson (2016) designed a game to address the conservation of land by use of financial incentives. In this game, players had the option of choosing between two land uses: agriculture or conservation. Financial incentives were provided by means of payment for ecosystem services (PES) through conservation. These incentives increased per game level and included bonuses for sharing borders with conservation areas and the establishment of conservation corridors. In addition, information with regard to the quality of soil in the agricultural lands were also provided to the players. Positive results were recorded in terms of raising awareness of conservation and the value of collaboration via corridor establishment (Dissanayke and Jacobson 2016). The vital elements of sustainable development were tested in the educational game Toxic Release. This game is set in an environment where an industry frequently releases hazardous substances and pollution and game players are divided into three groups of stakeholders. These three groups advocate for each of their causes – protecting the health of residents (social cause), preserving the environment (environmental cause), and preserving the profitability of the industry (economic cause). Researchers documented an increased understanding of the complexity of environmental issues and a need for proactive dialogue among stakeholders from the game players (Gervich et al. 2016). Role-Playing Games

Stakeholder Participation Games

Stakeholder participation forms an essential part of conservation and sustainable development. This is reflected by the games discussed below.

Role-playing games usually rely on collaboration between game players and is often used for complex environmental issues such as climate change and water resource management.

Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development

In order to raise awareness of ever-changing variables in global climate change policies, Parker et al. (2016) invented the Climate Attribution Under Loss and Damage: Risking, Observing Negotiating (CAULDRON) game. Unfortunately, not all the intended game players have participated in the game, as it was perceived as a waste of time. CAULDRON has subsequently been adapted for role-playing activities in certain situations, and this showed an increase in participation from the intended audience (Parker et al. 2016). The perceived risks of climate change on fishery stocks were investigated by Lebel et al. (2016) via a role-playing simulation matrix game. Participants were fish farmers in Thailand who had to decide on stocking densities when posed with various scales of flood risk. It should be noted that game players were expected to make decisions individually. Surprisingly, the farmers increased their fish stock when faced with high flood risk – and flooding of a greater magnitude – than in situations with low flood risk. This phenomenon may necessitate further research into raising awareness and incorporating collaboration into role-playing games about the frequency of flooding from climate change (Lebel et al. 2016). Urban Science is an example of how the appropriate application of ecological issues in urban land-use planning can be cultivated in a roleplaying game (Jong et al. 2017). Ducrot et al. (2015) made use of a companion modeling approach to combine dramatization and role-playing games to explore stakeholder engagement among the margins of conservation areas close to São Paulo. The motivation for testing this approach is the fairly limited representation of residents in these areas. It should also be noted that the water quality of rivers in this region have deteriorated in recent years. In their results, Ducrot et al. (2015) found that the use of dramatization and role-playing highlighted the subtleties, compromises, and negotiation skills required to address the environmental challenges in the area. Meinzen-Dick et al. (2018) piloted a roleplaying game with financial variables to understand the relationship between agricultural crops and groundwater depletion in Pradesh, India.

563

Their results indicated that social learning took place and improved awareness regarding the choice of agricultural crops used during wet and dry seasons and the impacts thereof. In addition, participants reflected on their decision-making even without receiving financial rewards (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2018). Challenges of Conservation Games Redpath et al. (2018:421) point out that “. . .games have enormous potential to provide insight, but they are not a panacea.” A number of challenges have been reported with the use of games to promote and advocate conservation and sustainable development. Fletcher (2017) contends that digital games may not have the capacity to comprehensively communicate conservation issues. The use of games for promoting conservation can been regarded as ironic due to reports that visits to conservation areas and parks have waned in more developed countries (MDCs) with the widespread growth of online games and the so-called videophilia. There is a notion that proenvironmental behavior is harnessed through direct experiences with nature, and therefore digital games may contribute to a phenomenon often referred to as “nature deficit disorder (NDD)” (Fletcher 2017). A significant challenge relates to the “fantasy” created by playing a game with a “substitute” of the real environment. This enhances the “nature deficit disorder” due to its distortion of actual environmental issues. Examples of these distortions are the inexhaustible exploitation of natural resources, reappearance of habitats and ecosystems in their original conditions, and the “reinstatement” of human lives. Furthermore, games can also promote the overgeneralization of conservation issues such as poaching (Sandbrook et al. 2015). In their critique of MyConservationPark, Sandbrook et al. (2015) points out that the baseline narrative of linking population growth to poaching is deceiving players into attributing the bulk of conservation issues on poverty and people living in remote locations. They also question the effect of conservation games on real-world conservation issues where players engage in pseudo-

E

564

Environmental Conservation Games and Sustainable Development

activism by conserving simulated rainforests yet have little interest in addressing deforestation in the real world. Even though games may have the potential to increase awareness about environmental conservation, they can diminish the grasp of the complexity of conservation issues (Sandbrook et al. 2015). WilderQuest and Rainforest Survival Challenge are two games that are criticized for the inefficient way in which conservation issues are dealt with and may enhance the “environmental values behaviour (EVB) gap.” The EVB gap exists when awareness of environmental issues does not transpire in taking action in support of these causes (Fletcher 2017). Morganti et al. (2017) documented that although digital games regarding energy consumption and behavior yielded positive results on the short term, it did not necessarily lead to change over extended periods of time. This assertion is echoed by Johnson et al. (2017) in their evaluation of 25 studies on energy-related games. It is, however, encouraging that energy-related games show an improved awareness and attitude toward energy conservation (Johnson et al. 2017). Methods to assess along with aesthetic characteristics of energy conservation games might be a significant factor in effecting long-term change (Morganti et al. 2017). Challenges arising from corporate social responsibility games relate to the attitude of financial institutions and managers who perceive environmental conservation as liabilities and risking the profitability of their organizations. In addition, businesses often consider change only in responding to crises instead of proactively embracing change (Lampikoski et al. 2014). Lastly, the emphasis of negative environmental impacts associated with conservation issues often repel potential players from interacting with conservation games (Dorji et al. 2015).

Conclusion Environmental conservation games take many forms and deal with a multitude of topics, ranging from habitat conservation and resource consumption

to stakeholder participation. The use of games for educational purposes is becoming more prominent with the widespread use and access to digital technology. It should also be noted the requirement of digital games to be engaging, which evokes positive emotions and serves as sources of entertainment, may thwart the effective communication of conservation issues to game players. The most significant challenges of environmental conservation games relate to NDD, the EVB gap, and oversimplification of conservation issues. Therefore, Redpath et al. (2018) propose the utilization of a combination of games and game theories to understand complex and contentious issues, such as conflict associated with conservation. Hybrid techniques can incorporate various game theories, for example, constructionist and experimental games, in the form of decision trees to acknowledge and provide for different behaviors, emotions, and beliefs of stakeholders involved in conservation (Redpath et al. 2018). Additionally, Meinzen-Dick et al. (2018) argue that when games are used for educational purposes, they should not be used as isolated tools. This rings true for environmental conservation games and may provide a new design approach for game developers.

References Dell’Angelo J, D’Odorico P, Rulli MC (2017) Threats to sustainable development posed by land and water grabbing. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:120–128 Dieleman H, Huisingh D (2006) Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. J Clean Prod 14:837–847 Dissanayke STM, Jacobson SA (2016) Policies with varying costs and benefits: a land conservation classroom game. J Econ Educ 42:142–160 Dorji U, Panjaburee P, Srisawasdi N (2015) Gender differences in students’ learning achievements and awareness through residence energy saving game-based inquiry playing. J Comput Educ 2:227–243 Ducrot R, Van Passen A, Barban V, Daré W, Gramaglia C (2015) Learning integrative negotiation to manage complex environmental issues: example of a gaming approach in the peri-urban catchment of São Paulo. Braz Reg Environ Chang 15:67–78 Fletcher R (2017) Gaming conservation: nature 2.0 confronts nature-deficit disorder. Geoforum 79:153–162

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

565

Gervich CD, Briere C, Lopez N, Eudene J, Evans C, Fonzone J, Barbencena RO, Whitney A, Hastings E, Fernandez A (2016) Toxic release! The role of educational games in teaching and learning about hazardous pollution. J Environ Stud Sci 6:589–596 Johnson D, Horton E, Mulcahy R, Foth M (2017) Gamification and serious games within the domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73:249–264 Jong MSY, Dong A, Luk E (2017) Design-based research on teacher facilitation practices for serious gaming in formal schooling. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 19:1–16 Joosten R (2015) Strong and weak rarity value: resource games with complex price–scarcity relationships. Dyn Games Appl 6:97–111 Katsaliaki K, Mustafee N (2015) Edutainment for sustainable development: a survey of games in the field. Simul Gaming 46:647–672 Lampikoski T, Westerlund M, Rajala R, Möller K (2014) Green innovation games: value-creation strategies for corporate sustainability. Calif Manag Rev 57:88–116 Lebel P, Sriyasak P, Kallayanamitra C, Duangsuwan C, Lebel L (2016) Learning about climate-related risks: decisions of Northern Thailand fish farmers in a roleplaying simulation game. Reg Environ Chang 16:1481–1494 Mandani K, Pierce TW, Mirchi A (2017) Serious games on environmental management. Sustain Cities Soc 29:1–11 Meinzen-Dick R, Janssen MA, Kandikuppa S, Chaturvedi R, Rao K, Theis S (2018) Playing games to save water: collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Dev 107:40–53 Morganti L, Pallavicini F, Cadel E, Candelieri A, Archetti F, Mantovani F (2017) Energy Res Soc Sci 29:95–102 Parker HR, Cornforth RJ, Suarez P, Allen MR, Boyd E, James R, Jones RG, Otto FEL, Walton P (2016) Using a game to engage stakeholders in extreme event attribution science. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 7:353–365 Perrotton A, De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Valls-Fox H, Le Page C (2017) My cattle and your park: codesigning a role-playing game with rural communities to promote multistakeholder dialogue at the edge of protected areas. Ecol Soc 22(1):35 Redpath SM, Keane A, Andrén H, Baynham-Herd Z, Bunnefeld N, Duthie AB, Frank J, Garcia CA, Månsson J, Nilsson L, Pollard CRJ, Rakotonarivo OS, Salk CF, Travers H (2018) Games as tools to address conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 33:415–426 Sandbrook C, Adams WM, Monteferri B (2015) Digital games and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 8:118–124 Schiele K (2018) Utilizing gamification to promote sustainable practices. In: Dhiman S, Marques J (eds) Handbook of engaged sustainability. Springer, Cham

Vucetich JA, Burnham D, Macdonald EA, Bruskotter JT, Marchini S, Zimmermann A, Macdonald DW (2018) Just conservation: what is it and should we pursue it? Biol Conserv 221:23–33

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development Soraya Giovanetti El-Deir Environmental Management Research Group in Pernambuco, Postgraduate Program in Environmental Engineering, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

Definition The terms refers to educational process aimed at reaching sustainable development. It is important not only in respect of educational impacts, but also introduced environment concepts, with practical and theoretical tools that can be used to implement it.

Introduction From the industrial revolution, the manufactured production system was transformed with the use of machinery, initially in the weaving and transport industry, through the use of coal and, later, electricity as an energy source. Education was directed to this economic and social reality and, in a large part, the understanding of the use of technologies to increase the efficiency of the production system. Quickly, some countries incorporated this logic, such as the England, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, followed by France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the transatlantic country of the United States. They learned the technologies and adapted for the means of production, adding value to agriculture and livestock products, in a new productive logic, maximizing the potential of products from the activities of the primary sector of the economy. The technological education was established, having wide support in the results coming from the production of consumer goods.

E

566

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

The environmental impact, which was basically limited to rural areas and cities, due to rudimentary agricultural practices and the construction of cities without environmental sanitation structure, now added the assets needed to leverage industrial production. In this sense, the livelihoods of traditional extraction populations for survival become focused on the quest for higher production to meet demands from local productive units or from other localities. Despite the existence of communities that maintain a tradition of sustainable customs, distancing themselves from economic mercantilist logic and the pursuit of the maximum anthropic gain of natural goods, the dominant view was of the supremacy of the economy over ecology and of money over quality environmental and false modernism about secular traditions. In this discussion, it is observed that the understanding of educational forms is necessary in order to have paradigms aimed at structuring the pillars for a knowledge focused on sustainability and can help in the discussion of an inclusive, fair, and balanced society, with less impact potential and use of natural resources under the focus of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) promulgated by the United Nations (UN).

reality of the school community and without articulation with emerging issues of society. This could be understandable in a work of Moffatt et al. (2018) about emotional practices within social work education, which can make sense of how these changes connect with broader social, economic, and political factors. About gender issue, specific programs to keep young women in school across the developing world have become widespread. It’s understandable that education is key to improving their quality of life, but keeping them in school is a significant challenge (Bowen and Miller 2018). In the traditional curriculum, is present a separation between research and practice, theory and lived reality, and knowledge acquired in books and popular knowledge. This curriculum has dissociated contents, which are worked in the classroom with experience and/or without experience, canceling the creative potential, criticality, and autonomous thinking of the student (Freire 2007). The traditional teaching always had as philosophical pillar the formative base of the theorization of the knowledge transmitted in room by the teachers. In this way, teaching institutions do not fulfill the function of educating future decision-makers, whom could collaborate with sustainability, being spaces only of transmission of knowledge, away from the guideline pointed out by Barth and Rieckmann (2012) and Caniglia et al. (2018). In this conception, the teacher is transmitter of knowledge, considered as the only active agent of the pedagogical process. The students, receivers of the subject, are mere passive individuals of the process of educational content. These characteristics demonstrate an educational process focused on the internalization of decontextualized theoretical concepts, fulfillment of programmatic content, with unidirectional communication from the teacher to the student (Table 1). However, an educational environment that elevates the quality of the mutual learning process requires that all social actors involved have a voice and that such an environment can provide the exchange of experiences, seeking to review knowledge and produce new meanings, from a perspective socioeconomic critique (Abreu and Moura 2014).

Traditional Education In what is conventionally called traditional education, teaching is focused on a list of contents that are identified in the syllabus of the discipline, which should be taught to the student. Also, the structure and organization of the classroom are decisive because they establish a clear difference between the teacher’s position and the area assigned to the students, delineating limits of interaction and making it difficult to exchange knowledge. For Felgueiras et al. (2017), the traditional systems of education have been structured in an isolated mode, seek to respond to a specific need, and deal with a restricted set of variables and abilities. Thus, this content-based process has the teaching-learning process focused on the knowledge of the teacher, which is transmitted to the students in a decontextualized way of the

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

567

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Summary characteristics of traditional education, based on the type of school, education, pedagogical principle, and training

requires innovative ideas and approaches on how to combine educational, sustainability, and disciplinary knowledge, skills, experiences, and motivations. Education is a primordial tool for thinking and rethinking daily activities and behaviors in the face of the discussion of facts and new values, the questioning of old paradigms, and the emergence of new perspectives directed at the parsimonious and sustainable use of natural resources, respecting different forms of life and socio-environmental responsibility. For Aleixo et al. (2018), higher education institutions play an important role for the promotion of sustainability and the increase of the number of stakeholders to interage to create sustainable organizations; however, this would be achieved when barriers will be faced and challenges overcome. However, if focused on a pedagogical practice with traditional precepts, the social and environmental themes are treated in a specific way or even excluded from the activities and themes studied. This education eventually replicates the forces for maintaining the existing status quo, without questioning it. There is an emerging need to adapt the contents of education to the precepts of emancipatory environmental education and to the forms of observation and experimentation that add value and enhance the scientificity of the educational process, as well as the appreciation of traditional technological knowledge and cultural diversity. One of the possibilities of alternatives is the search for problematizing thinking, through the discussion of contents that have a direct relationship with sustainability, as well as new values and theories focused on the improvement of socio-environmental quality, in the process of inclusion and elevation of dialogue and construction of a planetary consciousness (Bauer 2008). The insertion of clean technologies and social technologies into the educational process focused on eco-citizenship challenges the educational process and encourages innovation. The creation of a new pedagogical-practical paradigm for an education focused on sustainability, cleaner production, and valorization of postmodern dialogue with the traditional emerges as a way to articulate

Characteristic School

Education

Pedagogical principle

Formation

Described Traditional school, focused on the conceptual internalization of theories proposed in the classroom by professionals who form opinions, not having a deepening through discussion and contextualization of the subject Education focused on content, in which theories do not present a practical approach to action, with the concern focused on the fulfillment of the programmatic content Theories without dialogical action between the actors involved (faculty and student) about the environment, unidirectional communication Conducive formation of preestablished concepts, without a critical analysis of the subjects worked in the room

The content conception of education contrasts with the constructivist approaches, in which it is understood that the knowledge developed by the student is the result of motivation and effort, promoting a connection between previous experiences and future expectations. On this new emancipatory view, in which professionals change the pedagogical conception, there is a need for the teacher to place himself as the subject of the historical reality in which he is inserted, engaging in the struggle for freedom, against social alienation and the simple accumulation of capital (Bauer 2008).

Problematizing Education The teaching-learning process is a pillar of the construction of social habits, serving as a replicating environment of socially accepted beliefs and behaviors in a locality. In the formal sphere, this educational space has as basic principle to act in the integral education of all those involved in the process, that is, teachers, students, technicians, family, and community. Cincera et al. (2018) understand that higher education curricula

E

568

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

knowledge from several areas, seeking synergy between the themes traditionally addressed by environmental education, with a link in the various existing socio-environmental technologies, discussing traditional knowledge and practices and the applicability in the various urban and rural environments. In this way, a new methodology for the eco-social formation of society, through processes of experimentation, observation, and valorization of the various existing sabers, focusing on social and environmental dilemmas, can be based on the use of social technologies (ST) as a means of social improvement.

model with 18 reinforcing and 6 balancing feedback loops, to emphasize on sustainability competencies of students. This education has to have emancipatory content, where the dialectic between form and content implies individual and collective changes, local and global, structural and conjunctural, and economic and cultural. Thus, a context adjustment is fundamental, since it influences environmental attitudes and allows rethinking of posture in relation to a specific theme (Pienaar et al. 2013). Thus, it is an educational process in which the people involved in the process acquire new knowledge, develop critical vision about values, and establish skills and behaviors that allow them to make responsible decisions regarding the society, the environment and the future. There is a clearer interaction with the environment, aiming at maintaining or increasing environmental quality and the development of societies that are based on a holistic agenda. This integrative, critical, and dialectical tendency of environmental education seeks to concentrate solutions of broad theoretical scope, which are responsible for promoting socioenvironmental quality through the dialogue of knowledge and the communication of varied knowledge. Associating environmental education with the criteria of social insertion, it is emphasized that the educational practice is a process of mediation of interests and conflicts that define and redefine practices, alter the quality of the environment, and distribute costs and benefits of these actions. On the basis of this, it is observed that the school that has environmental discussions as a crosscutting theme, but with content formation, can be characterized as a model closer to the ideal eco-citizenship training (Table 2). Environmental education focuses on pedagogical theories centered on awareness, change of habits and/or behaviors, and development of competencies. Based on this new ethic, it should promote in students new values that lead them to more responsible action and to the practice of new and positive environmental behaviors, resulting from decision-making in a more conscious way of socio-environmental

Environmental Education Environmental education requires an articulation of several areas, focuses on environmental issues in eco-culture training, and can provide increased knowledge, change of principles, and improvement of qualities, being a basic condition to promote better understanding about the environmental limits and a way to structure a cleaner production. Environmental education, as a pedagogical strategy, articulates new curricular contents, where this could structure a new knowledge and actions to be sustainable (Rodrigues 2014). Only with the interaction between people in the teaching-learning process it is possible to change the points of view and the meanings related to environmental themes, essential for the reflection of the contents and the updating of knowledge (Abreu and Moura 2014). In this context, the teaching-learning process must integrate the environmental theme in all disciplines, besides using formal and informal methods as effective means of communication to increase efficiency and effectiveness in rethinking local and global reality, becoming more complex in the face of social issues that promote interaction and dialogue, for eco-citizen training. Looking for mechanisms that are needed to develop education for sustainable development in higher education with the emphasis on the sustainability competencies of students, Faham et al. (2017) developed a

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

569

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Summary characteristics of environmental education from the type of school, education, pedagogical principle, and training

emancipatory way. These educational practices are concretized in the educational space as the teacherstudent relationship, cultural and philosophical studies, the perception of science, and how the knowledge acquired in the classroom can be transmitted in society by the students to become multipliers of knowledge (Freire 2007). For Felgueiras et al. (2017), the sustainability needs a new kind of professionals provided with new skills. New professionals need to have not only a set of deep capabilities in a specific area but also more comprehensive proficiencies that allow them to understand how to integrate their particular system into a wider functional system, with a holistic view. In this sense, the experimentation and observation of students is an additional possibility for the consolidation of knowledge and actions in the school environment. This must be committed to the reduction of social inequalities, respect for diversity, defense of democratic practices, struggle for sustainability, and contribution to the development and economic growth of society.

Characteristic School

Education

Pedagogical principle

Formation

Described School with environmental education developed in the pedagogical political project of the institution, in a transversal way, articulating knowledge Aimed at theories about the environment, merely discoursed by teaching professionals, without a practical approach to action Theories with dialogic and interactive action on the environment, establishing the dialogue between teacher and student Conducive training with environmental themes conceptually discussed in classroom, focusing on environmental themes

limits and possibilities. In this conceptual analysis, education focused on practices related to environmental knowledge is confronted with the challenge posed by educators and students, who defend a new pedagogical practice and a curriculum that expresses the abandonment to the ideology of capital accumulation and practical action of production of knowledge, based on the reality and daily problems of each individual (Silva 2014). It is known that one of the main pedagogical tools developed by formal educational environments is the theory previously discussed in the classroom, associated with practical factors of individual experience, visualization, and experimentation as a formative support, which may aid in the process of internalization and change of values. In order to allow sustainability to be initiated, environmental education establishes itself in this scenario with a focus on critical and social reflection, seeking the contextualization of human knowledge and practices. It is necessary that educational practices manage to go beyond theories, promoting experimental options, allowing new actions to be translated into effective choices and attitudes, in a collective and

Education Based on Environmental Experience and Technology Regardless of the macro-trends followed by environmental education, whether conservationist, pragmatic, critical, or humanistic (Layrargues and Lima 2014), a dichotomy between theory and practice is observed. This is flawed in terms of internalization and understanding of content and reality, since experiments are always dependent on some theory previously set out in expository terms. Theoretical knowledge, coupled with experimental practices and independent living, make teaching focused on sustainability as something more concrete, facilitating the teachinglearning process and training on the theme. Experimentation is fundamental because we artificially approach environmental phenomena, working them according to certain cognitive and consensual objectives, marked out in the formally constituted knowledge. Already emerging themes such as sustainability have raised controversy, since governments in developed countries and

E

570

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

multilateral organizations such as UNESCO started a debate aimed at replacing environmental education with education focused on sustainable development (Steil 2014). In order to achieve this objective, the experimental activities should have as fundamental characteristics multiple formats, reflection on the truth content of acquired knowledge, association of theory with practice, non-standardization of scientific procedure steps, respect for the influence of external factors, and problematization. Faced with this, associations of theory and practice are of fundamental importance in the transmission of knowledge, since they prevent the conceptual acquisition of the theoretical vacuum, concretizing and effecting scientific knowledge, emphasizing the formation linked to practical factors, being the experimentation a physical proof of the perspective empiricist or rationalist of science. Caniglia et al. (2018) made a proposition of a global education, which combines the use of digital technologies for global collaboration with experiences and engagement for local learning and impact. This model provides new concepts (the theory) and presents an exemplary implementation (the practice) for the curriculum and teaching-learning environment of transnational collaboration for sustainability. It can be seen that only from an environmental education linked to practical supports of experimentation, with the direct association of political, conceptual, philosophical, and ideological bases of each individual, can be added new forms of approach and planning for concrete sustainability and emancipatory, in socioenvironmental terms. The incorporation of clean, innovative technologies into the school space serves as an example of sustainable practice, to be replicated by society, and will allow a theoretical analysis with a practical nature of the studies that surround contemporary environmental education. Cincera et al. (2018) describe a methodology for the study based on qualitative, participative evaluation research. The process of learning was discussed based on how the group reflected on and developed their “action theories” on how to design a supportive learning socioenvironment to findings highlighting the

importance of sharing and processing the experiences, mental models, and interpretations concerning concepts, ideas, perspectives, and new input within the group. The creation of a new paradigm of pedagogicalpractical sustainability arises in order to articulate knowledge from several areas, seeking a synergy between the themes of environmental education with social technology (ST), thus creating a new reading of these themes, articulating knowledge in relation to a new plan which clearly aims for sustainability in all precepts. The interdisciplinarity proposed by environmental knowledge implies the interconnection of social processes and spheres of rationality, especially technological, as an engagement related to the future challenges of the twenty-first century, guided by SDG; aspects of technological innovation must be articulated with the themes traditionally worked on in education environmental issues, as these issues are taking on a notoriety in society and reflect real challenges to the parsimonious use of natural resources by humanity (Reigota 2008). Different of what Nord et al. (2016) called by social technology, whom understand that is the social networking site, the TS is a traditional technologies, adapted to the needs of the communities, provide many answers to the contemporary challenges of the parsimonious use of natural resources in ST, present in rural communities in underdeveloped and developing countries. They are characterized by “low investment per job, low capital invested per unit produced, job creation potential, organizational simplicity, small scale of production, high degree of adaptability to the socio-cultural environment, local and regional self-sufficiency, economy in use of natural resources, preference for the use of renewable resources and social control” (Rodrigues and Barbieri 2008). In the development of an ST, it observes the social transformation, direct participation of the population, sense of social inclusion, improvement of living conditions, attendance of social needs, socio-environmental and economic sustainability, innovation, capacity to meet specific social needs, organization and systematization of

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

571

technology, dialogue between different academic and popular knowledge, accessibility and appropriation of knowledge, diffusion and educational action, construction of citizenship and democratic processes, and search for collective solutions that are sustained by values of social justice, shared power, democracy, and human and environmental rights (FBB 2014). The experimental environmental education with ST will have as an educational typology an environment with a theoretical and practical articulation of socio-environmental themes, in an emancipatory way, leading to ecourban formation (Table 3). For Barth and Rieckmann (2012), the analysis of the program shows that it not only facilitated the personal competence of the academic staff and changed their teaching practice but also that it influenced the general organizational development of the university. In this sense, the use of ST in education has the potential to open space stimulating a new thinking about socio-environmental

issues and the structuring of a teaching where feasible and replicable solutions to current structural problems are envisaged. To seek beyond theorization, a practical, observational, and operational experience, generating meaning in the daily life of people, reaching the inclusion of technologies in the daily life of society. The use of didactic strategies that privilege dialogue between the various knowledge (everyday, scientific, cultural, and others) should be the focus of the educational process that incorporates diversification as important and necessary to provide participation of alunato in the construction of concepts, procedures, and attitudes (Cavalcanti Neto 2011). It is understood that the use of ST in the experimentation of critical environmental education can be a facilitator of this process, toward the formation of a society based on the principles of sustainability, where the social, economic, and environmental dimensions can have real meaning and be present in the critical thinking of all, in the sense of improving the environmental quality and life of the people.

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, Table 3 Summary characteristics of experimental environmental education from the type of school, education, pedagogical principle, and training Characteristic School

Education

Pedagogical principle

Formation

Described School with education and practices related to the social, economic, political, historical-cultural, natural, and philosophical environment with the effective participation of the actors involved in the discussions Emancipatory and participatory education of opinion formers and the student body, with a practical and experimental approach focused on the application of social technologies focused on internalization, in the process of teaching learning Exemplification and experimentation and/or observation of the various themes, with technological practices related to the contents developed in the room Eco-citizen training and emancipation of the actors, through concepts acquired, observed, and practiced by the adoption of social technologies in the school environment

Education for Sustainability Within problematizing education, it is necessary to propose challenging and complex projects and activities, stimulating students to mobilize knowledge with a focus on current dilemmas and the search for improvement in socio-environmental quality. It is imperative to build an approach to measuring well-being that fuses economic, ecological, and social criteria in an integrated and global manner; this is the first step in the move toward sustainability (Khataybeh et al. 2010). Barth and Rieckmann (2012) point out that for the sustainable development that involves and requires fundamental societal transformations, it can only result from the process of societal learning, just because education and learning are the key to achieving sustainable development. Already Sidiropoulos (2014) assumes that sustainability is essentially a question of value, a notion that is situated within the context of an individual, organizational, and community perspective.

E

572

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

For Nasibulina (2015), education for sustainable development helps make education more efficient since they concentrate attention on the simple reproduction of the acquired knowledge but on its practical use, especially for the solution of ecological and social problems. This innovative education consists of a situation focused on the management of knowledge, in which the problematizing object is not placed as the end of the forming action of a subject, but is seen as the mediator between subjects. Problematic education necessarily requires overcoming the contradiction between educator and learners, because only in this way will there be the possibility of building a relationship based on the dialogue of knowledge (dialogical) in which the joint growth of the individuals involved is indispensable. The dialectical reference to education takes place in a socialhistorical perspective, being conceived as an individual and collective process of constitution of a new social consciousness and of reconstituting society through the rearticulation of political relations. In this way, the problematizing educational process, whose purpose is the liberation of the oppressed conscience, acts effectively in the dialogical action, since man is conceived as a being of communication and that through the exchange of knowledge and actions grows in the dimension of insertion environmental issues, discussing emerging issues related to quality of life as a whole. If compliance with the concept of sustainability, it’s observed that it proposes a permanent legacy from one generation to another, allowing the maintenance and upkeep of existing sensitive natural resources in the middle (Barbieri 2007). Sustainability, in this case, contains two key concepts: (i) observation of the poor people’s essential needs, whom should receive the highest priority and (ii) setting limits that are imposed by current technologies, the current social organization and, especially, the impact absorption limits and the potential of regeneration of the environment, which may reveal a complete impossibility of meeting the needs of present and future generations. For this, contemporary society advances in

scientific-technological studies that strengthen the capacity to use, recompose and conserve these resources. In the school, sustainable projects must involve diverse actors in the construction of the proposals aiming to discuss, to rebate and to theoretically improvement the thematic in contributing to the transmission and multiplication of knowledge. Popular participation in sustainability issues establishes a space for citizens to have the right to express opinions, exercise freedom of expression, and develop a dialogue in which they can learn. This conception is accentuated when it is stated that the construction of a truly popular process is relative to the possibility that education is not only committed and militant with causes focused on issues of citizenship focused on sustainability, being participatory and liberating, but this being an activity mobilizing and anticipating the very liberation of thinking and acting. Sterling and Thomas (2006) suggest that there are four levels and types of responses, from denial (no change) to “bolt-on” approaches (education about sustainability), to “build-in” approaches of curriculum redesign (sustainable education). With the intensive use of tools and indicators, environmental education is favored to establish egalitarian sustainability in any formal and/or informal space. Through the study and analysis of concepts related to ecological footprint and carrying capacity, indicators of sustainability, education can instrumentalize effective ecoculture and be reeditor of pre-established paradigms, converting the knowledge and evolution of the theory, clarifying the understanding of how less impacting processes may occur. In this way, they manage to bring society to sustainable action, in a social and effective practice. But actions that develop sustainability only become truly efficient when environmental education is not restricted to a professional in the area of education, leading to the explanation of different training practices: constructivist, reflexive, and investigative. In this scenario, Baker-Shelley et al. (2017) argues that universities will play a profound role in the century in

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

573

which society will be judged by its capacity for self-transformation in response to pandemic crises of climate change and capitalism. Frameworks of analysis of sustainability in organizations could benefit from tangible systemic rubrics for transformation. To that end, criteria were woven into a framework that has value as a diagnostic tool, spanning three scales and five theoretical perspectives: behavioral science, corporate governance and responsibility, organizational change management, socioecological systems, and sustainability in education and research. As pointed out by Barth and Rieckmann (2012), in order to establish a program guided by sustainability education, there is a need to establish (i) individual competencies of academic teaching staff members and the discussion of existing values, norms, and assumptions, aiming at developing competencies and skills to operationalize changes in the institutional modus operandi, (ii) professional performance (affected teaching practices and routines, making academic staff development program support the integration of sustainability issues in the teaching routines of academic staff and lead to the development of new and innovative pedagogical approaches), and (iii) impacts on the organization as a result of a social learning process (since university teachers as key change agents not only educate future disseminators and multipliers of sustainability but also function as active players able to shape the organization they work in). For Sidiropoulos (2014), the operational steps for this paradigm shift are (i) escalating the level of integration into courses increases student engagement and results in stronger impacts on students’ sustainability views, attitudes, and to lesser extent their behavior; (ii) the impact on students varies by age, gender, and culture; and (iii) increasing student knowledge and attitudes toward sustainability, while necessary, is not sufficient to stimulate more sustainable behaviors. It is also determinant that the personal interest and motivation to engage in education for sustainable development, factors such as the lack of time and financial resources, as deep understanding of

sustainability, current curriculum structures and ways of delivery, academic pressures, external factors, lack of organizational support, and existing organizational conditions, block their engagement, as pointed out by Cebrián et al. (2015). For these authors, seven key implications for action for universities can engage the academics: (i) Universities need to provide clear vision and strategy and build sustainability through clear dissemination and communication strategies and the creation of professional development programs for staff. (ii) Creating interdisciplinary and collaborative research and learning processes is critical to developing new understandings and practices of education, to embed this topic in the curriculum. (iii) Organizational leadership and support and identifying existing role models would engage ESD as this would facilitate learning from existing practice, the exchange of resources, and having support and guidance to academics. (iv) Providing staff with time and financial resources is necessary in order to embed ESD within the curriculum. (v) Creating rewarding systems that recognize and reward good practice. (vi) Embedding sustainability into academic processes and research structures. (vii) Making of sustainability a requirement of the internal and external quality assurance processes and benchmarking of higher education institutions. In this sense, a summary view of the four models is necessary so that, from the critical understanding of both, there is a politicalpedagogical option on the part of the school units, in the sense of being a catalyzing environment of the process of social empowerment, quality of life, elevation of environmental quality, and help in the structuring of a society with values focused on eco-citizenship and emancipation and focused on sustainability (Fig. 1).

E

574

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development

Teaching-learning process

Traditional Teaching

Environmental Education

Content Education

Education focused on environmental theories

Theories without dialogic action on the medium

Conduit formation

Theories with dialogic action on the environment

Conduit training with environmental themes

Environmental education and environmental practices

Education for Sustainable

Emancipatory and participatory education

SDG focused education

Exemplification; Experimentation and/or observation

Critical and participative construction of solutions

Eco-urban and emancipatory formation

Training for sustainability

Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Comparative summary between the four school models, with respective comparative aspects

References Abreu DG de, Moura MO de (2014) Construção de instrumentos teórico-metodológicos para captar a formação de professores. Educ Pesqui 40(2):401–414 Aleixo AM, Leal S, Azeiteiro UM (2018) Conceptualization of sustainable higher education institutions, roles, barriers, and challenges for sustainability: an exploratory study in Portugal. J Clean Prod 172:1664–1673 Baker-Shelley A, van Zeijl-Rozema A, Martens P (2017) A conceptual synthesis of organisational transformation: how to diagnose, and navigate, pathways for sustainability at universities? J Clean Prod 145:262–276 Barbieri JC (2007) Organizações inovadoras sustentáveis. In: Barbieri JC, Simantob MA (eds) Organizações inovadoras sustentáveis: uma reflexão sobre o futuro das organizações. Atlas, São Paulo Barth M, Rieckmann M (2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. J Clean Prod 26:28–36 Bauer C (2008) Introdução crítica ao humanismo de Paulo Freire. Sundermann, São Paulo Bowen DS, Miller AL (2018) Education, leadership, and conservation: empowering young Q’eqchi’ women in Guatemala. Int J Educ Dev 59:28–34 Caniglia G, John B, Bellina L, Lang DJ, Laubichler MD (2018) The glocal curriculum: a model for transnational collaboration in higher education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 171:368–376 Cavalcanti Neto ALG, Amaral EMR do (2011) Ensino de ciências e educação ambiental no nível fundamental: análise de algumas estratégias didáticas. Ciênc Educ (Bauru) 17(1):129–144 Cebrián G, Grace M, Humphris D (2015) Academic staff engagement in education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 106:79–86

Cincera J, Biberhofer P, Binka B, Boman J, Rieckmann M (2018) Designing a sustainability-driven entrepreneurship curriculum as a social learning process: a case study from an international knowledge alliance project. J Clean Prod 172:4357–4366 Faham E, Rezvanfar A, Mohammadi SHM, Nohooji MR (2017) Using system dynamics to develop education for sustainable development in higher education with the emphasis on the sustainability competencies of students. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 123:307–326 FBB – Fundação Banco do Brasil (2014) Tecnologias sociais. Fundação. Disponível em: https://www.fbb. org.br/. Acesso em: 22 Jan 2014 Felgueiras MC, Rocha JS, Caetano N (2017) Engineering education towards sustainability. Energy Procedia 136:414–417 Freire P (2007) Pedagogia do Oprimido, 17th edn. Paz e Terra, Rio de Janeiro Khataybeh AM, Subbarini M, Shurman S (2010) Education for sustainable development, an international perspective. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 5:599–603 Layrargues PP, Lima GF da C (2014) As macrotendências político-pedagógicas da educação ambiental brasileira. Ambient Soc 17(1):23–40 Moffatt K, Todd S, Barnoff L, Pyne J, Young NH (2018) Worry about professional education: Emotions and affect in the context of neoliberal change in postsecondary education. Emot Space Soc 26:9–15 Nasibulina A (2015) Education for sustainable development and environmental ethics. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 214:1077–1082 Nord JH, Lee T-R(J-S), Çetin F, Atay Ö, Paliszkiewicz J (2016) Examining the impact of social technologies on empowerment and economic development. Int J Inf Manag 36(6., Part A):1101–1110 Pienaar EF, Lew DK, Wallmo K (2013) Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? An

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development investigation of the context dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Soc Sci Res 42:1542–1554 Reigota MA dos S (2008) Cidadania e educação ambiental. Psicol Soc 20., ed. Especial:61–69 Rodrigues AR de S (2014) Educação ambiental em tempos de transição paradigmática: entrelaçando saberes “disciplinados”. Ciênc Educ (Bauru) 20(1):195–206 Rodrigues I, Barbieri JC (2008) A emergência da tecnologia social: revisitando o movimento da tecnologia apropriada como estratégia de desenvolvimento sustentável. Rev Adm Pública 42(6):1069–1094 Sidiropoulos E (2014) Education for sustainability in business education programs: a question of value. J Clean Prod 85:472–487 Silva SG de (2005) A contribuição da pesquisa no desenvolvimento da aprendizagem da criança nas séries iniciais. Instituto Natalense de Educação Superior – INAES, Natal. Disponível em: www.ipeprn.edu.br/ief/ 07.pdf. Acesso em: 12 Nov 2014 Steil CA, Carvalho IC de M (2014) Epistemologias ecológicas: delimitando um conceito. Mana 20(1):163–183 Sterling S, Thomas I (2006) Education for sustainability: the role of capabilities in guiding university curricula. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1:349–370

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development Robert Eduardo Cooper-Ordoñez1, Aleix Altimiras-Martin2 and Walter Leal Filho3 1 Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Materials, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Department of Science and Technology Policy, Institute of Geosciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 3 Faculty of Life Sciences, World Sustainable Development Research and Transfer Centre, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Definition Environmentally friendly products are market-oriented products that cause minimal environmental degradation and their production is linked to a product development process that is structured in

575

a way that considers the impacts that can be caused to the environment throughout their life cycle.

Introduction The environmental degradation caused by human activities has increased during this last century beyond what the Earth system can sustain. Climate change, ocean eutrophication, and biodiversity loss are some examples of the factors that have exceeded natural boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009). Traditionally, product development (PD) focused on achieving quality, cost, and time targets, while environmental aspects were only indirectly considered (Abele 2005). However, given the current socioecological situation, it is now urgent to integrate sustainability aspects in PD. To address such issue within the firms’ boundaries, PD is now conceived from a sustainable development perspective (Hauschild et al. 2008). The consciousness about environmental issues and limits is old. In particular, since 1798, Maltus suggested that the Earth would not be able to sustain the growing human population (Bhate and Lawler 1997). As consumers have increasingly concerned about environment, a concept of environmentally friendly consumer was introduced (Shrum et al. 1995). In this scenario, firms started developing their own sustainability strategies, by using the concept of the triple bottom line (Elkington 1997) through which they integrate the economic, social, and environmental perspectives in their decision process. To achieve a high competitive advantage and differentiated products, firms require a superior production capacity (flexible production with high quality and productivity) and a satisfactory performance in their product development process (PDP), which entails a long-term development strategy combined with an efficient management of the process. This long-term strategy is related to the need that firms adopt sustainable practices and integrate them in their processes. In fact, such needs

E

576

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

were put forward by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015), through Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns which “Encourage [s] companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.” Companies are constituted by people, and they are the ones who have the power to adopt sustainable practices. According to Niu et al. (2010), higher education educates students in all professions, trains future government leaders, and, therefore, influences the development of future policies. In this context, many professional engineers are developing projects to achieve sustainable solutions, but there is still a gap between the knowledge they acquire in their university degree and the concepts of sustainability that they practice as an engineer (Biswas 2012). Thus, the objective of this entry is to identify how the sustainability concept is integrated into the product development process to produce environmentally friendly products and what are the gaps that exist to direct future work in these areas. To do so, this entry will define the concepts of environmentally friendly products, sustainable development, and how those concepts are addressed in higher education in sections “Environmentally Friendly Products,” “▶ Sustainable Development,” and “Sustainable Development and Environmentally Friendly Products in Higher Education.” Then, in section “Technological Change for Environmentally Friendly Products,” it will be explained how technological change can be used to produce environmentally friendly products. In section “Product Development Process,” the product development process (PDP) is explained, and, in section “Sustainability Tools,” selected tools that can be used in the PDP to develop environmentally friendly products are reviewed. In section “Integration Between Product Development and Sustainability,” the relationship between product development and sustainability is assessed. In section “Final Considerations,” the final considerations appear.

Environmentally Friendly Products Environmentally friendly products are marketoriented products or technologies that cause minimal environmental degradation (Maxwell and Van der Vorst 2003). Additionally, the term “environmentally friendly products” is usually associated with the terms “eco-friendly products” and “green products,” all of them related to product innovation, i.e., the process whereby new products and/or technologies are brought into the market (De Medeiros et al. 2014). Also, according to Ottman et al. (2010), “the terms ‘green product’ and ‘environmental product’ are used commonly to describe those that strive to protect or enhance the natural environment by conserving energy and/or resources and reducing or eliminating use of toxic agents, pollution, and waste.” A more comprehensive definition was given by Dangelico et al. (2013) who consider “green product” through their whole life cycle. Consequently, “Green products are defined and assessed on a much larger set of environmental impacts (e.g., material use, energy impacts, carbon footprints, etc.) that occur during the design, development, and distribution phases, well before the products reached a retail store shelf.”

Sustainable Development The concept of sustainable development (SD) was defined by the Brundtland Committee (Brundtland 1987) as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development can be understood as a set of planned strategies to fulfil sustainability criteria through which the society, the economy, and the ecosystems will be transformed progressively (Nobre et al. 2012). Seeking has sustainability transformed the competitive scenario, forcing firms to change how they think about products, technologies, processes, and business models (Nidumolu et al. 2009). The Oslo Manual pointed to innovation

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

as a fundamental aspect for growth, reinforcing the relevance of innovation for sustainability (Kloepffer 2008). Responding to the pressure to integrate sustainability aspects in their management, firms started to develop sustainability strategies based on the triple bottom line (TBL), trying to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives (Streimikiene and Siksnelyte 2016). To be sustainable, a firm needs to secure both its rights to operate and to generate profits. For a firm, triple bottom line (TBL) is the feature that is similar to the concept of sustainable development since it tries to incorporate social and environmental factors into the firms’ decision-making (de Nadae and de Carvalho 2016). The term triple bottom line was first coined by Elkington (1997), who stated that firms should consider people, planet, and profit. In this sense, the TBL mimics the three dimensions considered in the sustainable development concept. The implementation of the TBL concept provides the following benefits: increases revenues, reduces energy expenses, reduces waste expenses, reduces materials and water expenses, increases labor productivity, reduces recruitment expenses, and reduces strategic and operational risks (Onyali 2014). Measuring the sustainability performance has become a key issue for firms and remains a complex one (de Nadae and de Carvalho 2016). According to Gmelin and Seuring (2014), the TBL concept should be associated with the PDP to develop and produce sustainable products. However, they point out that the interface between product development, sustainability, and the product life cycle management is not yet consolidated, and further research is required to integrate these three aspects.

Sustainable Development and Environmentally Friendly Products in Higher Education Education is considered a key element to promote the necessary change to achieve sustainability. The resolution of the UN General Assembly

577

declared a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DEDS) (2005–2014) invited all educational institutions to contribute to education for sustainability. According to Van Weenen (2006), several universities have begun the debate about the content of SD concept and the ways in which to integrate it into their university policy, organization, and activities, and there are many ways in which universities can be involved in sustainable development, e.g., management, planning, development, education, research, operations, community service, purchasing, transportation, design, new construction, renovation, and retrofit. In the scientific literature, several studies are found that report how higher education institutions can become a key factor to promote sustainable development because they play a fundamental role in the education of professionals, politicians, and scientists, some of whom can assume leadership positions in their countries (Clugston and Calder 1999; Rowe 2007; Ralph and Stubbs 2014; León-fernández et al. 2015). In a study by Niu et al. (2010) to analyze the significance of developments across Chinese higher education (HE) in the field of education and learning for SD, a set of barriers was identified, with focus on regional differences and the need for broader educational approaches across academic disciplines. On the other hand, it was identified that SD teaching has been integrated in technical fields, especially in the universities of the main cities, and research has been carried out to develop economically effective and environmentally friendly innovations. In this sense, Rodríguez-solera and Silva-laya (2017) present a study demonstrating how a group of agronomists who studied at a university in Central America (EARTH University) with strong emphasis on the teaching of sustainable development are having a strong and positive influence in economic, environmental, and social aspects in your region. On the other hand, there are several organizations worldwide that make enormous efforts to contribute to developing the concept of sustainability in higher education, such as the AASHE

E

578

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

(the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education). In addition, some papers, such as the one presented by Lambrechts et al. 2017), show how the elements of empowerment are currently incorporated in professional development initiatives and how they can be strengthened to lead to greater integration of sustainability competencies in HE. However, according to Rodríguez-solera and Silva-laya (2017), the great interest that exists on the SD does not imply a consensus on a single form of education for sustainability. There are different and even opposite views on what development means and the features it must be qualified as sustainable, which has implications for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). According to Weisser and Weisser (2017), a fundamental question that has not been adequately addressed is how higher education institutions define the term sustainability. In his work, this author states that there is no universal definition of sustainability within the American university system, and colleges and universities use the term in many ways, often with little theoretical or ideological basis. However, for Roure et al. (2018), proposing a framework for the integration of sustainable development through an approach using the concept of life cycle and its associated tools can be an effective way of integrating the concepts of sustainability into the curriculum.

Technological Change for Environmentally Friendly Products Innovation can be considered a stochastic process in which the different actors of society (citizens, the private sector, the public sector, NGOs, etc.) can support or hinder it (Kemp and Soete 1992). According to Dosi et al. (1988), innovation is characterized by uncertainty, dependency on science, and R&D complexity, related to learning processes of the producer (learning by doing) and use (learning by using), and its trajectory is not a simple reaction to markets for many reasons. Technologies are influenced by the “selection environment,” constituted by the interests and interplay of the social actors.

New green product innovation faces extra barriers. They usually are more expensive and of lower quality than established technology (precisely because those already benefitted from years of experience in being produced and used and of interaction with established institutions) (Kemp and Soete 1992). Additionally, they have to fight against the incumbent actors, which have stronger economic and political positions and institutions which are biased toward established technologies (e.g., energy market regulation has proven to be a decisive barrier for the diffusion of renewable energies unless it is actively changed to include alternative generation) (Jacobsson and Bergek 2004; Foxon and Pearson 2007). In the 1960–1970s, technology was seen as the cause of environmental degradation, as something static, and environmental (end-of-pipe) technologies were considered expensive (Foray and Grübler 1996); therefore the development and adoption of innovative technologies has been considered to hinder economic competitivity. However, in the following years, technology started to be something dynamic and endogenous, and, despite green product being initially more expensive and of lower quality, it has been recognized that such technological change can boost economic competitivity. This has been called the “Porter hypothesis” (Porter et al. 2016) whereby new green technologies overtake established ones and provide international competitivity in the long term. In fact, technological change is a key driver of sustainable development because it is tightly coupled to the TBL concept. For example, recent technologies might improve social well-being (e.g., comfort, health, job quality, etc.), and social actors determine which technologies are accepted and supported. New technological developments depend on the economic context (e.g., liquidity, market expectations, regulation, etc.) and at the same time will determine the economic performance (by determining fixed and variable costs of production). Different technologies have different impacts on the environment (e.g., different emission types and rates), while the environmental conditions,

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

i.e., availability of natural resources and climate, influence local technological choices. For example, a paradigm of sustainable development induced by technological change is the Brazilian bioethanol program for transportation. Although it was initially developed for its socioeconomic impacts, it also has proved to mitigate environmental impacts (Moreira and Goldemberg 1999; Hira et al. 2009). However, currently, sustainable products are mostly associated with environmentally friendly products, and one of the factors to conceive environmentally friendly innovation is product development process (PDP) – not only in itself but because it might help breaking different innovation barriers. In particular, PDP is at the heart of providing the specifications for new products, i.e., determining the degree of environmental “friendliness.” Also, it might help the private sector to overcome organizational barriers (i.e., companies tend to focus on in-house, known technologies, and PD might play a role in pursuing new technological developments) and institutional barriers, e.g., by bringing awareness of the key elements related to environmentally friendly products such as legislation and public opinion.

Product Development Process The origin of the formal product development process occurred most notably in the late nineteenth century. With the passage of time, it has awakened in the industry great importance, reaching a position of prominence at the end of the twentieth century. It was from the Industrial Revolution, leveraged by the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor and his contemporaries, that the product development process (PDP) underwent changes, including the hierarchical structure of that process. In this period, as the technological complexity of the products grew, this process began to demand more robust and detailed analyses, being the object of specific concern in the industrial environment (Cunha 2004). An important change that the PDP experienced was that the structure ceased to be centralized in a single person and restricted to a single area of

579

knowledge and began to be decentralized, involving several areas of knowledge, coming to collaborative work, together with the interaction between areas, thus establishing a more systemic structure. Product development process (PDP) is a sequence of activities to devise, design, and market a product of a company. Since many of these activities are intellectual and organizational in order to deliver a physical product, they lead to a transformation of a business opportunity and a set of assumptions about one or more technologies into a product that is applicable to the market (Krishnan and Ulrich 2001). In the same way, product development can be seen as a process, which means to perform several activities, from concept generation to product discontinuity. To effectively control the PDP, it is necessary to describe the activities, the stages, and the logic of the process. This requires a modelling structure that can capture the specific characteristics of each company (Jun and Suh 2008). According to de Paula and Mello (2013), the PDP defines all the functions involved in the development process, including clear and objective tasks, responsibilities, and interfaces, helping development teams in organizations to achieve strategic objectives such as high quality and reduction of time and costs in the development of new products. Some organizations follow a precise and detailed development process, while others may not even be able to describe their process. In addition, each organization employs a process that is at least slightly different than any other organization (Krishnan and Ulrich 2001) and is able to apply some own process technique or model that represents the PDP over the years.

Sustainability Tools In the last years, many sustainability approaches and tools have promoted a rereading of the techniques of industrial design and production of goods, to include sustainability issues (Byggeth and Hochschorner 2006).

E

580

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

The following is a brief description of a set of tools that consider the environmental dimension, and which can be directly linked to the product development process: reverse logistics, cradle to cradle, design for environment (DFE), ecodesign, quality function deployment for environment (QFDE), green supply chain, life cycle assessment (LCA), and sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM). Reverse Logistics: According to dos Santos (2010), reverse logistics activities are summarized in four basic functions: (1) control of the flow of materials and the flow of information from point of consumption to origin; (2) moving the products in the direction: consumer ➔ producer; (3) search for the best use of resources; and (4) disposal safety after disposal. In practical terms, reverse logistics has as its main objective to reduce pollution of the environment and waste of inputs, as well as reuse and recycling of products. Of course, when it is said that the product must return to its origin, it is not meant to be returned exactly to the point where it was manufactured, but rather to return to the company that produced it. The company, in turn, will give the destination that is more convenient; it may be to recover it, to recycle it, to sell it to another company, or even to throw it in the trash. Cradle to Cradle: The view that waste is raw material is the motto for the proposed cradle to cradle, an opposition to the traditional view “cradle to grave.” Mcdonough and Braungart (2002) set up a certification system for companies that redesign their processes based on the safety and regenerative productivity of nature, mimicking the flow of naturally occurring nutrients using, analogously, the technological metabolism (Magnago et al. 2012). Under the cradle-to-cradle design approach, products that result in materials flowing into the biosphere (of the product or packaging contents) are considered “consumer products.” Materials recovered after use may be considered “service products.” The cradle-to-cradle approach centers on an ideological transition from “less bad” to “more good.” Well-known conventional ecoefficient approaches strive to reduce the ecological footprint to minimize the damage inflicted in

the world by focusing this approach on ecoefficiency, encouraging companies to do the right things for continuous improvement in product development, industry, and economy (Toxopeus et al. 2015). Design for Environment (DFE): According to Fiksel (1995), it “is the systematic consideration of design performance with respect to environmental, health, safety, and sustainability objectives over the full product and process life cycle.” The DFE is an industrial ecology tool and should examine the whole product life cycle to propose changes in the design in order to minimize the environmental impact of the product from its manufacturing to its disposal. However, this tool requires the information contained in the bill of materials (BOM), which allows you to diagnose which parts of the product are most critical and change possibilities in the design phase, thus improving the appearance of the product at the end of its life (de Aguiar et al. 2017). Eco-design: Rossi et al. (2016) state that according to ISO 2011, eco-design is an approach that considers and integrates environmental aspects into the product development process, through the application of strategies aimed at reducing the negative environmental impact during the phases of the life cycle of product. It considers the function of the product, its safety, performance, cost, market acceptance, quality, legislation, and regulations. For Boks (2006), the eco-design plays an important role in the PDP. This author defines the success factors that generate the relationships of this approach in the PDP, based on the following areas of interest: management, relationship with clients, relationship with suppliers, integration of environmental issues in the PDP, training, and motivation. Quality Function Deployment for Environment (QFDE): QFDE supports in the decisionmaking process contributing with the insertion of environmental context. This approach aims to treat simultaneously the aspects of environmental information’s and traditional vision of products quality requirement. QFDE focus is to encourage

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

the growth of environmental awareness in the product design stage, making possible the identification of improvement points even in a conceptual stage (Masui et al. 2003). The QFDE is composed of four phases. The phases I and II result in the identification of items and components that allow to delineate the product design composed by environmental aspects and traditional items. After this identification, the design engineers team improve the design from the environmental point of view to evaluate the environmental changes of product in advance. In sequence, in the phases III and IV, engineers investigate the possibility of improvements in the components drawing, focusing in the identification of improvements that are results of drawing changes (Masui et al. 2003). Green Supply Chain: This tool covers all activities of flow and transformation of products from the stage of raw materials (extraction) to the end user, as well information flows associated. The materials and information flows relate in both up and down directions in the green supply chain. The sustainable green supply chain management can be defined as management of materials, information, and flow. It also is characterized by the cooperation between enterprises considering three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental), both of customers and stakeholders’ requirements. In the green supply chain, the stakeholders should attend environmental and social criteria, remaining within the context of supply chain, while competitiveness is maintained in line with customer needs and related economic criteria (Seuring and Müller 2008). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): LCA is a technique used to quantify the environmental impact of products and services during its life cycle (ISO 14040 (2006)). There are several procedures based on this methodology to support the calculation of environmental impact. This methodology includes commercial software tools which are used directly or indirectly (Rahdari and Anvary Rostamy 2015). In this aspect, one of goals of LCA is analyze the impacts of production process, identifying causes and consequences.

581

According to ISO 14040 (2006), the structure of product life cycle assessment should include the definition of the purpose and scope of the study, inventory analysis, environmental impact assessment, and interpretation of results, all this belongs to its development and application. The four steps of the LCA methodology are: 1. The goals and scope definition to limit the study and to choose the functional unit, 2. input and output inventory analysis of energy and materials which are important to the studied system, 3. impact assessment or life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) for classify the environmental impacts, 4. interpretation phase to test whether conclusions are well-substantiated. When LCA is used to compare products, it suggests which product would be environmentally preferable; in addition it identifies opportunities of improvements in the environmental performance. LCA allows to create and manage information to analyze and to support the decision-making process with projects and manufacturing. Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM): This is preliminary analysis tool to assess the sustainable performance of economic, environmental, and social aspects in the manufacturing. The metrics for sustainable production performance evaluation are examined to identify essential metrics and criteria to be included in VSM (lean production method to identify wastes, analyze current state, and design desired manufacturing), promoting the sustainable production of this product and consecutively realizing the continuous improvement, resulting now in Sus-VSM (Faulkner and Badurdeen 2014). Besides the previous presented tools that take into account basically the environmental dimension, there are other tools that consider the social and economic dimensions, and although that these other tools may not be directly related to the activities of the product development process, they can be included during the analytical stages of this process, and hence they can impact the strategic decisions or of the product portfolio planning of a company considering the impact that they have. Those tools are sustainable value analysis tool (SVAT), sustainability balanced

E

582

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

scorecard (SBSC), and corporate social responsibility (CSR). A brief description of each one of these tools is going to be presented in the next paragraphs. Sustainable Value Analysis Tool (SVAT): It is a qualitative analysis type of tool that consists on a multidimensional value formulary that allows evaluation in depth of a system. The big motivation to its development was the conclusion that during the product project, few organizations are preoccupied in adding value to the environmental and social aspects. The main objective of this tool is to identify creation opportunities of sustainable value during the product-service system life cycle. In this context the development of the tool assists manufacturing companies to integrate sustainability on the development of product-service systems and also helps researchers to understand the challenges and main factors of this process (Yang et al. 2014). With this tool in each phase of product development, the value proposal is described regarding the social, economic, and environmental dimensions and also regarding the intersections between those dimensions, these intersections being economical-environmental, social-economic, social-environmental, and economical-socialenvironmental. Hence with this process the identification of non-captured value in the whole process of product development is done, taking into account the considered values and also in agreement with the sustainable dimensions structure, in the same way of the value proposal. Afterward the non-captured value is analyzed, and other opportunities of value are explored; finally the value opportunities are evaluated (Yang et al. 2014). Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC): Presented by Figge et al. (2002), it is based on the balanced scorecard (BSC) proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), but with the inclusion of the environmental and social aspects in the company strategies. Factors of nonmonetary success are utilized, for instance, aspects of sustainability that have a significant financial impact on the company; those aspects are attributes of verification and measurement of the performance of the established strategies. The concept SBSC is an open concept; this means that traditional

corporation strategies, as well as explicit corporate sustainability strategies, can be used as an entry point. In the SBSC it is of great importance to have a management based on the value of the social and environmental aspects; these aspects must be integrated to the general management system of the company. This process must guarantee that the SBSC is specific to the business unit. However, the environmental and social aspects of a business unity must be integrated considering their strategical importance; this includes the question of knowing if the introduction of an additional noncommercial perspective is necessary (Figge et al. 2002). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): It is a management approach for the contribution of companies to the sustainable development. It considers the concept of management of relations with the interested parts; Steurer et al. (2005) defined CSR as “concept in which companies integrate social and environmental preoccupations in their business operations and in the company’s interaction with the interested parts in a voluntary base” and “it is not a surprise to find the bottom triple line also in the context.” The approach strongly emphasizes the need of consulting with the main interested parts of the sustainable development community (Kang et al. 2015).

Integration Between Product Development and Sustainability One of the first efforts to try to integrate the concepts of sustainability and product development was in 1996, through a German research group called “Design for Environment: Methods and Tools.” The so-called Collaborative Research Center 392 (CRC 392) was sponsored by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) from 1996 to 2004. Its main objective was to provide key research on product development methodologies, methods, and tools dedicated to the design and development of ecological products (Abele 2005). Because of this effort, an integrated product policy (IPP) was adopted in 2003 in the

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

European community based on a three-step strategy in decision-making processes: • Tools to create the right economic and legal framework, based on the principles of “polluter pays” and “producer responsibility.” • Promoting the application of life cycle thinking. Product eco-design was considered a very promising approach, and the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was considered as one of the most important methods for analyzing and monitoring the environmental impacts of currently available products. • Giving consumers the information, they need to decide. The choice of an informed consumer is based on the incentive of ecological products in the market creating consumer awareness. When the integration between product development and sustainability is investigated, academic research shows that development of green products has grown in interest. However, to date, only a few empirical studies have addressed the challenge of integrating environmental issues into

583

new product development (NPD) (Dangelico et al. 2013). Due to the above, and in order to continue the search to find the link or corresponding to the integration of sustainability issues in the product development process, the authors of this entry made a search on the Web of Science database using the following terms: “sustainability,” “triple bottom line,” “new product development,” “product development,” and “product development process.” In the search conducted between June and September 2017, 299 scientific articles on sustainability and product development were obtained. Analyzing the main topics addressed in these articles, Fig. 1 shows a network graph in which the most frequently recorded keywords are related. It is highlighted in Fig. 1, obtained using the Netdraw software, the keywords with more relationship lines in the 299 articles that are “product development” and “sustainability” participating in 42% and 40% of the publications, respectively. These percentages were calculated considering the number of occurrences found of these

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Relationship network of keywords in articles. (Source: Obtained from Netdraw software)

E

584

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

keywords. When the words “model” and “framework” are linked with “product development” and “new product development,” this association is weak. The keyword TBL does not appear in the result of the software processing. With the purpose of analyzing how the pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) are distributed in the 299 articles collected, it was necessary to make a separation as follows: (1) articles that discussed only one dimension, (2) articles that discussed two dimensions among themselves, and (3) articles that discussed the three dimensions among each other, plus the articles that discussed the TBL concept. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis.

In Table 1, the domain of the environmental dimension was evident in at least 75.6% of the articles, either individually or in combination with the other dimensions, followed by the social dimension in at least 36.8% of articles and finally economic dimension in at least 32.4% of the articles, being the pillar with the lowest representation. Figure 2 shows a network graph that lists the 16 scientific articles with the largest number of citations, identified through the names of the authors, with more than 17 references to their relationship or condition of co-citation between them. In this way, Table 2 shows the 16 articles of the network with more than 17 citations, most notably by Hart (1995), Baumann et al. (2002), and Pujari et al. (2003) with 30, 28, and 26 citations, respectively.

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Distribution of articles by sustainability dimension Dimension Environmental (Env) Economic (Ec) Social (Soc) Env and Ec Env and Soc Percentage 37.5% 3.3% 7.0% 11.0% 11.7%

Ec and Soc 2.7%

TBL 15.4%

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Co-citation network. (Source: Obtained from Netdraw software)

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

585

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Articles of the co-citation network Author Hart (1995) Baumann, Boons e Bragd (2002) Pujari, Wright e Peattie (2003) Pujari (2006) Porter e Linde (1995) Dangelico e Pontrandolfo (2010) Kaebernick, Kara e Sun (2003) Nidumolu, Prahalad e Rangaswami (2009) Luttropp e Lagerstedt (2006) Barney (1991) Elkington (1997) Boks (2006) Byggeth e Hochschorner (2006) Eisenhardt (1989) Albino, Balice e Dangelico (2009) Zhu e Sarkis (2004)

Journal Academy of Management Review Journal of Cleaner Production Journal of Business Research Technovation Harvard Business Review Journal of Cleaner Production Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Harvard Business Review

Journal of Cleaner Production Journal of Management New Society Publishers Journal of Cleaner Production Journal of Cleaner Production Academy of Management Review Business Strategy and the Environment Journal of Operations Management

Title A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm

Citations 30

Mapping the Green Product Development Field: Engineering, Policy, and Business Perspectives Green and Competitive Influences on Environmental New Product Development Performance Eco-innovation and New Product Development: Understanding the Influences on Market Performance Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate

28 26 25 23

From Green Product Definitions and Classifications to the Green Option Matrix

21

Sustainable Product Development and Manufacturing by Considering Environmental Requirements

21

Why Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation There’s No Alternative to Sustainable Development

20

Eco-design and the Ten Golden Rules: Generic Advice for Merging Environmental Aspects into Product Development Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage

20

Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business The Soft Side of Eco-design

19

Handling Trade-Offs in Eco-design Tools for Sustainable Product Development and Procurement

18

Building Theories from Case Study Research

18

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development: An Overview on Sustainability-Driven Companies Relationships Between Operational Practices and Performance Among Early Adopters of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises

17

In summary, it can be seen that the terms of sustainability and PDP can be integrated, having an intensification in recent years, justified by the existing environmental demand in society. However, due to their complex interrelations, it is not possible to find a deeper understanding of PDP models that integrate sustainability tools and approaches, which indicates that this matter should continue to be investigated.

20

18

17

Final Considerations Technological change is a fundamental vector not only for socioeconomic development but also for sustainable development (SD), since it can induce a simultaneous improvement of the social, economic, and environmental dimension. In this sense, engineers have a fundamental role in this development, since they can create complete solutions, that is, to

E

586

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development

induce socioeconomic development while avoiding environmental degradation or even inducing an improvement of this dimension. The link between the production of environmentally friendly products and sustainable development can be given through a structured product development process (PDP) model that considers the entire product life cycle. In this entry, the fundamental concepts of these topics were presented, the way they are related, and a bibliographic review was made showing the links that exist between these concepts, the tools that can be incorporated to the PDP model, and the lack of integration that still prevails, so we hope that in higher education institutions, teachers and students consider in their study or research activities to propose models to unite these concepts and contribute to the creation of environmentally friendly products that provide a sustainable development.

References Abele E (2005) Environmentally-friendly product development Albino V, Balice A, Dangelico RM (2009) Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability-driven companies. Bus Strateg Environ 18:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.638 Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17:99–120 Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A (2002) Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy, and business perspectives. J Clean Prod 10:409–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00015-X Bhate S, Lawler K (1997) Environmentally friendly products: factors that influence their adoption. Technovation 17:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97) 00006-0 Biswas WK (2012) The importance of industrial ecology in engineering education for sustainable development. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211818 Boks C (2006) The soft side of ecodesign. J Clean Prod 14:1346–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005. 11.015 Brundtland G (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford paper report of:400. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2621529 Byggeth S, Hochschorner E (2006) Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. J Clean Prod 14:1420–1430. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024

Clugston RM, Calder W (1999) Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education, Peter Lang, 1 Cunha GD (2004) Uma Análise da Evolução dos Procedimentos de Execução do Desenvolvimento de. Produtos Rev Prod 7:1–19 Dangelico RM, Pontrandolfo P (2010) From green product definitions and classifications to the green option matrix. J Clean Prod 18:1608–1628. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.007 Dangelico RM, Pontrandolfo P, Pujari D (2013) Developing sustainable new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries: role of external integrative capabilities. J Prod Innov Manag 30:642–658. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12013 de Aguiar J, de Oliveira L, da Silva JO et al (2017) A design tool to diagnose product recyclability during product design phase. J Clean Prod 141:219–229. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.074 De Medeiros JF, Ribeiro JLD, Cortimiglia MN (2014) Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 65:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035 de Nadae J, de Carvalho MM (2016) UMA ANALISE DOS SISTEMAS DE GESTÃO INTEGRADOS E O DESEMPENHO BASEADO NO TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE. XXXVI ENCONTRO Nac Eng Prod 1–17 de Paula JO, Mello CHP (2013) Seleção de um modelo de referência de PDP para uma empresa de autopeças através de um método de auxílio à decisão por múltiplos critérios. PRO 23:144–156. https://doi.org/ 10.1590/S0103-65132012005000082 dos Santos FYSRGMMR (2010) A logística reversa e a sustentabilidade empresarial. XIII Semead - Semin em Adm:1–17 Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R et al (1988) Technical change and economic theory. LEM B Ser 338:219–308 Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14:532–550 Elkington J (1997) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Environ Qual Manag Autumn 199:37–51. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tqem.3310080106 Faulkner W, Badurdeen F (2014) Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. J Clean Prod 85:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.05.042 Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard – linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strateg Environ 11:269–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339 Fiksel J. (1995) Design for environment: creating eco-efficient products and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill Foray D, Grübler A (1996) Technology and the environment: an overview. Technol Forecast Soc Change 53:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(95)00064-X Foxon TJ, Pearson PJG (2007) Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Energy Policy 35:1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.009

Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development Gmelin H, Seuring S (2014) Determinants of a sustainable new product development. J Clean Prod 69:1–9. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.053 Hart SL (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag Rev 20:986–1014. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280033 Hauschild M, Jeswiet J, Alting L (2008) From life cycle assessment to sustainable production status and perspectives. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 3:22 Hira A, Guilherme L, Oliveira D (2009) No substitute for oil? How Brazil developed its ethanol industry. Energy Policy 37:2450–2456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2009.02.037 Jacobsson S, Bergek A (2004) Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Ind Corp Chang 13:815–849. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth032 Jun HB, Suh HW (2008) A modeling framework for product development process considering its characteristics. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55:103–119. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TEM.2007.912808 ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework - International Organization for Standardization, ISO, Geneva, 20 pp Kaebernick H, Kara S, Sun M (2003) Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 19:461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5845(03) 00056-5 Kang JS, Chiang CF, Huangthanapan K, Downing S (2015) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability balanced scorecard: the case study of familyowned hotels. Int J Hosp Manag 48:124–134. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.001 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70:71 00178012 Kemp R, Soete L (1992) The greening of technological progress. Futures 24:437–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0016-3287(92)90015-8 Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–94. https://doi. org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376 Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manag Sci 47:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668 Lambrechts W, Verhulst E, Rymenams S (2017) Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education. The role of empowerment. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2016-0028 León-fernández Y, Domínguez-vilches E, León-fernández Y, Domínguez-vilches E (2015) Environmental management and sustainability in higher education. The case of Spanish Universities. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2013-0084 Luttropp C, Lagerstedt J (2006) EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J Clean Prod 14:1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005. 11.022

587

Magnago PF, de Aguiar JPO, de Paula IC (2012) Sustentabilidade Em Desenvolvimento De Produtos: Uma Proposta Para a Classificação De Abordagens. Rev Produção Online 12:351–376. https://doi.org/10.14488/1676-1901.v12i2.796 Masui K, Sakao T, Kobayashi M, Inaba A (2003) Applying quality function deployment to environmentally conscious design. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 20:90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656 710310453836 Maxwell D, Van der Vorst R (2003) Developing sustainable products and services. J Clean Prod 11:883–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526 (02)00164-6 Moreira JR, Goldemberg J (1999) The alcohol program. Energy Policy 27:229–245 McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Remarking the way we make things: cradle to cradle. New York: North Point Press Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR (2009) Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harv Bus Rev 57–64 Niu D, Jiang D, Li F (2010) Higher education for sustainable development in China. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676371011031874 Nobre FS, Walker D, Harris R (2012) Technological, Managerial and Organizational Core Competences: Dynamic Innovation and Sustainable Developmet. IGI Globel: Hershey PA, 732 pp. https://doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-61350-165-8 Onyali CI (2014) Triple bottom line accounting and sustainable corporate performance. Res J Financ Acc 5:195–209 Ottman JA, Stafford ER, Hartman CL et al (2010) Avoiding green marketing myopia: ways to improve consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 9157. https://doi.org/ 10.3200/ENVT.48.5.22-36 Porter ME, van der LC (1995) Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harv Bus Rev 28:128–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(95)99997-E Porter ME, Van Der Linde C, The S et al (2016) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Am Econ Assoc Stable 9:97–118 http:// www.jstor.org/stable/2138392 Pujari D (2006) Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 26:76–85. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.006 Pujari D, Wright G, Peattie K (2003) Green and competitive influences on environmental new product development performance. J Bus Res 56:657–671. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00310-1 Rahdari AH, Anvary Rostamy AA (2015) Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. J Clean Prod 108:757–771. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.108 Ralph M, Stubbs W (2014) Integrating environmental sustainability into universities 71–90. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10734-013-9641-9

E

588

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a Rodríguez-solera CR, Silva-laya M (2017) Higher education for sustainable development at EARTH University. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2015-0104 Rossi M, Germani M, Zamagni A (2016) Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. J Clean Prod 129:361–373. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.051 Roure B, Anand C, Bisaillon V, Amor B (2018) Systematic curriculum integration of sustainable development using life cycle approaches: The case of the Civil Engineering Department at the Université de Sherbrooke. Int J Sust High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE07-2017-0111 Rowe D (2007) Education for a Sustainable Future. Science 317:232–324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1143552 Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020 Shrum LJ, McCarty JA, Lowrey TM (1995) Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. J Advert 24:71–82. https://doi. org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673477 Steurer R, Langer ME, Konrad A, Martinuzzi A (2005) Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations. J Bus Ethics 61:263–281. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0 Streimikiene D, Siksnelyte I (2016) Sustainability assessment of electricity market models in selected developed world countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.113 Toxopeus ME, De Koeijer BLA, Meij AGGH (2015) Cradle to cradle: effective vision vs. efficient practice? Procedia CIRP 29:384–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procir.2015.02.068 Van Weenen H (2006) Towards a vision of a sustainable university United Nations (2015) General Assembly, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1 available from un.org/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E Weisser CR, Weisser CR (2017) Defining sustainability in higher education: a rhetorical analysis. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2015-0215 Yang M, Vladimirova D, Rana P, Evans S (2014) Sustainable value analysis tool for value creation. Asian J Manag Sci Appl 1:312–332. https://doi.org/10.1504/ AJMSA.2014.070649 Zhu Q, Sarkis J (2004) Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J Oper Manag 22:265–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jom.2004.01.005

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development Kurian Joseph1, Saeid Eslamian2, Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari3, Mohsen Nekooei2, Hosein Talebmorad2 and Ali Hasantabar-Amiri4 1 Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai, India 2 Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran 3 Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran 4 Department of Civil Engineering, Lenjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lenjan, Isfahan, Iran

Definition Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process having the ultimate objective of providing decision-makers with an indication of the likely consequences of their actions. It is applied internationally as a preventive environmental management tool to ensure that proposed actions are economically viable, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable.

Introduction The natural environment provides four categories of service: provisioning (e.g., food, water, and fiber), regulating (e.g., climate, water, and disease), cultural (e.g., spiritual, aesthetic, recreation, and education), and supporting (e.g., primary production and soil formation). The human impact on the natural environment has increased rapidly over the past century in response to population growth, rapid technological development, industrialization, and agricultural expansion. Transforming society and the world’s economy to a sustainable basis presents the most significant challenge to the twenty-first century. The quest for

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

environmental protection has resulted in the wellknown notion of sustainable development, “The development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” defined by Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) entitled Our Common Future (1987). The overall goal of sustainable development is the long-term stability of the economy and environment achievable through the integration of economic, environmental, and social concerns throughout the democratic and informed decision-making process. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which took place in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, made it clear that we can no longer think of environment and economic and social development as isolated fields. Rio principles of sustainable development had clearly stated that “in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.” Further “environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.” According to Principle 17 of Sustainable Development, “environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.” Agenda 21, which was also as a result of the Rio Convention, proposed that governments should promote the development of appropriate methodologies for making integrated energy, environment and economic policy decisions for sustainable development, inter alia, through environmental impact assessment (EIA), and carry out investment analysis and feasibility studies including environmental assessments for establishing forest-based processing enterprises and projects likely to have significant impacts upon biological diversity. Investment banks like Asian Development Bank (ADB), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), European

589

Investment Bank (EIB), Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), and World Bank (WB) have environmental safeguards to ensure that financing of projects is not only based on the precautionary principle, preventative action rather than curative treatment but sustainable development. This paper presents an overview of EIA and identifies the key issues to be addressed to make it an effective tool to facilitate sustainable development.

Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is defined as the systematic identification and evaluation of the potential impacts (effects) of proposed projects, plans, programs, or legislative actions relative to the physical, chemical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic components of the environment (Canter 1997). According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, “environment” in EIA context mainly focuses, but is not limited, to physical, chemical, biological, geological, social, economical, and aesthetic dimensions along with their complex interactions, which affects individuals and communities and ultimately determines their forms, character, relationship, and survival (MoEF&CC 2015). In EIA context, “effect” and “impact” can often be used interchangeably. However, “impact” is considered as a value judgment of the significance of an effect. EIA is aimed at integrating aspects connected to the natural and human environment in making decisions related to the design, planning, implementation, and monitoring of interventions, with an eye to balanced and sustainable development. It provides a framework for the integration of environment policies and development strategies that will lead toward sustainable development. The precautionary principle establishes that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measure to prevent environmental degradation.” Therefore, the proponent of an activity bears the burden of proving that this action will not cause

E

590

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

significant harm. The EIA should examine project alternatives and identify ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, and compensating for adverse environmental impacts (IAIA 1999). There are also several other processes and tools that relate closely to the review of environmental impacts that may result from a proposed project. These include social impact assessment (SIA), environmental risk assessment (ERA), life cycle analysis (LCA), technology assessment (TA), cumulative impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and cost-benefit assessment (CBA) (MoEF&CC 2015). The objective of EIA is not to halt the actions but to bring about changes for reducing negative environmental impact and optimizing positive benefits. It is a determination, carried out prior to making a decision, of the possible significant environmental effects of a proposed activity so that potential impacts are identified and addressed at an early stage and ultimately arrive at actions that are more environmentally compatible, leading to sustainable development. EIA is interdisciplinary in nature, and public participation is a key element. EIA identifies the environmental and social risks from an investment standpoint and minimizes the risks to the proponent by avoiding delays and extra costs which may subsequently arise due to unanticipated environmental problems. The legal, methodological, and procedural foundations of EIA are established in different countries by national legislations. The emphasis of an EIA is on prevention and, therefore, is more proactive than reactive in nature. An EIA is normally undertaken by those responsible for the development – the “developer or project proponent.” It seeks answers to questions such as: • What are the project proposal’s probable positive contributions to environmentally sustainable development? How can they be optimized? • What are the project proposal’s probable negative environmental impacts? • How to design the project to minimize or avoid these impacts?

• Has consideration been given to other alternatives to achieve the project goals – Alternatives that are better from the environmental point of view? • Can the local environment cope with the additional waste and pollution it will produce? • Will its proposed location conflict with nearby land uses or preclude later developments in the surrounding area? • Is there sufficient infrastructure, such as roads and sewers, to support it? • How much water, energy, and other resources will it consume, and are these in adequate supply? • What human resource will it require or replace, and what social effects may this have on the community? • What damage may it advertently cause to national assets such as virgin forest, tourism areas, or historical and cultural sites? • How can the decision-makers be informed of what needs to be done? According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2005), EIA can contribute to sustainable development by: • Identifying creative ways to achieve an environmental objective, beyond “end-of-pipe” solutions. • Preventing the exhaustion of nonrenewable resources through opportunities for product recycling, waste minimization, and the search for alternative raw materials. • Contributing to community environment awareness and education by involving the community in impact studies and finding opportunities for rehabilitation of degraded landscapes and creation of habitats. • Exploring possibilities to install infrastructure to benefit the local community as well as the development – Such as roads, water and energy supplies, waste management systems, telephone systems, health services, and sporting facilities. • Identifying employment and skills development opportunities for local people (e.g., cleaning and catering businesses).

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

• Seeking opportunities to add to the value chain of products associated with the proposed development and ensuring alternative livelihoods are sought for dispossessed communities. One of the key components of EIA is providing information regarding the environmental factors of the project area, project characteristics, and the identification and evaluation of potential impacts. Fieldwork from EIA studies can make valuable contributions to the development of knowledge of environmental, social, and economic systems. Such information could be extremely useful in guiding future decision-making toward sustainability.

EIA Process A typical EIA process includes several steps as depicted in Fig. 1. These include: • Project description and pertinent institutional information collection • Initial environmental screening • Analysis of alternatives • Identification of potential impacts (scoping) • Description of affected environment • Impact prediction and assessment • Environmental management plan • Public consultation • Documentation (report writing) • Review of EIA report • Decision-making • Environmental monitoring • Environmental auditing

These steps need not follow in a sequential way but is a cyclic process and has to be integrated with the project cycle. Public participation would be required at several steps for enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the EIA. The process essentially has been developed as a procedure to assist decision-makers to fully account for the environmental consequences of any proposed developmental action. The EIA process therefore needs to:

• • • • • • • •

591

Establish baseline environmental conditions. Identify, predict, and assess impacts. Consider alternatives. Suggest mitigation measures. Suggest monitoring programs. Suggest enhancement measures. Consider public opinions. Describe the above in appropriate terms for decisions to be made.

Scoping, screening, and subsequent review are all parts of the EIA process. Screening tools include positive lists that identify activities that require EIA, negative lists that identify activities that are excluded from EIA requirement, expert judgments, or a combination of lists and expert judgments. Scoping is done to limit the focus and scope of the EIA study. It defines and justifies the environmental aspects that may be selected for study, the methods that should be used, and the qualifications and experience necessary to make the study. It identifies groups of stakeholders and their participation and their needs of information and gives priority to questions that shall be studied in the first place. Scoping can often be done as a desk study. However, where major projects are concerned, visits should be made to the geographical area that will be covered by the project. Terms of reference for EIA are then prepared based on results of consultations, legal requirements, or based on generic terms of reference. Many countries establish registers for consultants, or technical specialists, or firms that carry out EIA, and some seek to issue certifications or provide learning courses for EIA practitioners in attempts to improve EIA quality. Countries vary widely in the extent to which EIA relies on public participation. Once an impact has been predicted, its significance must be evaluated using an appropriate choice of criteria. The most important forms of criterion are specific legal requirements (e.g., national laws, standards, international agreements and conventions, relevant policies, etc.), public views, and complaints. Geographical extent of the impact and cost of mitigation, duration (time period over which they will occur), likelihood or probability of occurrence (very likely, unlikely, etc.), and

E

592

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

Parallel Studies

EIA process Define proposal

SCREENING Prepare Initial Environmental Evaluation (Project classified according to environmental sensitivity)

no EIA required

Public participation Public, scientific community and decision makers participate

Public informed and consulted

Review of EIS by regulatory authority and public

EIA required

SCOPING Define issues Make major revisions to proposal (Define terms of reference for full EIA) PREDICTION AND MITIGATION Identify impacts Propose “design” changes and mitigation measures

Prefeasability studies

Feasibility studies

Prepare draft Environmental Impact Statement Detailed design and preparation Prepare final EIS

MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING implement Environmental Management Plan including monitoring. Provide feedback for future EIAs

Implementation

Operation and management AUDIT Assess EIA process

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 EIA process steps and linkages with project stages (Dougherty et al. 1995)

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

reversibility of impact (natural recovery or aided by human intervention) and uncertainty in prediction due to the lack of accurate data or complex systems are to be considered while identifying significant impacts. Typical examples of the economic significance of environmental impacts are presented in Table 1. The EIA study should as a result give an EIA document including: • A description of the present situation • A description of existing legislation in respect of EIAs and the environment • An in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts (positive and negative) of the planned activity, including associated social and economic consequences • An impact analysis of different alternatives, including the zero alternative • Development of measures that optimize the project’s contribution to sustainable development and minimize and avoid damage • Plans for monitoring and evaluation

An environmental management plan (EMP) is a detailed plan and schedule of measures necessary to minimize, mitigate, etc. any potential environmental impacts identified by the EIA. An EMP should consist of a set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during the implementation and operation of the proposed project to eliminate adverse environmental impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. EMP provides a specific description, and technical details, of monitoring measures that includes the parameters to be measured, the methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions. The EMP should also provide a specific description of institutional arrangements, i.e., who is responsible for carrying out the mitigating and monitoring measures for operation, supervision, enforcement, monitoring of implementation, remedial action, financing, reporting, and staff training.

593

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Economic significance of typical environmental impacts (World Bank 1999) Environmental impact Air pollution

Water pollution

Undesirable noise Deforestation

Wetlands

Coral reefs

Impacts on the economy Lost working days and medical expenses due to respiratory diseases Reduced harvests due to effects on vegetation Cleaning expenses, expenses for frequent repainting, destruction of art and historical artifacts through decay Lower property values due to unpleasant odors Reduction in visibility due to smog Lost working days and medical expenses due to pathogenic organisms or toxics Effects on fish reduction in catches Effects on water sports and other reduction in income from tourism water activities Lower property values Reduction in the production of timber and other forest products. Sedimentation and shorter productive time for hydropower reservoirs. Lost ecosystem services from intact forests with high levels of biological diversity (e.g., insectivores, decomposition of organic material, degradation of pollutants, protection against floods, and erosion, “carbon sinks,” pollinators, and seed dispersal) Increase in damage caused by floods, loss of unique natural environments, loss of ecosystem services (e.g., regulation of water level, decomposition of organic material, degradation of pollutants, “carbon sinks”) Reduction in fish production, loss of recreation values, reduction in sediment, loss of biological diversity income from tourism, reduction in the capacity to protect sensitive beaches from the force of the waves, and the loss of possibilities to extract medicines, etc.

E

594

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

EIA Issues From the technical point of view, EIA can be considered as a data management process. It has the following three components: (i) The appropriate information necessary for a particular decision to be taken must be identified and, possibly, collected. (ii) Changes in environmental parameters resulting from the implementation of the project must be determined and compared with the situation likely to accrue without the project. (iii) Actual change must be recorded and analyzed. The International Association for Impact Assessment (1999) and others (OECD 1996; Alex Weaver et al. 2008) have developed guiding principles for EIA/IA. These include: • Focused – The process should concentrate on significant environmental effects and key issues that need to be taken into account in making decisions. • Relevant – The process should focus on information that is relevant for development planning and decision-making. • Interdisciplinary – The process should ensure that the appropriate techniques and experts in the relevant disciplines are employed, including the use of traditional knowledge as relevant. • Integrated – The process should address the interrelationships of social, economic, and biophysical aspects. • Participative – The process should provide appropriate opportunities to inform and involve the interested and affected publics and incorporate their input in decision-making. • Transparency – Assessment process, outcomes, and decisions should be open and accessible. • Certainty – The process and timing of the assessment should be agreed in advanced and followed by all participants. • Accountability – The decision-makers and project proponents are responsible to all parties for their action and decisions under the assessment process.

• Credibility – Assessment is undertaken with professionalism and objectivity. • Cost-effectiveness – The assessment process and its outcomes will ensure environmental protection at the least cost to the society. • Practical – The process should result practical outputs, which can be implemented by proponent. EIA process and reports as practiced currently have several constraints and limitations to be addressed immediately so as to make the maximum benefit out of EIA. Issues like project design and the site location had been determined long before the public get a real opportunity to take part in the EIA process. The developers are then reluctant or unable to make significant changes that the consultation process suggests. The public hearing quite often becomes a focus for adversarial debate between opposing, expensive, experts directed and spurred on by advocates schooled in the art of cajoling witness into submission and contradiction. Such debates are seldom rational or in any other way related to the systematic, iterative, and cooperative characteristics of good EIA practices. The current public hearing practice is least productive as they mainly function as a community safety valve whereby the public vents their frustrations with the authorities and as such is not helpful toward environmental decision-making. Consultation techniques that are sensitive to the local situation are needed. One of the intentions of the regulations is that an EIA should explore alternatives to the proposal. Unfortunately, this is one area where most EIAs are lacking. Few applicants are able to offer an alternative site or a different technical solution. One cannot study measures used to avoid, reduce, or remedy those effects without reviewing the main alternatives studied by the developer in conjunction with reasons for choices made in project selection. The lack of reliable baseline data is another major problem for quantitative EA. It has made objective evaluation of changes in environmental quality difficult, and often impossible. Moreover, acquiring baseline data is generally one of the most expensive and time-consuming activities in the EA process. Field studies should not be undertaken without clearly defined objectives and understanding of the problem to which the data will be applied. The data must be consistent with the

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development

needs of the EA team for modeling or predictive purposes, the decision-maker and the project planners, and the legal and socioeconomic requirements. Careful consideration must be given to the need for and value of existing data in relation to their inherent limitations (e.g., fragmented, inaccessible, unstandardized) and their usefulness in impact analysis and prediction. The focus is often on collecting information and data that are readily available rather than on what is needed for analysis. The data requirements should be defined by what is needed for assessment of the endpoints. Ideally, mitigation measures should be built into the selected alternative, but it is appropriate to identify mitigation measures even if they are not immediately adopted or if they would be the responsibility of another person of the government (Dutta and Bandyopadhyay 2010). Effort should be to avoid all adverse impacts. A monitoring framework should be developed that is capable of identifying deviation deviations from the proposed action and any important anticipated impacts. This should track project and program development and compare real impacts with project ones. It should spell out the nature and extent of additional steps that should take place when unanticipated impacts or those larger than the projection occur.

Conclusion The quest to safeguard the environment from further degradation has been of global concern, and environmental impact assessment (EIA) has evolved and becomes part of major project requirements in many countries. However, its contribution to sustainable development and reduction in poverty of people affected by projects has not been assessed in developing countries. The environmental impact assessment is a systematic process aimed at providing information to decision-makers for ensuring that environmental considerations are a part of decision-making. The scope of these activities will vary depending on the nature of the proposed action, its potential for impacts to the environment, public interest, and the decision-making culture of any given industry or government. EIA has brought the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary approach to environmental protection

595

within the planning process, and project proponents do now have to address the environment far more than ever they did before the introduction of EIA. The effectiveness and quality of the review process, however, depends on professional expertise and experience in the respective countries. Clear guidelines on scoping procedures, on identification of all the relevant impacts, on determination of the significance of these impacts, on the choice of methods used for prediction and survey, on existing data sources, and on the communication of findings would improve the practice. There is a general lack of post-decision monitoring once the proposed development is approved. Compliance monitoring and project auditing should be institutionalized and carried out on a regular basis. EIA report review and public participation are critical stages that need the involvement and inputs from well-informed and interested stakeholders. Unfortunately, most EIA reports are big documents written in technical language unintelligible to most affected and interested stakeholders. These handicaps could be redressed through community empowerment to enable them to understand and assess information. There is general agreement that training has an important contribution to make to effective EIA implementation.

Cross-References ▶ Environmental Impacts Development ▶ Sustainable Development

and

Sustainable

References Canter LW (1997) Environmental Impact Assessment Mc GrawHill International Edition. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc, New York Dougherty TC, Hall AW, Wallingford HR (1995) Environmental impact assessment of irrigation and drainage projects. Food and Agricultural Organisation, UK Dutta BK, Bandyopadhyay S (2010) Environmental impact assessment and social impact assessment – decision making tools for project appraisal in India, World Academy of Science. Eng Technol 39:1116–1121 IAIA (1999) Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, International Association for Impact Assessment, UK. 20pp MoEF&CC (2015) Standard terms of reference for EIA/EMP report for projects/activities requiring

E

596 environment clearance under EIA notification, 2006. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Delhi Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996) Coherence in environmental assessment: practical guidance on development cooperation projects. OECD, Paris Weaver A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Lochner P (2008) Contributing to sustainability as an environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(2):91–98. https://doi.org/ 10.3152/146155108X316423 World Bank 1999 Good practices: environmental assessment, operational manual, GP 4.01, and Environment Department World bank, Washington, DC World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2005) Environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) guidelines. 54pp World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development Carolina Shizue Hoshino Neta1 and Sônia Regina da Cal Seixas2 1 Department of Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Centre for Environmental Studies and Research, NEPAM, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Environmental impact is any positive or negative change in environmental quality resulting from human interference, able to change the natural rhythm of the processes of a system. The evaluation of this event is fundamental to achieving sustainable development.

Introduction Sustainable development has grown in your scope and significance, to be increasingly mentioned in the scientific literature and on assumptions for the development of policies, plans, programs, and

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development

projects. This concept defined in the Brundtland report is a model of development that pays attention to the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). According to Wheeler (2014), the notion of “sustainable development” is related to that of “sustainability” and both express the idea that the human civilisation can be organised to promote the ecological and social well-being in the distant future. Although it seems simple, these concepts have profound implications. Thus, at a minimum, all human activity should not cause any permanent damage degree through the consumption of natural resources and means still in need to create mechanisms that can deal with, at least, the world population doubling next century (Welford 2000). In many countries, serious problems related to sustainable development have dominated the political discussion. Also, in many cases, social progress still represents an environmental cost (Saito et al. 2017). We have witnessed how the continuous modernisation of competitive companies endanger the needs of future generations due to over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental impacts. Therefore, to ensure the existence and human development, sustainability has become one of the critical issues in development agendas (Shahrier et al. 2017). In a succinct definition, Jackson (2010) addresses sustainability as the art of living well, within the ecological limits of a finite planet. Clift and Druckman (2016) highlight that the recognition of environmental limits is crucial because if it were possible to expand economically without restrictions, would not be a concern for the development. Different mechanisms, such as environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, life cycle analysis (Hauschild 2014) and Environmental risk assessment (Jones 2014) were developed and have been applied as tools to evaluate the potential environmental impacts in order to prioritize sustainable development as a premise attached to the elaboration of policies, plans, programs and projects. Understand the concept of “environmental impact and sustainable development” is essential

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development

for the proper implementation of these tools that can be useful in sustainability assessments. So, this chapter sets out to draw a definition for this term.

Environmental Impact The term “environmental impact” refers to the impact that an activity has on the environment through emissions or the use of natural resources (Hauschild 2018). This term is commonly used and associated with some damage to nature as a result of a specific event, able to influence public opinion, featuring an event as harmful and unwanted (Sanchéz 2006). Although this notion is part of the concept of environmental impact, she sets up only a portion of your real significance, as the effects can also take positive results. Munn (1975) defines environmental impact as any beneficial or harmful effect on the biological component may be social or economic, biophysical or any process component or system attribute, such as a biome, species of animal, a general landscape type, chemical reactions, etc. To Wathern (2004), an impact has both spatial as temporal components and can be described as the change in an environmental parameter in a given period and a defined area, resulting from a particular activity, compared with the situation that would occur If the event did not initiate. Similarly, to Glasson et al. (2012), the environmental impacts of a project are those resulting from changes in environmental parameters, in space and in time, compared to what would happen if the project did not install. The settings can be, for example, air and water quality, noise, the levels of unemployment and crime. Munn (1975), Wathern (2004) and Glasson et al. (2012) recognise the dynamism of natural processes over time and emphasise the importance of considering the effects that would occur even without human intervention. However, there is no way to standardise a rhythm for the processes of each environmental system, since the changes in some structure are very dynamic, and in others may be imperceptible (Wathern 2004). In this way, the impact should be evaluated from the comparison between the current and

597

future situation. However, should be carefully provided for two hypothetical future situations: a without intervention and another due to an alleged planned interference (Munn 1975; Wathern 2004; Sanchéz 2006). The evaluations based on two hypotheses would give conditions to enhance or limit the impacts identified in a stage before deployment. From the described, the concept of environmental impact can be viewed through the graph in Fig. 1, allowing two scenarios: with and without the project, assuming the natural dynamics of the situation without a plan and the variation of environmental impacts throughout a period, according to the phases of the project. The approaches that consider a base scenario to predict environmental impacts offer a way to deal with the uncertainties inherent in predictive exercises. Simulation models are commonly used to assess the ecological effects, involving the use of mathematical relations to mimic or explain a system and build these relationships to make it possible to predict the environmental impacts (Bare 2014). Munn (1975) also highlights the importance of using simulation models since the prior step of a project, so that they can be adjusted and refined as well after the operation. ISO standard 14001:2015 defines environmental impact as a “change in the environment, as much as adverse beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s environmental aspects” (“change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, that is wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s environmental aspects”). It is interesting to mention the concept presented by this standard by which many organisations use to base their environmental management systems (Sanchéz 2006). According to this definition, can be characterised as impact any ecological change, and may take different amounts, depending on the degree of interference of the activity. Sanchéz (2006) postulates that the environmental impact is caused by human actions such as (1) elimination of factors of the environment, of an ecosystem or physical elements of landscapes; (2) insertion of parts in the environment, such as buildings or exotic species, and (3) overload, by introducing stress factors, as pollutants, reducing

E

598

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Representation of the concept of environmental impact from hypothetical scenarios

the availability of natural resources and increasing demand for goods and services. The environmental impact is the result of an action that configures the cause (Sanchéz 2006). So one should not confuse the effect with him. For example, a project of recovery of degraded areas in itself is not a positive environmental impact, but human intervention (cause) that aims at the environmental rehabilitation from the change in parameters that can be related to water, the soil, the biota or to areas inhabited by humans. From the precepts here highlighted this chapter adopts the concept of environmental impact as any positive or negative change in ecological quality resulting from human interference, able to change the natural rhythm of the processes of a system. The effect, damage, and environmental consequences are sometimes used as synonyms of environmental impact, although they allocated after a chain of causalities that bind an activity to its results (Hauschild 2018). Thus, an event (e.g. deforestation) may cause an impact (decrease in infiltration rate in soil), which leads to an effect (reduction in the level of the water table) that, as a result has an adverse episode on water availability, and affects the populations located in the area with damage to the well-being and health.

Hauschild (2018) explains that a confusion between the terms can occur when the effect of an impact trigger other effects and so on along a chain of cause and effect. It is because there are some possible environmental impacts linked causally. Figure 2 explains the sequence of objectives and results related to the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The approach of the chain of cause and effect of a potential impact is adopted in the context of the analysis of the life cycle. How to categorise the identified events will depend on the assessment tool used, which may be, for example, the environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, life cycle analysis or Environmental risk assessment.

The Importance of Evaluate the Environmental Impact on Sustainable Development Good evaluations are necessary to support the decisions that have the potential to influence sustainability under different perspectives, including the industrial, regional, national and global (Bare 2014). There are various instruments able to assist in the environmental management of a process to

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development

599

E

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Chain of causality related to atmospheric emissions. (Adapted from EC-JRC 2011)

achieve sustainable development, but consider all environmental impacts in a sustainability assessment is essential (Bare 2014). Evaluate the environmental impacts identified as a result of an action, sets up a necessary practice to better consider the changes envisaged. The emergence of Environmental Impact Assessment-EIA as a critical component of environmental management in the last four decades has coincided with the increased recognition of the implications of environmental changes caused by human action (Morgan 2012). The EIA is a tool of environmental management, to the evaluation of the likely effects of a project (or action). It is a systematic process to consider the possible impacts before deciding on whether a proposal should receive approval to proceed (Jay et al. 2007).

The environmental impact assessment is an exercise about the future, and this is the most challenging: to provide useful information to decision makers involved, even in the face of uncertainties, so that decisions took regarding the possible environmental consequences on development alternatives (Duinker and Greig 2007). Duinker and Greig (2007) believe that the proper practice of EIA should consider the scenario analysis as an essential tool. The authors highlight that still so that the study of scenarios become significant in EIA; two things must occur: (1) analysts responsible for EIA should be adept at analysis tools and techniques of the future and (2) the approach of scenarios must be widely applied in the practices of the EIA. These conditions raise the quality and usefulness of the assessments of impacts, to represent a tool for sustainability assurance.

600

Environmental Impacts in Higher Education Sector The development of ecological awareness mandates human activities to have the least possible impact on the environment, from the choice of the best techniques to comply with legislation and the correct allocation of social and financial resources (Druzzian and Santos 2006). This perception is present in different sectors of society, including education (Vaz et al. 2010). Educational institutions, as well as all organisations, have environmental aspects that, if not managed correctly, have significant adverse environmental impacts (Almeida et al. 2017). Nowadays, educational institutions have proved to be great precursors in the process of technological development, in the preparation of students and the provision of information and essential knowledge for the construction of sustainable development and just society. By following this premise, it is indispensable that these organisations begin to incorporate the principles and practices of sustainability in their activities (Almeida et al. 2017). Sustainable management programs or action plans are the engines for the transformation of the university. Each institution has its own goals and organisational structures to execute these plans (Campello and Silveira 2016). All the activities involved are taken into account, and their respective environmental impacts are evaluated (Engelman et al. 2009). Biophysical aspects such as energy, carbon and climate change, water consumption, waste production and biodiversity protection are very relevant for the vast majority of university operations. In addition to these, specific aspects of activities are essential, such as campus planning, design and development, procurement of goods and services, office sustainability, laboratories, information technology and transportation services (Campello and Silveira 2016). Standard ISO 14001: 2015 requires that an organisation’s environmental policy be: (i) led, in the university context, by the Rector, ViceRector, Pro-rectors and directors; (ii) is adequate to the nature of the environmental impacts of the

Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development

institution’s activities, products and services; (iii) include a commitment to continuous improvement and pollution prevention; (iv) comply with the legal requirements applicable to environmental aspects; (v) follow parameters for setting and reviewing environmental objectives and targets; (vi) is documented, implemented and maintained; (vii) is shared with all persons working for or on behalf of the institution (this includes students, contractors, temporary agents, etc.), and (viii) is available to the public. It is important to note that these highlights in the university’s sustainability policy must be broadened in a holistic view to include social and economic elements explicitly. Systems for environmental improvements and mechanisms such as the ISO 14000 series environmental management standards provide organisations, including educational institutions, with a way to measure their progress towards a more sustainable approach (Engelman et al. 2009).

Conclusions The Higher Education Sector comprises different types of processes necessary for the development of the activities it proposes. The environmental aspects and impacts resulting from these processes must be identified, evaluated and monitored through an environmental management system capable of providing information that guides the actions necessary to ensure sustainability in the sector, recognizing the essential social role it plays in the developing human and regional, and the production of knowledge to the common benefit. It is therefore crucial that higher education institutions include socio-environmental criteria in their routines, to assume an excellent and environmentally responsible position.

Cross-References ▶ Environmental Impact Assessment as a Tool for Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Risk assessment and sustainable development

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

References Almeida R, Bassani F, Motta BLS, Campos JF (2017) Environmental diagnosis of a technical education institution, integrated and higher. Revista Gestão & Sustentabilidade Ambiental, Florianópolis, 6(3):223–243, out./dez. https:// doi.org/10.19177/rgsa.v6e32017223-243 Bare JC (2014) Development of impact assessment methodologies for environmental sustainability. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16:681–690 Campello LGB, Silveira VO (2016) Education for sustainable development (ESD) and the greening of universities. Revista Thesis Juris 5:549–572. https://doi.org/ 10.5585/rtj.v5i2.464 Clift R, Druckman A (2016) Taking stock of industrial ecology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-20571-7 Druzzian ETV, Santos RC (2006) Environmental management system (EMS): seeking a response to the laboratories of the high school and vocational education institutions. Revista Liberato, Rio Grande do Sul 7:40–44 Duinker PN, Greig LA (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27:206–2019 Engelman R, Guisso RM, Fracasso EM (2009) Actions of environmental management in higher education institutions: what has been done. RGSA: Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental 3:22–33 European Commission – Joint Research Centre. EC-JRC (2011). Institute for environment and sustainability: international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook- recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the European Union Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2012) Introduction to environmental impact assessment, 4th edn. Routledge, London Hauschild M (2014) Environmental impact assessment. In: The International Academy for Production Engineering, Laperrière L, Reinhart G (eds) CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg Hauschild MZ (2018) Environmental impact. In: Chatti S, Laperrière L, Reinhart G, Tolio T, The International Academy for Production (eds) CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg ISO (2015) ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use Jackson T (2010) Keeping out the giraffes. In: Tickell A (ed) Long horizons. British Council, London, p 20 Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C (2007) Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(4):287–300 Jones C (2014) Strategic environmental assessment. In: Michalos AC (ed) Encyclopedia of quality of life and Well-being research. Springer, Dordrecht Morgan RK (2012) Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 30(1):5–14

601 Munn RE (1975) Environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures. SCOPE report 5. Wiley, Toronto Saito O, Managi S, Kanie N et al (2017) Sustainability science and implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustain Sci 12:907. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-017-0486-5 Sanchéz LE (2006) Environmental impact assessment: concepts and methods. Oficina de Textos, São Paulo Shahrier S, Kotani K, Saijo T (2017) Intergenerational sustainability dilemma and the degree of capitalism in societies: a field experiment. Sustain Sci 12:957. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0447-z Vaz CR, Fagundes AB, Oliveira IL, Kovaleski JL, Selig PM (2010) Environmental management system in institutions of higher education: a review. GEPROS. Gestão da Produção. Operações e Sistemas 5:45–58 Wathern P (2004) Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. Routledge, London WCED (1987) In: Brundtland GH (ed) Our common future. Report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Welford R (ed) (2000) Corporate environmental management 3. Routledge, London Wheeler S (2014) Sustainable Development. In: Michalos AC (ed) Encyclopedia of quality of life and Well-being research. Springer, Dordrecht

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development B. Gebeyehu1, B. Adugna2, T. Gammie3, Belay Simane4 and Abate Mekuriaw4 1 Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia 3 Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia 4 College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Definition Environmental justice refers to an attempt to achieve environmental equity for all groups within society through fair treatment and substantial involvement of people regardless of their

E

602

racial and socioeconomic background in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (EPA 1998; Newton 2009).

Introduction The term environmental justice, as a legal parlance, calls attention to the disproportionate sharing of environmental benefits and burdens between different categories of societies (Kameri-Mbote and Cullet 1996) and has emerged following environmental movement which aims at protection and conservation of the natural environment in the face of alarming industrial pollution and destruction of the forest resources in many regions of the world. According to Wayne et al. (2010), the concept of “environmental justice” gained prominence in the United States with the publication of studies by the General Accounting Office in 1983 and the United Church of Christ in 1987, suggesting that predominantly minority and low-income communities were being exposed to disproportionately higher levels of environmental hazards. It also deals with the issues of equity and marks a clear departure from a mere protection of the environment to the concern of the affected people and the communities which disproportionately carry the costs of environmental degradation. This is because, it is the poor who is often exposed to environmental risks as compared to nonpoor. The purpose of this review paper is to explain why environmental justice provides much of the foundation for sustainable development and to show how sustainability can improve our ability to achieve environmental justice. Environmental Degradation and Development Neumayer (1998) defines environmental degradation “as a reduction in renewable resources that provide humans with environmental amenities such as forests, fish grounds, wildlife etc. and with waste-assimilating functions that reduce the impact of human-induced pollution.” Deleterious or undesirable human activities lead to the situation in which the environment becomes unsuitable

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

for our existence. Environmental degradation happens when the environment loses its capacity to function as a provider of essential services because of depletion of natural resources such as air, water, and soil, the destruction of ecosystems, and the extinction of wild lives (Tyagi et al. 2014). The relationship between economic growth and environmental quality has been a source of great controversy for quite a long time (Kahuthu 2006). Meadows et al. (1972), in their book titled, Limits to Growth, propounded that due to the quest for increased economic growth, both production and consumption entail the extraction and exploitation of larger inputs of energy and material and generate larger quantities of waste by-products that pollute the environment rendering it unfit both for production and life. Accordingly, in an alarming manner, they called for a total change in approach to production and consumption. The use of toxic chemicals such as DDT that killed many birds after being exposed to it was found to be an instance whereby the detrimental side effects of economic activities were brought to the attention of the public by scientists like Carson (1962) in the early 1960s (Neumayer 1998: 1). Ever since the industrial revolution of late eighteenth century and nineteenth century that took place in Western Europe, the pollution of soil, water bodies, and air by industrial wastes and toxic by-products has emerged as a major threat to sustainable economic growth. Currently environmental degradation and the associated problems have been the major concern at global, national, and local levels (Thakur et al. 2014). The degradation of the environment manifests itself in so many different ways, including desertification, solid and hazardous waste, water scarcity, soil degradation, pollution, deforestation, biodiversity, and even climate change (Kinda 2013). The causes of environmental degradation are well established as they are very much related to human activities, especially to economic growth. Environmental degradation is the result of unsustainable exploitation and extraction of the natural resources (Nwagbara et al. 2012). The problem even reached yet a highly pronounced level due to increased concentration of the so-called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

In this regard, the1980s witnessed a big issue – the ozone layer depletion, global warming, and biodiversity loss (Neumayer 1998). This time, environmental degradation itself was perceived to impede further economic growth (ibid). Although economic growth is the major cause of environmental degradation, urbanization, population growth, intensification, and extensification of agriculture, increased energy uses and transportation are equally responsible. Nevertheless, it is hard to arrive at general conclusions on the relationship between economic growth and the environment (Neumayer 1998). Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992) argued that the relationship between environmental quality and economic growth was far from simple. In their cross-country analysis by examining patterns of environmental quality for countries at different income levels, they argued that some countries were able to “grow out of” environmental pollution problems with economic growth, but they posited that the process was not necessarily automatic and that policies and investments were necessary to reduce degradation (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay 1992). In Asia, where the Green Revolution was introduced during the 1990s, it has brought significant land and water problems relating to soil degradation, overexploitation of groundwater, and soil pollution due to the uses of high doses of fertilizers and pesticides. In fact, in today’s more crowded world, with higher levels of economic activity and corresponding environmental injuries, adverse human impacts are more certain, more direct, and often greater in scale (Salkin et al. 2012).

Environmental Justice: Emergence, Concepts, and Approaches Emergence/Origin and Movement of Environmental Justice Although it emerged as a public concern as early as 1820, the notion of “environmental justice” was really born in the United States at the end of the 1970s in the context of racial progress and civic activism. It served to designate at once racial and ethnic inequalities in exposure to environmental risk (pollutions, toxic waste, flooding)

603

and the exclusion of racial minorities, especially African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, from the definition and implementation of environmental policies in the United States (Laurent 2010). Nowadays, the environmental justice movement goes beyond the concerns of racial and ethnic disproportionate exposure to environmental risks, because anthropocentric positions have often been criticized for their “speciesism,” that is, their unjustified preference of humans over other species (Vogel 1999). It tries to link between problems and social injustices, industrialization and climate change, social exclusion, and environmental problems (Stephens et al. 2001). According to Lee (1992), the environmental justice movement is “a national and international movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and communities.” It also encompasses diverse issues such as multiracial, multinational, and multi-issue coalition and calls for equal protection of all people from environmental harms, regardless of their race, ethnicity, origin, and socioeconomic status. The environmental justice movement originated in the struggles of people of color against toxic waste dumps and waste facility siting in their communities (Liu 2001). The defining episode of the environmental justice movement happened in Warren County in 1982, when African-American residents of this North Carolina district opposed the building of a toxic waste landfill nearby. The Warren County protests triggered investigation in other Southern communities about similar situations and the publication of a federal report in 1987 explicitly titled “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States,” the first study to empirically document at the national scale the link between racial and social characteristics of the communities close to waste sites (the study concluded that nonwhites were much more exposed to environmental hazards than whites). Concepts of Environmental Justice The concept of “environmental justice,” as it is currently understood, is largely the product and of the activities of a network of community groups. These groups have resisted the siting of polluting

E

604

factories and waste sites in predominantly black neighborhoods and indigenous people’s reservations in the United States. This movement – which has taken a civil rights and social justice approach to “environmental” problems – has been aided by a substantial US academic literature which has documented the extent and causes of environmental injustices (Hofrichter 1993; Bryant 1995; Edwards et al. 1996). Environmental problems, race, and poverty are highly correlated. Several studies confirmed that the highly affected by environmental problems like pollution, toxic wastes, and so on. According to Massey (2004), a 1987 study of toxic waste and race, conducted by the New York-based Commission for Racial Justice, found that there is a strong link between race and location of hazardous waste facilities. Another study by Wayne et al. (2010) summarized that there is a significant positive correlation between race or poverty and emissions. Therefore, current conceptualization of environmental justice goes beyond the concerns of disproportional exposure of race to environmental problems. Forms of Environmental Justice Distributive Justice

Johansson-Stenman and Konow (2010) have used distributive justice interchangeably with fairness, and it is concerned with moral preferences over the distribution of social and economic benefits and burdens among a group of individuals. Distributional justice is also referred to as equity theory in psychology, sociology, and political science and focuses to analyze who is to benefit and who is to be burdened as a result of projects, plan, and program decisions (Walker 2010) and his proposition mainly focuses on environmental concerns. Distributive justice has provided three principles that guide the environmental concerns. These principles are equal distribution of goods and/or burdens among relevant parties, distribution of goods and/or burdens according to positive and/or negative contributions to the situation, and distribution according to needs. The policy implications of these principles are verifying whether the distribution in each case resembles

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

any of the abovementioned principles of justice, whether there are groups that benefit substantially economically and other groups that lose substantially, whether the gains and losses be judged as reasonable in comparisons to contributions, and whether there are people who experience losses from the case of policy mix to the extent that it may have consequences for their ability to fulfill their basic needs. Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is a normative judgment of the fairness of the process of decision-making. This boils down to questions that, in environmental decision-making, often are referred to as “participation.” In other contexts, a process of decisionmaking is regarded as fair if it is based on a democratic fundament in which all affected people have the possibility to be informed, express their opinions, and influence decisions. There may be large gaps between processes of “participation” in decision-making on conservation and the ideal of a fair democratic process. It may be relevant to evaluate procedural justice for various groups of affected people or stakeholders like local people as a totality and/or divided into social categories based, for instance, on ethnicity, class, and gender. The procedural justice has informed seven forms of stakeholder participations. These are manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation, and self-mobilization (Pretty (1995)). Such typologies of participation are very important during decision-making processes to investigate the degree of influence (participation) by local people and categories and possibly other stakeholders. Sense of Justice

Both distributional and procedural justice are used mainly as policy instruments during empirical studies of social impacts of development projects. Sense of justice constitutes a third element that also is crucial to examine when studying social impacts of changes such as those imposed by sets of policy instruments for conservation. Here, a perspective of social constructivism implies that

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

the researchers engage in describing how people affected by the changes themselves perceive and evaluate the changes. A researcher can use sense justice to describe and evaluate degrees of distributive and procedural justice through a critical realist approach. Svarstad et al. (2011) have applied sense justice to a social constructivism approach to describe the evaluations and evaluation criteria that local people and other stakeholders apply. They also suggest how to study sense justice that is through qualitative methods.

Environmental Justice: Movements, Policies, and Research The field of environmental justice has struggled over the question of definitions. “Environmental racism,” the term used in the earliest literature in the field (Chavis and Lee 1987), describes the disproportionate effects of environmental pollution on racial minorities. Because it describes the disproportionate relationship between high levels of pollution exposure for people of color and the low level of environmental benefits they enjoy, environmental racism can be defined as the unequal distribution of environmental benefits and pollution burdens based on race. “Environmental inequality” has emerged more recently to encompass both additional factors that are associated with disproportionate environmental impacts such as class, gender, immigration status, as well as the interconnections between these factors. “Environmental justice” is the name of the social movement that emerged in response to these particular problems (Julie and Jonathan London 2008). Various scholars (Bullard 1983, 1990, and Bullard 1993, Gibbs (1982), Goldman (1991), Lee (1993)) have evidenced that environmental justice movement has arose from resistance movements organized to expose the socially unequal environmental risks and effects of industrialization. They strongly argued that people were disproportionately exposed to environmental risks based on their race and color, and African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans were among the victims especially in the United States.

605

Although environmental justice’s initial focus was on anthropogenic pollution, the scope of its research has expanded significantly in recent years to encompass other phenomena in its contemporary view such as access to healthful food and climate change with disparate negative impacts on particular social groups.

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Linkages Perhaps the most popular catchphrase making the rounds among environmentalists on an international scale today is sustainable development. The term first became generally known as the result of its use in the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s report Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report), published in 1987. The report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs” (UN 1987: 27). It contains within it two key concepts: 1. The concept of “needs,” in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given. 2. The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs. The concept of a world in which all people live safely and comfortably without devastating the environment is an overwhelmingly attractive idea. However, this kind of happy vagueness makes it an ideal political buzzword, and still many writers tried to define sustainable development in several ways. In spite of any uncertainty about the exact meaning of the term sustainable development, its connection with the field of environmental justice has long been unquestionable to many observers (Newton 2009). For instance, the Copenhagen Declaration went on to connect sustainable development specifically with the principles of

E

606

environmental justice: “Equitable social development that recognizes empowering the poor to utilize environmental resources sustainably is a necessary foundation for sustainable development. The declaration also recognizes that broad-based and sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development is necessary to sustain social development and social justice” (World Summit for Social Development 2008). The task for individuals and organizations, then, is to find the specific points at which the goals and methods of sustainable development intersect with those of environmental justice. According to Newton (2009: 104), the report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), One Species, One Planet, suggests three points of confluence: • The right to life, including the right to a healthy environment. • The traditional and customary property rights of indigenous and other local communities, especially those in the Global South. • Participatory and procedural rights. In the first case, the right to life is the most basic of all human rights and, by its very nature, implies a right to a healthy environment. Without such an environment, a healthy life, and even life itself, may not be possible. Many nations have now adopted constitutional or legal guarantees for a safe and healthy environment that may also include the right to a safe workplace, the right to organize, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to participate in decisionmaking that affects peoples’ lives. The other point is the importance of community rights in addition to the rights of individual persons. It takes special note of the fact that, in many nations, this concept is still largely lacking. Those nations may acknowledge the individual rights of its citizens but ignore the special and legitimate claims of ethnic, racial, linguistic, or other groups. Such a philosophy is especially injurious to communities dependent on natural resources for their survival. When a national government places resource recovery over the needs

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

of individual communities, the rights of those communities have been violated. Neither environmental justice nor sustainable development can have any meaning at all unless local communities develop the skills for analyzing and solving the environmental and social problems they face. To achieve this goal, national governments must accept the importance of and be willing to promote the concept of participatory democracy among their poor and indigenous communities. Implied by this term are a number of individual rights, such as the right to receive and disseminate information, the right to take part in planning and decision-making, and the right of access to administrative and judicial justice (Newton 2009). Sustainable development includes the three substantive components of development – peace and security, economic development, and social development/human rights. It also includes principles of environmental protection and restoration (Salkin et al. 2012). Instead of development at the expense of the environment and adversely affected people, sustainable development would protect and restore the environment and would not disadvantage or hurt other people. By definition, then, sustainable development is environmentally just human development. Sustainable development’s ultimate purposes, moreover, are very similar to those of environmental justice. But these goals are not only to be achieved for the present generation; they are also to be achieved for future generations. Environmental justice is similarly motivated. Environmental justice is based on the conviction that minority and low-income individuals, communities, and populations should not be disproportionately exposed to environmental and public health hazards and they should share in making the decisions that affect their environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Salkin et al. 2012). This implies that environmental

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

justice focuses on the disproportionate impacts that low-income and minority communities often experience because of weak enforcement of environmental laws, the cumulative effects of multiple industrial facilities in their communities that may or may not be analyzed or controlled in the permitting process, and their inability to participate effectively in various governmental processes involving environmental matters. The achievement of environmental justice depends on the empowerment of the minority and how – income populations most likely to be adversely affected. Empowering low-income and minority communities with better information and more inclusive decision-making processes would certainly make the largest difference (Emejuru and Izzi 2015). In order to improve environmental justice, there should be law for sustainability. At the international level, laws that encourage sustainable practices will help reduce injustice in the world because they will require consideration of not only environmental but also economic and social goals. Yet, global sustainability problems create particularly challenging justice issues because of the separation in time and space between those who are causing the problem and those who are most vulnerable to the harshest health and environmental impacts of unsustainable development (Salkin et al. 2012). However, at the global scale in particular, sustainable development policies need to also consider questions of distributive and retributive justice to assure that the burdens and benefits of policies will be fairly allocated among those who are causing a problem and those who will benefit from sustainable policy implementation. For instance, as the above writers argue, for climate change, there is no way to duck the question of how to fairly allocate greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and responsibilities for adaptation among rich and poor countries and highemitting individuals around the world. And so new laws to encourage sustainable development, at the global scale in particular, will need to consider global equity and fair allocation of responsibilities to reduce global sustainability problems that are already putting people at risk around the world.

607

Sustainability requires not only laws that support and encourage the right kind of activities but also an approach to governance that is at once visionary and pragmatic. That is, governance must be based on a long-term view of where the country is going and what challenges it faces, but also must be attentive to new information and developments on the ground. The other point is that neither environmental justice nor sustainable development can have any meaning at all unless local communities develop the skills for analyzing and solving the environmental and social problems they face. To achieve this goal, national governments must accept the importance of and be willing to promote the concept of participatory democracy among their poor and indigenous communities. Implied by this term are a number of individual rights, such as the right to receive and disseminate information, the right to take part in planning and decision-making, and the right of access to administrative and judicial justice (Newton 2009: 106). Some commentators criticize sustainability as a movement plagued by eco-fascism. However, as Fisher (2003) suggested, some of the problems with the movement can be resolved by incorporating principles of equity and environmental justice into the definition of sustainability. Any model for sustainable development failing to incorporate equity is simply not a sustainable model. Similarly, environmental justice advocacy that disregards principles of sustainability will never be able to achieve its objectives on a large scale. Generally, while sustainable development and environmental justice have distinguishable goals, they relate to each other symbiotically. Both are intended to address the significant impact that environmental degradation has on human health and well-being. In consequence, both sustainable development and environmental justice necessarily have a distinct and essential ethical or moral dimension: people should not be acting in ways that hurt other people. A comparison of the goals of the two movements reveals their need for interdependence. However, the challenge for both environmental justice and sustainable development groups today is to find specific ways in

E

608

which objectives from both areas of concern can be achieved at the same time. People around the world are trying various programs to achieve this goal.

Final Comments The term environmental justice was emerged following environmental movement which aims at protecting and conserving the natural environment in the face of alarming industrial pollution and destruction of the forest resources, and it is conceived as a legal parlance that calls attention to the disproportionate sharing of environmental benefits and burdens between different categories of societies. The concept of “environmental justice” earlier was dealt with racial and ethnic inequalities in exposure to environmental risk (pollutions, toxic waste, flooding) and the exclusion of racial minorities. However, currently it is understood as largely the product and of the activities of a network of community groups. Moreover, it encompasses both additional factors that are associated with disproportionate environmental impacts such as class, gender, immigration status, as well as the interconnections between these factors. Both sustainable development and environmental justice are based on recognition that environmental degradation harms human beings as well as the environment and that environmental improvement also helps other humans. Sustainable development can broaden and deepen the quest for environmental justice by ensuring that economic and social development provides better opportunities for the poor, people of color, and other disadvantaged persons. It also can improve environmental justice by making a wide range of legal and policy tools available for that purpose. By creating more and better sustainability choices, employing law on behalf of sustainability, using visionary and pragmatic governance, and building a large bottom-up movement based on our ethical responsibilities to others, governments at all levels, as well as businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals, can help to realize environmental justice goals more effectively and completely.

Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

Cross-References ▶ Business Ethics and Sustainable Development ▶ Ecological Responsibility and Sustainable Development ▶ Empowerment in Sustainability ▶ Grassroots Activism and Sustainable Development ▶ Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Justice in Sustainable Development

References Bryant B (1995) Environmental justice. Island Press, Boston Bullard RD (1983) Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociol Inq 53(2–3 (Spring)):273–288 Bullard RD (1990) Dumping in Dixie: race, class, and environmental quality. Westview Press, Boulder Bullard RD (1993) Anatomy of environmental racism and the environmental justice movement. In: Bullard RD (ed) Confronting environmental racism: voices from the grassroots. South End Press, Boston, pp 15–39 Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Chavis BJ, Lee C (1987) United Church of Christ Commission on racial justice, toxic wastes and race in the United States: a National Report on the racial and socio-economic characteristics of communities with hazardous waste sites. United Church of Christ, New York Edwards SM, Edward T, Fields C (1996) Environmental crime and criminality: theoretical and practical issues. Garland Publishing, New York/London Emejuru CT, Izzi MO (2015) Environmental justice and sustainable development in Nigeria. Donnish J Biodivers Conserv 1(1):001–005 Fisher E (2003) Sustainable development and environmental justice: same planet, different worlds? Environ Forensic 26(2):201–217 Gibbs L (1982) Love canal: my story. SUNY Press, Albany Goldman B (1991) The truth about where you live: an Atlas for action on toxins and mortality. Random House, New York Hofrichter R (1993) Toxic struggles: the theory and practice of environmental justice. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia Johansson-Stenman O, Konow J (2010) Fairness concerns in environmental economics – do they really matter and if so how? In: Working paper presented at the workshop Behavioral economics: what can itcontribute to environmental and resource economics? Bellingham. 2009. File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/21425 Julie S, Jonathan London K (2008) Environmental justice at the crossroads. J Sociol Compass 2(4):1331–1354

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development Kahuthu A (2006) Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environ Dev Sustain 8:55–68, Springer Kameri-Mbote and Cullet (1996) Environmental justice and sustainable development: integrating local communities in environmental management. IELRC Working paper Kinda SR (2013) Essays on environmental degradation and economic development. Economies and finances. Universitéd’Auvergne – Clermont-Ferrand I Laurent É (2010) Environmental justice and environmental inequalities: a European perspective Lee C (ed) (1992) Proceedings of the first National People of color environmental leadership summit. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, New York Lee K (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC Liu F (2001) Environmental justice, equity, and policies. CRC Press LLC, Florida Massey R (2004) Environmental justice: income, race and health. Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute: Tufts University, Medford Meadows D, Donella M, Erich Z, Peter M (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York Neumayer E (1998) Is economic growth the environment’s best friend? Zeitschrift Für Umweltpolitik and Umweltrecht 2:161–176 Newton DE (2009) Environmental justice: a reference handbook. 2nd ed. Contemporary world issues. ABCCLIO, LLC, California Nwagbara EN, Abia RP, Uyang FA, Ejeje JA (2012) Poverty, environmental degradation and sustainable development: a discourse. Global Journal of human social science. Sociol Econ Polit Sci 12(11) Version 1 Pretty J (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263 Salkin PE, Dernbach JC, Brown DA (2012) Sustainability as a means of improving environmental justice. J Environ Sustain Law 19(1) Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. Policy Research Working Paper Series, vol 904. The World Bank, Washington, DC Stephens C, Bullock S, Scott A (2001) Environmental justice: rights and means to a healthy environment for all. ESRC Special Briefing, vol 7. Economic and Social Research Council, Brighton Svarstad H, Sletten A, Paloniemi R, Barton DN, Maryanne GG (2011) Three types of environmental justice: from concepts to empirical studies of social impacts of policy instruments for conservation of biodiversity. Policy Mix report issue no 1 Thakur et al (2014) Environmental degradation, sustainable development and human Well-being: evidence from India. Journal Press India Tyagi S, Gary N, Paul R (2014) Environmental degradation: causes and consequences. Eur Res 81(8-2) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Guidance for incorporating environmental justice in EPA’s NEPA compliance analysis. EPA, Washington, DC

609 United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. United Nations General Assembly, Development and International Co-operation: Environment, Oslo Vogel MP (1999) Environmental Kuznets curves: a study on the economic theory and political economy of environmental quality improvements in the course of economic growth. Springer, New York Walker G (2010) Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: the implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30(2010):312–318 Wayne B, Gray R, Shadbegian J, Ann W (2010) Environmental justice: do poor and minority populations face more hazards? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC World Summit for Social Development (2008) Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development. http://www. un-documents.net/cope-dec.htm

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development V^ania Fernandes Garcia Ita, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Developing environmental knowledge for sustainable development is essential to promote actions that seek sustainability. These actions are based on collective and individual proposals from various social actors who need to know the complexity of environmental issues to participate actively and responsibly in the quest for sustainability.

Introduction Constant threatening against planet’s environmental quality started specifically due to the space inhabited by human beings. Regarding the local support in which their own activities are performed, human beings have increased rates of

E

610

water, air, and land contamination, as well as threatened fauna and flora species. Frequently, due to lack of social conditions, interpersonal conflicts and lack of public policies, environment is exposed to degradation and diverse damages. In this sense, natural resources exploration leads to exhaustion, indicating the need for urgent measures to review political premises of actual economic growth (Barbieri 2011). In this context, Agenda 2030 aims to help implementing government public policies focused on sustainable development in order to reach satisfactory goals of human development and environmental conservation. This would lead to the creation of a global model for objectives and goals essential to a sustainable society (United Nations 2015). The mission assumed by each country is important and challenging to meet the established goals. Among other things, Agenda 2030 recognizes that education is fundamental to people’s quality of life and earth environmental conservation. Goal 4 “ensures inclusive and equal quality education, promoting long life learning opportunities for all.” Regarding the proposal related to this goal – which should be accomplished by 2030, it highlights the importance of making “sure that all students get necessary knowledge and abilities to promote sustainable development.” This goal should be pursuit through an “education towards sustainable development and life style, human rights, gender equality, peace and non-violence culture, global citizenship, value to cultural diversity and cultural contribution for sustainable development” (United Nations 2015). To consolidate these goals, it is fundamental to have effective governmental participation, new partnerships, and international solidarity. In other words, everyone have an important role to play, aiming at an egalitarian society, able to live in harmony with the environment. Considering this reality, it is important to stress that global organizations that fight in defense of environment should not ignore environmental education and sustainability. This should be associated with quality of life improvement and access

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

to better public schools, transportation, sanitation, housing, health, work, culture, among other fundamental aspects to improve their social character (Luzzi 2014). It is important to highlight university role so that such goals can be reached. This way, the objective of this work is to present the research and extension project developed at University Center UNIFAAT, located in the city of Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil. The research is based on the environmental education field, aiming to collaborate to environmental knowledge development and sustainability promotion.

Environmental Education, Environmental Knowledge, and Sustainability Environmental education is the collective process through which human beings develop and build social values, respecting cultural conditions, improving knowledge, increasing ability and practices towards environment conservation, essential to healthier life quality, contributing to sustainability. Sato (2002) also emphasizes that environmental education must grow from educational and transformative environments, preparing human beings to put the intellectual capacity in effect, to reach positive results from politic, economic, and cultural actions. This praxis will result in environmental and people quality of life improvement. It is necessary to understand the relation between social and physical environments so that this process is effective. It is important to address the way this relation happens in physical spaces, such as school, house, landscape, etc., and it must be understood considering different cultural aspects of participating agents. It is still necessary to mention that human beings are submitted to the capitalist system and it is under this context that population grows more intensely in urban centers, thus increasing buildings and consequently causing environmental damages (Berté 2007). For Luzzi (2014), in modern society, we have uncontrolled exploration of natural resources, inherited by capitalist society,

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

influenced by consumption, which makes intense use of natural resources and consequently affects the environmental quality, as well as people’s lives (Luzzi 2014). However, it is human beings and public power responsibility to preserve the environment as mentioned in Article 225 of the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution: Everybody has the right to an ecological balanced environment, people’s common use good, essential to a healthy life quality, being both, public power and community, responsible for defending and preserving it for present and future generations. (Brasil 1988)

This way, it is important to stress that, besides actions to guarantee and preserve environment, sustainability has been one of the most discussed topics at present, as it aims to remedy anthropic actions, which have been generating different environment impacts. Sustainability is, therefore, a challenge to contemporary society, in view of the fact that environment issues are a consequence of people’s way of life and that wrong practices are rooted in their culture and way of living (Luzzi 2014). The concept of sustainability involves interaction between human beings and the environment, which should be preserved for future generations. This way, people should review their attitudes, having in mind that environment damages, in different ways, alter intensely planet’s quality (Lieber and Romano-Lieber 2014). In view of this scenario, it is important to mention that environmental education is directly linked to a change in behavior and conscience to prepare human beings to a sustainable life. Education will be directly connected to environment and everything that involves day-to-day practices related to people and their responsibilities within a sustainable society (Luzzi 2014). Thus, it is fundamental to deal with environmental issues in explicit ways, in all social levels, so that there is a strengthening regarding correct attitudes of all citizens. Environmental education must be accessible and comprehensive in all issues, not just in relation to fauna and flora, but also to social, cultural, historic and economic factors, for a complete understanding of environmental problems (Luzzi 2014).

611

Human being is an active and intelligent being with capacity to think and interact with the world, being the main actor in the teaching-learning process, using knowledge and abilities in a participative way, considering the complexity of environment causes (Castro et al. 2014). This way, environmental education has become necessary and urgent. Its implementation in educational processes must transform and be effective to promote acts of citizenship to preserve the environment (Sato 2002). In this perspective, it is worth mentioning that educational process has been consolidating itself as an essential citizens training tool, capable of understanding the complexity of environmental problems and proposing and implementing equally complex solutions to these issues. Environmental problems are understood to mean not only conflicts generated between person(s) and nature but also those generated between person (s) and person(s), from a perspective that it is not the nature that is in crisis, but the bases in which most of today’s societies rely on (Leff 2003). According to Jacobi (2005), reflecting on environmental complexity opens up a stimulating space for an educational process that is articulated and committed to sustainability and participation, based on a logic that privileges dialogue and the interdependence of different environmental knowledge areas. In addition, this process promotes questioning of values and premises that guide prevailing social practices, which can generate a change in the way of thinking, a transformation in knowledge and in educational practices. Leff (2003) emphasizes that complexity and interdisciplinarity are constitutive elements of a new thinking about society-nature relations. The author also emphasizes that this educational process must be able to form a critical and creative thought, attuned to the need for proposing answers to the future, able to analyze the complex relationships between natural and social processes, and to act in the environment in a global perspective, respecting sociocultural diversities. From this perspective, it has to be mentioned that critical environmental education is linked to the formation of a subject capable of understanding its environment and interpreting relations,

E

612

conflicts, and problems present there. For the exercise of environmental citizenship, it is necessary a critic diagnose from environmental issues and the self-understanding regarding the place occupied by the subject in these relations (Carvalho 2012). In view of the above, it is evident that environmental education is essential so that human beings can live and develop their basic activities in a positive way, acting with a critical and reflexive way, contrary to capitalistic and consumption system models that have generated ways of life that cause diverse socioenvironmental impacts. Furthermore, this practice is faced with many challenges that start with understanding the concept of environment and the need to enlarge attitudes so that they really represent educational practices. These challenges, among others, are also present at universities, which must understand environmental education as an indispensable practice to work with values and concepts, besides developing attitudes and abilities, so that the students can adopt a critical – and at the same time – participative position (Guimarães and Tomazello 2003). In view of the above, the next topic presents actions carried out by UNIFAAT for the promotion of environmental education on higher level, through research and extension activities, cooperating for training of professionals committed to sustainability.

UNIFAAT Case Study According to Zsóka et al. (2013), environmental education has a significant influence on environmental knowledge constriction, on everyday lifestyles, and on student behavior. In this sense, several higher education institutions have recognized the importance of integrating sustainability issues into education to enable actions that generate positive impacts in this area. Higher education institutions (HEI) have fulfilled different functions, among which are teaching, research and knowledge, and technology production. In recent times, HEIs began to carry out a series of activities beyond their walls, getting closer to socioenvironmental problems, through

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

extension activities. In current political, economic, and social context, tendency is to think how extension can contribute more directly to socioenvironmental problems solution. Thus, extension has to be aligned with principles of sustainability. To that end, current great challenge of extension is to rethink the relation of teaching and research to social needs, establishing the contributions of extension to deepening of citizenship and to society effective transformation (Carbonari and Pereira 2007). University extension programs show the importance of their existence regarding the relationship established between institution and society. It happens through the approximation and exchange of knowledge and experiences among teachers, students, and population, through the possibility of developing teaching-learning processes, based on daily practices, together with teaching and research, and especially for providing the confrontation of theory with real world of needs and desires (Hennington 2005). One of the strategies that university uses for the formation of a professional citizen is based on university extension (Fernandes et al. 2012). According to Brandli et al. (2012), higher education institutions are increasingly responsible for disseminating changes in favor of sustainability, whether through teaching, research, extension, or its form of operation. Rodrigues et al. (2013) point out that the context of extension has an essential role both in lives of academics – who put into practice everything they have learned in the classroom – and of people – who enjoy this learning. It becomes much more rewarding for those in condition of learning, as they contribute to a better world. The population receives learning and is benefited with respect to the life development of each person, causing, thus, social changes. It is a participatory and dialogical process of knowledge construction. In view of the above, it is possible to mention that research, education, and extension activities in higher education institutions are essential for knowledge promotion in environmental area, through proposals involving teachers, students, and community, in a process of reflection, critical analysis, and transformation of socioenvironmental reality aiming at sustainability.

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

Since 2011, among other actions, the Research and Extension Education Project named “Environmental Power Plant” have been carried out by the Research Center of UNIFAAT University Center, located in Atibaia, State of São Paulo, Brazil. These actions have involved three main publics: UNIFAAT graduate students, local community, and elementary students from Educador Paulo Freire Municipal School, located in the surroundings of the Bairro da Usina Environmental Protection Area (EPA). This project is still active and has been structured on two important parts: workshops with graduate students, with theoretical studies, including environmental education methodologies that have produced scientific material to be promoted; and workshops with elementary students and local community. These activities were carried out by graduate students, supervised by professors, to give rise to environmental attitudes that may connect the institution with the community and promote research development in the environmental area. Considering these premises, described below are the models of activities developed with different public and participants. Graduate Students Activities with students have two important points: the first involves participation in sensitization workshops and environmental formation. The workshops are also realized with the community and elementary school students. The second part is related to the analysis of environmental perception methodologies and of community and elementary students’ workshops results, as well as to the elaboration of scientific articles with research work results. The model of activities with graduate students is composed of four workshops, each one during 3 h, for capacitation of those involved with the project (volunteers and scientific initiation scholarship holders). In these workshops, the approaches occur as follows: intervention area characterization; environmental education practice methodologies; participation, presentation, and discussion of working proposals and environmental education assessment. The workshops are elaborated as follows.

613

Workshop 1: Environmental Education Concepts and Methodologies – Part 1

On the first part, environmental education concepts and methodologies are discussed with the involved people, considering Reigota (2002, p. 76) perspective, who defines environment as a “complex interaction of social, biophysical, political, philosophical and cultural configurations.” This is in addition to Pelicioni and Phlippi (2014) view, who understand environment education as a teaching-learning process for citizenship, social, and political responsibility in charge of creating new values and social relations between human beings and nature, improving life quality for all living beings. The objective of this approach is to extend to students the perception related to environment and how to work with education based on this perspective. Participants, then, follow the same activity developed with children and adults (as described in sections “Elementary School Students” and “Community”), so that they can follow and contribute upon visitation to the EPA. Following a different procedure from adults and children, students are invited to evaluate the proposal, considering the methodology used. In the last part of the workshop, students evaluate the activities presenting their positive or negative points of view, opinions, and suggestions. The assessments contribute towards improvement regarding the educational process, addressing project characteristics of participation and dialogues. Final evaluation is part of all workshops. Workshop 2: Environmental Education Concepts and Methodology – Part 2

Firstly, the relation and importance of participation in the educational process is presented through debates and projects accomplished. Literary references are mentioned, such as Brandão (1990), Santos et al. (2005), Jacobi (2007), Philippi and Pelicioni (2002), and Reigota (2002). Next, participants are involved in the same activity of “story telling” developed with children and adults (as described in section “Elementary School Students”), analyzing the educational potential of this method. Finally, an evaluation is done.

E

614

Workshop 3: Interpretative Walking – Bairro da Usina Environmental Protection Area

It starts with the interpretative walking methodology presentation, based on Lima et al. (2003), as an important tool for environmental education. It provides a reflexive look about the local visited – Bairro da Usina EPA. The students then repeat the journey and get to know the local reality better, experiencing the methodology and participating of the sensitization process regarding several environmental issues – that are also found in other realities. Finally, an evaluation is done to make sure that the proposal process is continued, as well as to analyze potentialities and challenges before its implementation with the community and elementary school students. Workshop 4: Environmental Education Assessment

In these workshops, diverse tools are used in order to strengthen the discussions, such as: drawings, comic books, poems, music, collective history, charges, among others. At this moment, it is emphasized the importance of respecting and encouraging the creative process of those involved. Students have the mediators’ role in activities with children and the community, giving rise to a positive ambience so that children and community can express themselves through the best possible way. According to Malzyner et al. (2005), when dealing with environmental education, the most important decisions for evaluation should involve all actors present in the process and the results from their constant analysis and reflection. The importance of this evaluation is also shown in the Brazilian National Education Policy – Article 4, item VI – which deals with environmental educational basic principles, among them “the permanent critical evaluation of the educational process” (Brasil 1999). Thus, evaluation is very relevant in these projects once it allows analyzing and understanding the results that lead to effective actions for improvement in the educational process. Besides the workshops, graduate students elaborate analysis of environmental perception methodologies and of results from community and

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

elementary school students workshops. The results from the research work were published and presented in scientific events, cooperating for students’ academic formation and promoting the work developed at UNIFAAT. Activities developed with undergraduate students at the workshops promoted a participatory, critical, and reflexive knowledge construction process on environmental issues and environmental education. It also made possible a closer relationship between teachers and students, as well as encouraged the development and dissemination of scientific articles on environmental issues. For Jacobi (2005), insertion of environmental education in a critical perspective occurs to the extent that teacher assumes a reflexive posture. This allows the understanding of environmental education as a politicalpedagogical practice, representing possibility of motivating and sensitizing people to transform the various forms of participation in potential factors of society dynamization and socioenvironmental responsibility extension. Elementary School Students The participants are students from Educador Paulo Freire Municipal School, and the activity of environmental sensitization is based on the sequential learning proposed by Cornell (2005), which is divided in tour stages: Stage 1 – Awaken enthusiasm Stage 2 – Focus attention Stage 3 – Direct experience Stage 4 – Share inspiration Below are some activities developed with this public, in which graduate students participate as leaders and analyze methodologies. Visit to the Research National Center: Mammals and Carnivorous Conservation (CENAP), A Department of Chico Mendes Biodiversity Preservation Institute – ICMBio

The first day started at CENAP, with outdoors activities, using the food chain activity (Awaken Enthusiasm). At this stage, children played tag game and represented the food chain trophic levels with their identification tags. In the end,

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

they observed and discussed the different sets regarding food chain importance for environment and all living beings – including human beings. Next activity was named “Brazilian Animals” (Focus Attention), in which students had to link images of native animals to a Brazilian map. This activity is related to the previous one, as the animals suggested for the chain of goodness were native. In addition, it concentrates attention as it utilizes the energy triggered in the previous activity to calm down the children. Next step was a “Blind Walk” (Direct Experience), in which blindfolded students were organized in lines and walked barefoot on a way full of materials such as seeds, stones, old newspapers, wood and fur, skulls and carnivorous animal footsteps such as the Brazilian Jaguar (onça pintada). As proposed by Cornell (2005), students learned through their own experience and own findings. By the end of the blindfolded walk, children were conducted to a special room for the fourth activity. The teacher explained concepts of native animals, exotic, wild, domestic, mammals characteristics, and finally the interaction of human beings with these animals. This activity belongs to the “share inspiration” stage, when there were exchange of experiences. As stated by Cornell (2005), this stage created a link between children and teacher, besides extending orientation for future practices. Visit to Edmundo Zanone Municipal Park

For Enthusiasm, an activity named “human knot” was performed by students, when they had to unfasten a knot formed with holding hands. Afterwards, the teacher asked if they could explain why they had unfastened the knot. They concluded that team work helped, and, after that, they discussed about the importance of environmental preservation. The second activity proposed the question “Who helps the environment?” (focus attention). Students received a drawing about actions in the environment and marked, according to their perceptions, which were correct or wrong. The following activity was a visit to Professor Antonio Pérgola Natural History Museum (direct experience), where there are different taxidermied

615

animal and bird species. Children could see some dangerous species closely and remains of the original Atlantic Forest – differently from the reality they live in – which, regretfully, has been gradually destroyed by quarries and condominiums. The last activity was “story telling,” based on the book “There in the heart,” by Ellen Pestili (2008), about animal’s feelings towards different situations in nature. This was a way to share more and teach less, attitude of a good teacher, as proposed by Cornell (2005), when the teacher can expose feelings and stimulate children to do the same, thus making the process more significant. Bairro da Usina Environmental Protection Area

The first activity of the day was “Holding the World” (awaken enthusiasm), in which children mentally chose a primary life element (air, water, or food). They were supposed to balance the “Earth” (represented by a ball) with a finger, even when the teacher requested that one of the elements should be eliminated. One by one, the elements were dismissed, causing, at a certain point, the planet’s fall. This showed the importance of preserving the fundamental elements for life on earth and the role human beings play in the process. Next activity (focus attention) was “What is there in our river?” Through images, children linked elements they believed that make part of a river (fish, plants, garbage, etc.). This is a very simple activity, as suggested by Cornell (2005), making participants more attentive and preparing them for next activity. The interpretative walk at Bairro da Usina EPA (direct experience) was carried out with teacher explaining different kinds of wood – native and exotic – and riparian forest. The teacher also stimulated children’s perception about the space and “sound games” – as suggested by Cornell (2005), with students sitting on a comfortable place in the forest, closing their eyes and, for each sound, raising one finger. Next, they were asked to observe the elements that should not make part of natural environment, such as plastic bags, bottles, papers, among other materials that could damage the local lake and the forest around it.

E

616

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

The teacher then asked the children what could be done in order to improve the situation. They suggested picking up the garbage – a task that was accomplished on their way back. This sequential and ludic stage cooperated for a more intensified experience, promoting a favorable situation to the understanding regarding environment preservation importance. At the end of the day, a “chat circle” (share inspiration) was promoted, with discussion about everything they had seen and felt at the EPA. The children had the opportunity to express their feelings about what they liked most and how they reacted to the environmental problematic issues they had seen, like the garbage one.

concluding the last stage of the sequential learning proposed by Cornell (2005). It is worth mentioning that the activities carried out with the elementary school students were developed based on knowledge acquired in workshops held with UNIFAAT undergraduate students. In this sense, the university center enabled the study development, as well as the analysis of the methodology used and the topics addressed. Thus, HEIs role in the training of professionals and educators committed to socioenvironmental issues present in community and to actions promotion that make it possible to develop and disseminate environmental knowledge is evidenced.

Assessment Workshop

Community The community involved in the project participated of the three environmental sensitization activities with the children, with methodological adaptation according to their age. For specific community activities, besides the ones mentioned above, they participated of a Future Workshop at CENAP, in order to debate about the local socio-reality, stimulate knowledge exchange, and elaborating a prediagnostic to find the inhabitants demands related to the environment. Based on the works from “Instituto Ecoar para a Cidadania” (Ecoar Institute for Citizenship 1999) – Rio de Janeiro (1996) and Matthäus (2001), it was possible to stimulate participants to think about action propositions to solve local environment issues, towards community autonomy. The workshop was presented in three moments: (1) Critical phase: All issues, concerns, and criticism should be discussed. (2) Utopia phase: Aims to find creative solutions. The utopias do not need to have a relation with reality, but the groups have to be free and out of conventional ways, which are frequently conditioned by reality limitation. (3) Realization phase: This one can be described as a “way back to reality.” Improvement actions are defined by people in attendance. It may be possible to reach a definition for the action plan (Matthäus 2001). On the first meeting, participants elaborated a map/representation of the Bairro da Usina EPA and constructed a “Wall of Lamentations” with the

For the first part of the sequential learning (awaken enthusiasm), “tell a story” was the approach in which students, on a circle, told stories with a key word. Whenever this word was said, they had to change positions, and those who did not had to continue the story. This activity stimulated receptivity – as they had to be attentive, and raised joy, which is essential for the sequential learning – as presented by Cornell (2005). The second activity was a circle chat, discussing all activities that were developed during all days (focus attention). Children were stimulated to remember all activities and tell their experiences and feelings. Next, they were organized in groups of four (each group was responsible for one day/activity) and created a comic book story showing their experience in the workshops (direct experience). Besides mentioning the importance of nature experience in this stage, Cornell (2005) also states that learning based on own findings generates a direct understanding, stimulates empathy, favors personal commitment with ecological ideal and brings other benefits. These elements can be found on the activity of creating the comic book story regarding the experiences lived on a work group, stimulating mutual respect and incorporating it to an environmental concept. Finally, on the last day, students presented to all in attendance – colleagues and teachers – the comic book story, sharing inspiration and

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development

appearance of issues such as forests burning, deforestation, and lack of nurseries, entertainment, transportation, jobs, asphalt, respect, and public policies. During the next meeting, the community was invited to place on the map what they would like to improve in the place they live in. On the third meeting, there was a walk around the dam – that exists in the EPA – to identify socioenvironmental issues which were presented before. During the first meetings, lack of infrastructure was a repeated issue mentioned by the community, although they also mentioned burning of forests and garbage. In the following, solutions were analyzed and proposed in order to minimize the problematic issues. The main responsible towards a solution is government, through investments, legislation, and inspection. Afterwards, based on the principles of “Educating City,” a reflection was proposed regarding who would really be responsible for improving live quality. Since then, they have been working under their own responsibility when dealing with these issues and trying to find collective solutions. This way, participants were oriented to elaborate intervention projects to solve the mentioned issues. As a result, six projects were presented, distributed as follows: One entertainment project and four environmental education projects for the community and visitors. About 30 persons have participated in each meeting and they could understand the importance of having more people involved. The important result was that, in spite of the difficulties, they became conscious of the need to take care of the natural resources. Therefore, not only knowledge and discussions were the results of the Bairro da Usina EPA issues. It was also possible to make them realize that their perception may be different from the researchers, but even so they can contribute significantly to future proposals. Another positive point was that the community was invited to propose effective actions and contribute actively for environmental education aiming at sustainability. Based on community involvement in the research and extension proposal “Environmental

617

Power Plant,” it is noted, as proposed by Jacobi (2005), that environmental dimension represents the possibility of dealing with connections between different human dimensions, allowing interlacings and transits between multiple knowledges. In this case study, multiple knowledges are present in the perspectives of HEI teachers, undergraduate students, vocational students, and community. This way, universities not only educate citizens with interdisciplinary knowledge but are also institutions capable of causing great positive and negative environmental impacts, as well as influencing local and regional communities (Uhl and Anderson 2001). Cash et al. (2003) emphasize that building more effective knowledge systems for sustainability requires time and patience. It occurs because this systems demand a long-term perspective that takes into account the generally slow impact of ideas on practice, the need to learn from the experience and the time scales involved in enhancing human understanding, besides the institutional capital needed in this process. It is also important mentioning that developing and promoting environmental knowledge in HEIs is a process that must go beyond individual studies or actions, considering that the quest for sustainability involves, among other issues, training of professional citizens committed to the resolution and minimization of socioenvironmental problems in a participatory, reflexive, critical, and transformative perspective.

Final Considerations Through this research and extension project, it was possible to realize that comprehensive environmental education is essential for teachers, students, and community, and that universities have a fundamental role in this process. Thus, it is important to emphasize that environmental education can include important concepts for human beings life, promoting cooperation among people and transforming the environment and life quality. Resilience of natural resources should be respected so that life on earth may continue for future generations.

E

618

The research and extension project showed the importance of developing environmental education processes beginning with a methodology that values previous knowledge of those involved, as well as ways that may help them to develop their capacities so that they can interact with the environment. This process establishes contact with several environmental elements, arousing curiosity and interest and offering possibilities to develop world knowledge, assimilated through exploration and search for knowledge from the reality in which individuals are inserted.

References Barbieri JC (2011) Gestão ambiental empresarial: conceitos, modelos e instrumentos, 3rd edn. Saraiva, São Paulo Berté R (2007) Gestão ambiental e a responsabilidade social corporativa nas organizações. Berté, Curitiba Brandão CR (1990) Pesquisa Participante. Brasiliense, São Paulo Brandli LL, Frandoloso MAL, Fraga KT et al (2012) Avaliação da presença da sustentabilidade ambiental no ensino dos cursos de graduação da Universidade de Passo Fundo. Avaliação: Rev Avaliação Educ Super 17(2):433–454 Brasil (1988) Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988. http://www. planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituição.htm. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 Brasil (1999) Lei n. 9.795, de 27 de abril de 1999. Dispõe sobre a educação ambiental, institui a Política Nacional de Educação Ambiental e dá outras providências. www. planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9795.htm. Accessed 10 Feb 2018 Carbonari MEE, Pereira AC (2007) A extensão universitária no Brasil, do assistencialismo à sustentabilidade. Rev Educ 10(10):23–28 Carvalho ICM (2012) Educação ambiental: a formação do sujeito ecológico, 6th edn. Cortez, São Paulo Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091 Castro LB, Canhedo SG Jr, Garcia SD (2014) Educação ambiental como instrumento de participação. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri, pp 465–475 Cornell J (2005) Vivências na a natureza: guia de atividades pais e educadores. Aquariana, São Paulo de Janeiro R (1996) Agenda 21 local: guia do cidadão. ISER, Rio de Janeiro, p 1996 Fernandes MC, Silva LMS, Machado ALG et al (2012) Universidade e a extensão universitária: a visão dos moradores das comunidades circunvizinhas. Educ Rev 28(4):169–194

Environmental Knowledge and Sustainable Development Guimarães SSM, Tomazello MGC (2003) A formação universitária para o ambiente: educação para sustentabilidade. Ambient Educ 8(1): 55–72. https://peri odicos.furg.br/ambeduc/article/view/898. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 Hennington ÉA (2005) Acolhimento como prática interdisciplinar num programa de extensão universitária. Cad Saude Publica 21(1):256–265 Instituto Ecoar para a cidadania (1999) Desafio das águas: agenda 21 do pedaço. Instituto Ecoar Para A Cidadania, São Paulo Jacobi P (2005) Environmental education: the challenge of constructing a critical, complex and reflective thinking. Educ Pesqui 31(2):233–250 Jacobi P (2007) Socioambientalismo. In: Instituto Socioambiental (org) Almanaque Brasil Socioambiental: uma nova perspectiva para entender a situação do Brasil e a nossa contribuição para a crise planetária. Instituto Socioambiental, São Paulo, pp 461–468 Leff H (2003) Complexidade ambiental. Cortez, São Paulo Lieber RR, Romano-Lieber NS (2014) A sustentabilidade é sustável? Educando como conceito de risco. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri, pp 765–786 Lima FB, Machado MK, Fadini AAB et al (2003) Caminhada Interpretativa na Natureza como Instrumento para Educação Ambiental. In: Anais do 2nd encontro de pesquisa em educação ambiental. Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 27–30 July 2003 Luzzi D (2014) Educação Ambiental: pedagogia, política e sociedade. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri, pp 445–465 Malzyner C, Silveira C, Arai VJ (2005) Planejamento e Avaliação de Projetos em Educação Ambiental. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri, pp 549–576 Matthäus H (2001) Oficina do Futuro como metodologia de planejamento e avaliação de projetos de desenvolvimento local. In: Brose M (org) Metodologia participativa: uma introdução a 29 instrumentos. Tomo, Porto Alegre, pp 121–130 Pelicioni MCF, Philippi A Jr (2014) Bases políticas, conceituais, filosóficas e ideológicas da Educação Ambiental. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri, pp 3–12 Pestili E (2008) Lá no coração. Unb, Brasília Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (2002) Alguns pressupostos da educação ambiental. In: Philippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental: desenvolvimento de cursos e projetos. Signus, São Paulo, pp 3–5 Reigota M (2002) Meio ambiente e representação social. Cortez, São Paulo Rodrigues ALL, Prata MS, Batalha TBS et al (2013) Contribuições da extensão universitária na sociedade. Cad Grad – Ciências Humanas e Sociais 1(16):141–148

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development Santos AD, Gama AMCF, Faria AAC et al (2005) Metodologias participativas: caminhos para o fortalecimento de espaços públicos socioambientais. Petrópolis, São Paulo Sato M (2002) Educação ambiental. Rima, São Carlos Uhl C, Anderson A (2001) Green Destiny: universities leading the way to a sustainable future. Bioscience 51(1):36–42 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con tent/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20S ustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017 Zsóka Á, Szerényi ZM, Széchy A et al (2013) Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J Clean Prod 48:126–138

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development Mohammad Al-Saidi Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Introduction With changing and mounting pressures on environmental resources due to economic and demographic developments, environmental policymaking is a wide and continuously growing field. The birth hour of modern environmental policymaking is the 1950s and 1960s, with the United States (US) as a pioneer country in adopting the first instruments for resource protection and combating pollution (Andrews 2006). Around the same time, environmental movements became visible in terms of mobilization and organization (Ruckelshaus 1985), although the origins and philosophical foundations of such movements date back to the fifteenth century (Kline 2011). Similarly, environmental economics, as one of the main instruments of environmental policy analysis, was acknowledged as a scientific field during the 1960s, although the economic analysis of environmental problems had been under way for at least two centuries before (Sandmo 2015).

619

Since these early days of environmental policy, the topics and analysis tools have advanced greatly in order to keep up with new knowledge on environmental issues. The concerns of policymakers and scientists moved beyond resource protection and pollution to cover issues such as resource-use efficiency, problems with common-pool resources, renewable resources, intergenerational equity, and incorporating environmental issues into a wider understanding of sustainable development. Environmental policies were thus transformed from a simply commandand-control perspective toward efficiency-based reforms and later, the more recent issues of integrated approaches toward community and sustainable development (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009). The rise of ecological economics, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, has contributed to an increasing number of tools to address the broad issues of environmental policies. Ecological economics adopted a diversified perspective and broadened the neoclassical approach of environmental economics, leading to pluralism of approaches and policy tools (Venkatachalam 2007). Nowadays, environmental policy is a rich field of investigation and an integral part of public policy. This chapter introduces this field in relation to sustainable development. It outlines the key elements required to define environmental policies and briefly explains the history of issues related to sustainable development. Later, it explains the tools and instruments used as inputs into environmental policies. Finally, it discusses key terms and concepts for analyzing the process, performance, and impacts of environmental policies.

Definition and Demarcation of Environmental Policy Since their early beginnings, environmental policies have been considered as a special field of public policy. Public policy is defined in relation to the actions and nonactions of governments. Environmental policies are therefore broadly understood as those public policies related to environmental issues. Within this general

E

620

framework, scholars might choose to focus on policy input, policy outcomes, and tangible actions of public officials (e.g., legislation, regulations, court decisions, and administrative rules) or also include non-tangible elements (e.g., symbolic policies, articulated intentions, policy statements, envisioned programs). For example, Kraft (2014) regards nonactions (e.g., not signing the Kyoto Protocol) as non-tangible policies which might reveal much about public choices and their effects on environmental issues. Andrews (2006) defines environmental policies with regard to the cumulative environmental effect of “real” actions (not formulated ones) by public entities dealing directly or indirectly with environmental issues. The conceptualizations of environmental policies as public policies can differ with regard to contents (i.e., tangible or non-tangible), including sectors (i.e., ecosystems, energy, water, agriculture, health, climate) and the lens of analysis (input, process, output, outcomes, or impacts). This is a reflection of the plurality of environmental issues as well as of the key challenges of complexity and uncertainty regarding the effects of any policy intervention. For example, environmental policies are influenced by belief systems from social interactions, political systems, and information distortions by, for example, the media, leading to governments misestimating environmental risks (Millner and Ollivier 2016). It is also the case that environmental issues exhibit features of complex or even chaotic problems, leading to failures in estimation and policy analysis models. As a response to these challenges, scholars promote tools of experimentation and simulation that can better capture uncertainty with unknown inputs and optimization functions (e.g., Lempert 2002; Lempert et al. 2009). Such models can help to achieve so-called long-term environmental policies on issues that last for at least one human generation and exhibit high levels of uncertainty (Sprinz 2009). Such kinds of environmental policies go beyond the classic approach of applied solutions to short- or midterm environmental problems arising from current or past resourceuse patterns.

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

Finally, the term “environmental policy” needs to be separated from closely related terms such as “environmental politics” and “environmental governance.” Environmental politics is the exercise of analyzing and theorizing public debates, represented interests, public opinions, or political systems that represent interaction nodes among state actors, social movements, the private sector, and other stakeholders. In this sense, environmental politics examines the “political” dimension of environmental management and policies by linking politics and the environment (see Doyle et al. 2016) and highlighting power relations among issues, interests, and actors (e.g., Rosenbaum 2014). Environmental governance, on the other hand, is the broadest concept, since it moves environmental issues beyond public policies and the national scale. Environmental governance highlights hybrid modes of allocating resources across states, markets, and communities, thus highlighting issues such as globalization, multi-actor and multilevel governance, or individual governance (Lemos and Agrawal 2006). In this sense, environmental governance encompasses the typical issues of environmental policies while adding other issues of collaboration, conflict resolution, or other forms of regulation with the involvement of state institutions (e.g., Durant and Fiorino 2017). It therefore holds the promise of making environmental policymaking more participatory and polycentric, although this participation sometimes results in higher environmental outputs, but not necessarily with higher effectiveness (Newig and Fritsch 2009).

History of Environmental Policies in Sustainable Development Sustainable development as a leitmotiv for development across countries is a term that has been debated and refined over the last few decades and has become more comprehensive, inclusive, and accommodating of emergent issues. Importantly, global conferences on human development and sustainability (Stockholm Conference, 1972; Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992; Rio + 10 in Johannesburg, 2002; Rio + 20 in Rio de Janeiro,

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

2012) updated environmental issues and included them in declarations and action plans on sustainable development. This led to the expansion of the scope of issues covered by environmental policies. At the same time, the conceptual framing of environmental problems gradually changed. Insights from the aforementioned topic of ecological economics put the focus on ecosystems and their management rather than on controlling externalities. The science of ecology and ecosystems was one of the most revolutionary new discourses on environmental issues and led to the emergence of modern environmentalism in the late twentieth century (Andrews 2006). It was also in this period that the global discourse on sustainable development culminated in adopting a comprehensive understanding of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report of 1987. This report, which represents the original definition of sustainable development, and arguably the only one retaining global consensus, included safeguarding longterm ecological sustainability as a key pillar (see Holden et al. 2014). The Earth Summit of 1992 resulted in significant policy outcomes such as the biodiversity convention aimed at protecting vulnerable ecosystems. It also paved the way for significant global agreements on emerging issues such as climate change (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol of 1997). The perspective of ecosystems and their characteristics with regard to dealing with risks or absorbing perturbations (resilience) greatly enriched environmental policies. For example, risk assessments using thresholds and quantitative measures became integral to the work of environmental agencies (e.g., Russel and Gruber 1987). Furthermore, governments started to increase the resilience of ecosystems to shocks such as climate change and variability, by adopting various policy responses such as decentralization, disaster management, or strengthening the capacities of local communities (Adger et al. 2011). Nowadays, environmental policies are still incorporating instruments to achieve new directions of the global agenda on sustainable development. Key recent milestones of this agenda have been the promotion of the green economy by the Rio + 20 conference of 2012, the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, the Paris

621

Agreement of 2015 on decarbonization, and the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation. The implementation of such agendas would require a new set of environmental policies to encourage innovations, resource reuse, and the use of renewables, especially in the energy and related sectors (see Mundaca et al. 2016).

Policy Input and Instruments The totality of instruments or “policy mixes” represents the input used by public policies to achieve favorable outcomes on environmental issues. Environmental policymaking relies on a wide range of instruments that cannot be extensively discussed in this chapter. However, one can categorize these instruments into three broad categories: regulatory instruments, market-based instruments, and voluntary instruments. Regulatory instruments include the traditional approach of command and control, i.e., issuing a certain regulatory threshold and controlling it. Examples of such instruments include emission permits, water abstraction licenses, or standards for certain technologies (e.g., emissions from car engines). Regulatory instruments can also include imposing of administrative procedural standards such as certain editing requirements or the need to conduct environmental impact assessments ahead of infrastructure projects. Overall, the aim of environmental protection, for example, is optimally achieved through a mix of regulatory instruments that is tailored to achieve a certain policy goal (see Gunningham and Sinclair 1999). On the other hand, market-based instruments aim to achieve policy goals through the use of negative and positive incentives and by altering the behavior of producers and consumers. According to Stavins (2003), market-based instruments can be divided into four categories: (i) charge systems (e.g., use charges, taxes, or administrative charges), (ii) tradable permits (e.g., creating markets for carbon emissions through cap-and-trade systems), (iii) market friction reductions (i.e., ensuring well-functioning markets through market creation, liability regulations, and the dissemination of information), and (iv) government

E

622

subsidy reductions (i.e., eliminating subsidization of, e.g., water and energy services). There are other examples, and market-based instruments are evolving as complementary policies to the traditional regulatory approach. A contemporary example of such instruments is represented by schemes to economize on environmental services, so-called payment for environmental services, or PES. Under such schemes, the beneficiary of an environmental service pays the service providers. The payment is embedded in a scheme that is, in theory, carefully designed to benefit poor and marginalized communities (see Engel et al. 2008). Voluntary instruments exhibit less control since they promote actions and measures to solicit cooperation and adoption of positive behavior toward the environment. These instruments range from voluntary commitments, collective decisionmaking through negotiations, education, promotion of research, awareness campaigns about eco-labels, and certifications. In fact, participatory and information-based instruments are on the rise due to the increasing role of civil societal actors, social media, and modern communications. These factors help to make participation possible, increase awareness, and facilitate actions. Finally, it is important to note that there is no one consensually accepted classification of environmental policy instruments. For example, many voluntary instruments and some market-based instruments such as tradable permits are often characterized as “new environmental policy instruments” (NEPIs), stressing their novelty and the diminished role of the government (e.g., Jordan et al. 2003, 2005). Policymakers are thus nowadays faced with a large portfolio of “old” and “new” instruments, from which they need to pick the optimal policy mix using tools allowing the evaluation of instruments based on a set of predefined criteria or objectives (Goulder and Parry 2008).

Process of Policy Integration Once policymakers decide on the input (i.e., instruments and policy mixes) to manage environmental issues, they adapt these instruments to

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

changing realities in order to improve them. Environmental policies, as is the case with any public policies, thus go through a process of refinements and reforms by different public actors across different countries. Scholars study such process and the resulting trends in environmental policymaking. A key concept in this regard is that of “environmental policy integration” (EPI), which is the integration of smaller policies into larger ones (e.g., sector policies for water, energy, or agriculture). EPI is a constituting characteristic of environmental policymaking over the last few decades. It can be considered as the most important feature of the global process of sustainable development, since this process led to the integration of environmental objectives into nonenvironmental policy sectors (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). EPI is also understood as an output of constant orientation of environmental policies toward global agreements and principles of sustainable development (Persson 2004). The sustainable development agenda has legitimized and advocated for EPI ever since the Brundtland Report of 1987 and thus led to many EPI initiatives across the globe, with notable examples in the European Union (ibid). Although EPI has many practical problems, and its outcomes are difficult to evaluate, it enjoyed wide political support across the globe (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). For example, EPI seems to have been a stable aspiration over time despite shifts in governance regimes in the Swedish agricultural and energy sectors (Persson et al. 2016). Policy integration and the sustainable development agenda can have important consequences for the environmental performance of institutions and companies. Environmental policy integration in different sectors and across different countries result in a standardization of global environmental policy affecting, for example, the ability of multinationals to exploit cross-country differences in environmental regulations (Christmann 2004). This might lead to an improvement in environmental performance of companies. However, there are other influencing factors in environmental performance research, such as the relationship to financial performance, institutional pressures,

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

or increased awareness (Albertini 2015). In fact, alongside regulators, environmental management practices of companies are sensitive to external demands from a wide range of other constituents such as consumers, environmental activists, and local communities (Delmas and Toffel 2008).

Policy Analysis and Impact Environmental policies need to be prepared carefully and their outcomes and impacts evaluated. In general, this process is called “policy analysis.” Policy analysis is usually done before policies are decided. If done afterwards, one talks often of impact assessment or policy evaluation. For policy analysis, there is a multitude of tools and approaches; the general workflow in policy analysis is, however, simple. It consists of five general steps ahead of the implementation of policies: (i) problem definition, (ii) determination of evaluation criteria, (iii) identification of alternative policies, (iv) evaluation of alternative policies using the evaluation criteria, and (v) selection of the preferred policy. Such a systematic approach toward policy analysis represents the most common approach in planning and policymaking (e.g., Patton et al. 2012). Depending on the issues addressed by public policies, the evaluation criteria and analysis tools used can differ (see Fischer et al. 2007 for theories and methods). For example, Greenberg (2007) proposed six evaluation criteria for environmental policy analyses: (i) reaction of elected officials and staff, (ii) reaction of nongovernment stakeholders, (iii) human and ecological health, (iv) economic costs and benefits, (v) moral imperatives (e.g., equity considerations), and (vi) time and flexibility. This example shows the broad considerations associated with environmental and sustainable development issues. It would be difficult to weigh all these aspects without the use of specific analysis tools. This is especially true for the economic criteria of certain policies. In fact, tools of economic policy analysis are the most used ones in policy analyses. Of these tools, cost–benefit analysis is arguably the most prominent one in environmental policies.

623

In such cost–benefit analyses, the benefits of any policy or project in terms improved human wellbeing are compared with the costs in terms of reduction in social welfare. In environmental cost–benefit analyses, the environmental benefits are approximated through different methods that aim at evaluating the total economic value of an environmental asset (see OECD 2007 for an overview of the general approach). Over many decades, continuous progress has been made toward advancing the valuation techniques used in environmental cost–benefit analyses (see Atkinson and Mourato 2008 for a review of these advances). Moreover, the method of cost–benefit analysis has become widely used in environmental policies across the globe due to its relative transparency and also the importance of responsible spending for many developing nations (Livermore and Revesz 2013). There are many other methods for environmental policy analysis using multi-criteria decisionmaking, modeling, economic analysis, or output–input models (see Loomis and Helfand 2001). In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the reliance on information technology for modeling and evaluating different policy options. “Environmental decision support systems” are increasingly used for capturing the complexity of interactions in socio-ecological systems and how these interactions are affected by different policies (Matthies et al. 2007). Such decision support systems are nowadays used for decisionmaking in both public and private sectors, although their resource intensiveness still hinders their wider application (Bagstad et al. 2013). A prominent tool within such decision support systems is the so-called integrated environmental modeling (IEM). IEM combines interdisciplinary knowledge on environmental issues with modern computing technologies to assess environmental policies in a holistic way. It is currently widely used by environmental agencies to assess complex issues such as climate change or energy issues (see Laniak et al. 2013). Policy analysis is, above all, relevant for the stages of policy formulation and decision-making in the policy cycle (see Jann and Wegrich 2007 for

E

624

theories of the policy cycle). However, the later phases of implementation and evaluation are key for the success of policies, and therefore implementation assessments and impact evaluations of environmental policies are needed. There are many ways to do this. For example, outcome evaluations are used to compare measures with objectives. The process of decision-making and institutions can be analyzed, while public dialogues are held for environmental policy evaluations (see Kraft 2014). Methods of “impact evaluation” (IE), a more long-term perspective of environmental policies and policy programs, are, however, difficult to standardize due to the uncertainties and the specific contexts involved in each case study (Mickwitz 2003). While it is very difficult to isolate the contribution of environmental policies to specific outcomes or impacts, results from one case study cannot be transferred to others. In view of this, Ferraro (2009) suggests the use of counterfactual thinking and experimental designs to evaluate environmental policies, i.e., which outcomes would have resulted in the absence of a certain policy. Nevertheless, the evaluation of impacts of environmental policies remains quite difficult due to the long-term nature of such their impacts and the increasing complexity of the issues involved. There are other constraints such as data availability, representativeness, and bias of the evaluator. The choice of the right approach of environmental policy evaluation is therefore key in understanding the impact of policies. (See Crabbé and Leroy 2008 for a comparison of different approaches.)

Summary and Challenges Environmental policies as public policies represent a rich and, nowadays, an interdisciplinary field of study that draws on different scientific thoughts and methods from economics, ecology, sociology, political sciences, etc. The evolution of environmental and sustainable development problems as well as environmental movements since the 1950s changed the analysis tools and debates in environmental policy. With the

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

sustainable development agenda becoming more holistic and broader, environmental policy incorporated more issues and instruments. Over time, the focus of environmental policies changed from environmental protection and pollution to emphasizing resource-use efficiency, long-term sustainability, addressing of environmental risks, and promotion of the health of ecosystems. Using a policy mix of regulatory, market, and voluntary instruments, environmental policy is creating incentives and frameworks for influencing emergent issues of sustainable development such as carbon reduction, energy efficiency, resource decoupling and reuse, or the valuation of ecosystems services. The sustainable development agenda has had an integrative effect on environmental policies. Sector policies for key resources such as energy, water, and land have emerged because of the constant orientation of environmental policies toward global sustainability goals and agreements. Such policy integration affects the environmental performance of organizations and companies as they seek to integrate environmental objectives into their operations. With the emergence of new policy instruments and more integrated policy approaches, policymakers seek new tools to study the impacts of different policies and to evaluate adopted ones. Environmental policy analysis has thus evolved to encompass better techniques for cost–benefit analyses, multi-criteria decisionmaking, and environmental modeling. With improved technology and analysis options, we can now better understand environmental issues and policy options. This does not mean that we are always able to adopt the right solutions at the right time. In fact, the policymaking process is quite complex and sometimes fails to address problems in a timely manner despite the available knowledge (see Smith 2012). At the same time, the evaluation of the success of environmental policy represents a key challenge for scholars and environmental agencies alike. Environmental policies can have mixed results, and their impact is difficult to isolate from that of other factors such as technological developments, increased awareness, or political processes. Furthermore, policy

Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development

learning from institutional change and impact evaluation is a long-term and resource-intensive process. Policymakers might thus rely on other complementary methods for rigorous analysis, e.g., learning from experiences, experimentation, stakeholder participation, public consultations, and arrangements for collective decision-making.

Cross-References ▶ Environmental Policy Development ▶ Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Integration

and

Sustainable

References Adger WN, Brown K, Nelson D, Berkes F, Eakin H, Folke C, Galvin K, Gunderson L, Goulden M, O’Brian K, Ruitenbeek J, Tompkins EL (2011) Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. WIREs Clim Change 2(5):757–766 Albertini E (2015) What we know about environmental policy: an inductive typology of the research. Bus Strateg Environ 26(3):277–297 Andrews RNL (2006) Managing the environment, managing ourselves: a history of American environmental policy. Yale University Press, New Haven Atkinson G, Mourato S (2008) Environmental costbenefits analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:317–344 Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:27–39 Christmann P (2004) Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Acad Manag J 47(5):747–760 Crabbé A, Leroy P (2008) The handbook of environmental policy evaluation. Earthscan, London Delmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: opening the black box. Strateg Manag J 29(10):1027–1055 Doyle T, McEachern D, MacGregor S (2016) Environment and politics, 4th edn. Routledge, Oxford Durant RF, Fiorino DJ (2017) Environmental governance reconsidered: challenges, choices and opportunities. MIT Press, Massachusetts Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65(4):663–674

625 Ferraro PJ (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. N Dir Eval 2009(122):75–84 Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (2007) Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics and methods. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton Goulder LH, Parry IWH (2008) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(2):152–174 Greenberg MR (2007) Environmental policy analysis and practice. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick Gunningham N, Sinclair D (1999) Regulatory pluralism: designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law Policy 21(1):49–76 Holden E, Linnerud K, Banister D (2014) Sustainable development: our common future revisited. Glob Environ Chang 26:130–139 Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics and methods. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ Policy Gov 20(3):147–158 Jordan A, Rüdiger KW, Zito AR (2003) “New” instruments of environmental governance: patterns and pathways of change. Environ Polit 12(1):1–24 Jordan A, Rüdiger KW, Wurzel AZ (2005) The rise of “new” policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Pol Stud 53(3):477–496 Kline B (2011) First along the river. A brief history of the U.S. environmental movement. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham Kraft ME (2014) Environmental policy and politics, 6th edn. Routledge, New York Lafferty W, Hovden E (2003) Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework. Environ Polit 12(3):1–22 Laniak GF, Olchin G, Goodall J, Voinov A, Hill M, Glynn P, Whelan G, Geller G, Quinn N, Blind M, Peckham S, Peaney S, Gaber N, Kennedy R, Hughes A (2013) Integrated environmental modeling: a vision and roadmap for the future. Environ Model Softw 39:3–23 Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325 Lempert RJ (2002) A new decision sciences for complex systems. PNAS 99:7309–7313 Lempert R, Scheffran J, Sprinz DF (2009) Methods for long-term environmental policy challenges. Global Environ Polit 9(3):106–133 Livermore MA, Revesz RL (2013) The globalization of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford Loomis J, Helfand G (2001) Environmental policy analysis for decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

E

626 Matthies M, Giupponi C, Ostendorf B (2007) Environmental decision support systems: current issues, methods and tools. Environ Model Softw 22(2):123–127 Mazmanian DA, Kraft ME (2009) Towards sustainable communities: transition and transformation in environmental policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Mickwitz P (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments – contexts and key concepts. Evaluation 9(4):415–436 Millner A, Ollivier H (2016) Beliefs, politics and environmental policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 10(2):226–224 Mundaca L, Neij L, Markandya A, Hennicke P, Yan J (2016) Towards a green economy? Assessing policy choices, strategies and transitional pathways. Appl Energy 179:1282–1292 Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ Policy Gov 19(3):197–214 OECD (2007) Assessing environmental policies. Policy brief. February 2007. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Available at https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluati on/38208236.pdf Patton C, Sawicki D, Clark J (2012) Basic methods of policy analysis and planning, 3rd edn. Routledge, London Persson Å (2004) Environmental policy integration: an introduction. PINTS – Policy Integration for Sustainability. Stockholm Environment Institute. Available at http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822 /18981/pints_intro_Persson_2004.pdf?sequence=1 Persson Å, Eckerberg K, Nilsson M (2016) Institutionalization or wither away? Twenty-five years of environmental policy integration under shifting governance models in Sweden. Environ Plann C 34:478–495 Rosenbaum WA (2014) Environmental policy and politics, 9th edn. Sage/CQ Press, Thousand Oaks Ruckelshaus WD (1985) Environmental protection: a brief history of the environmental movement in America and the implications abroad. Environ Law 15(3):455–469 Russel M, Gruber M (1987) Risk assessment in environmental policy-making. Science 236(4799):286–290 Sandmo A (2015) The early history of environmental economics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 9(1):43–63 Smith ZA (2012) The Environmental policy paradox. Routledge, New York Sprinz DF (2009) Long-term environmental policy: definition, knowledge, future research. Global Environ Polit 9(3):1–8 Stavins RN (2003) Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. Handb Environ Econ 1:355–435 Venkatachalam L (2007) Environmental economics and ecological economics: where they can converge? Ecol Econ 61(2–3):550–558

Environmental Problems

Environmental Problems ▶ TED Talks on Environment Issues for Sustainable Development

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development Adriana Aparecida Magri da Silva, Giovana Dominicci Silva and Micheli Kowalczuk Machado Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Environmental resources and sustainable development are related to the understanding of present limits in the current models of production and consumption that undermine the environment capacity to absorb impacts promoted by human activities. In this way, it is increasingly necessary to use the natural resources for the promotion of sustainability, since they are fundamental to guarantee the environmental and life quality of the populations (Kates et al. 2005).

Introduction Natural resources have been suffering from excessive degradation, and consequences of all this pressure on environment result in severe effects with the possibility of being irreversible. According to Cruz et al. (2008), studies have listed a number of causes for environmental degradation, placing emphasis on the disorderly and unconscious human actions which contribute to significant changes in natural environments making them very vulnerable and less resilient. Thus, it is noteworthy that environmental degradation is a result of the dynamics between socio-economic elements, institutional and technological activities. Factors such as

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development economic and population growth, poverty, urbanization, intensification of agriculture, increased use of transport and new energy requirements, result in environmental issues. Therefore, environmental degradation is the result of social, economic and environmental conditions of a region. (Cruz et al. 2008.

According to Armando et al. (2002), sustainable use of natural resources, combined with a lower dependence on external inputs, features a production system, which results in greater food security and economic and environmental regeneration. Actions such as urbanization, traditional agriculture, and grazing are some important causes for region degradation. These processes influence the breakdown of environmental stability, creating other risks of natural order capable of negatively impacting the site and its surroundings. Pages (2011) reports that society is not yet aware of the importance of preserving natural resources for their survival. In addition to directly affecting environment, such degradation also interferes with the social factor and decreases opportunities for communities to enjoy an ecologically balanced environment with basic survival conditions. The successive and intense exploitation of natural resources ends up breaking the link between human and nature, and the harmony is interfered with irrational use and increasingly without control. Damage to environment results in an increasingly individualistic world, full of inequalities, and the erosion processes reflect the most striking evidence of degradation (Sá et al. 1994). Concern for protecting environment is still part of the minority of the world population. Steps are slow and the consequences of future lack of natural resources remain as a secondary concern. Due to this deficit of ecological thinking, in 2015, the United Nations proposed a global agenda with objectives and targets prioritizing the improvement of human welfare and environmental quality of natural areas. This agenda turned discussion of these issues more obvious and transparent, so that sustainable development remains in all areas inserted in the lives of human beings. This includes agroecology as a reference in the recovery of the damaged areas aiming sustainability (ONU 2015).

627

Object 2 of the 2030 agenda portrays sustainable agriculture as a basis to eliminate world hunger, promoting food security. It is important to highlight two objectives present in this goal, moving toward the theme of this entry: - By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and income of small food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, herders and fishers, through equal access to land and other productive resources, inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities to add value and non-farm employment; - By 2030, ensure sustainable systems of food production and program robust agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, to help maintain ecosystems, to strengthen the ability to adapt to climate change, extreme weather, droughts, floods and other disasters, and gradually improve quality of the land and soil. (ONU 2015)

These two goals portray the importance of small family farmers in sustainable agricultural production processes and the conservation and improvement of environmental systems. It is on these issues that the case study of this entry, the Família Org^anica Ranch, is inserted. It is located in the city of Piracaia, São Paulo, Brazil, in the territory of the Cantareira System, an important and significant water supply system, built in order to provide water for about 50% of the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (MRSP).

Recovery of Degraded Areas and Agroforestry Systems in Spring Areas The water availability in watershed is closely linked to environmental quality of the whole river basin, and the presence of vegetation cover plays a decisive role in regulating water cycles, biological/biogeochemical, and maintenance of natural ecosystems. These factors are crucial in maintaining the flow of water and nutrients (including vegetation $ soil $ surface water $ groundwater), for any change in ecosystems, cause serious damage to water resources, and are even more intense when the removal of vegetation occurs in areas around hydric bodies (Tundisi and Matsumura-Tundisi 2010).

E

628

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

The degradation of water resources by removing vegetation in spring areas can get worse when evaluating the impacts caused by the new use of these deforested areas. Among the impacts and consequences, we can point out soil sealing and channeling of rivers through urbanization processes, use of large amounts of water in the agricultural and industrial production processes, and disposal of their wastewater without treatment into rivers, causing worsening water quality and quantity of these sources. In addition, exposed soils or soils with agricultural activities are more prone to erosion and leaching, which consequently cause sedimentation and eutrophication of hydric bodies. Obviously, this damages aquatic fauna and flora and also increases costs of treating water for human consumption (Padua et al. 2011; Antoniazzi 2008; Tundisi 2008). Therefore, recovery of these areas is considered as environmental quality improvement. This can be done by adopting practices such as crop rotation, reforestation, or even recovering land for grazing, minimizing the effects mentioned above. Also, nutrient and properties can be returned to the soil and contribute to recovery of other natural resources (Cruz et al. 2008). Search for a balanced environment and improved quality of life has been increasing over the years, developing criteria for approaching these two important elements. Concepts of sustainability and syntropy have been inserted in agricultural processes, giving rise to what we now call as agroecology, bringing the idea and expectation of a new agriculture capable of generating welfare to man and environment (Caporal and Costabeber 2004). This new agriculture is becoming increasingly present in agricultural processes, as it plays a key role in the recovery of damaged areas. Thus, agroecology is regarded as balance point, which may return life to ecosystems with some type of change. It is through the agroforestry system (AFS) and syntropy that agroforestry plays the union of many different species, maintaining fertility and local environmental sustainability in order to provide revitalization of ecosystem services (Kazay and Oliveira 2014).

This way, AFSs allow an almost natural evolution, where different species unite, exchanging nutrients and energy, allowing recovery of ecosystems. This is similar to natural ecological succession processes and of primary importance for the recovery of ecosystems. The increase and development of ecological communities will lead to the establishment of new species and a new more balanced ecosystem (Ortis et al. 2012). Granting all this, Santos et al. (2015) claim that agroforestry systems are a productive alternative to reconcile production and environmental preservation and land use systems in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, and bamboos) are intentionally used and managed in association with crops and/or livestock. This management searches the use of nonrenewable natural resources to recover, preserve, and improve renewable natural resources (soils and agricultural biodiversity) and consequently the water resources (Veloso 2015). It is important to point out that environmental and social concepts are present in agroecology goals, where sustainability, stability, productivity, equity, and environmental quality of life are the pillars. Based on sustainability and for healthier habits, many families have seen in this kind of agriculture, both economic and environmental advantages. The use of resources extracted from nature makes producers independent from chemical inputs, ensuring healthy products that do not cause environmental damage and jeopardize public health (Siliprandi 2002). It is important to point out that when recovering a location, it is necessary to take in consideration the improvement it will bring not only environmentally but also socially. This is when agroforestry systems (AFSs) become an alternative tool increasing ecosystem services and communities’ welfare, providing additional income through agricultural production (Cruz et al. 2008).

Environmental Situation of the Cantareira Water System The Cantareira Water System is considered one of the greatest world’s water supply systems, as it

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

629

has a six-reservoir structure, a pumping station (Santa Inês), and a water treatment station (Guaraú) which are interconnected by underground artificial tunnels, canals, and pumps (Sabesp 2010). This watershed is located partly in the southeast region of State of São Paulo, north of the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (MRSP), between Serra da Mantiqueira and Cantareira. Seventy-one percent of its territory is located in the State of Minas Gerais where are the headwaters of Jaguari River Basin and its tributary and Camanducaia River (Fig. 1). This system covers parts of 12 cities in these 2 states, totaling an area of approximately 2279.5 km2 (Whatley and Cunha 2007). The Cantareira System supplies around 50% of the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo and also regulates the flow of water to the Metropolitan Region of Campinas (Whatley and Cunha 2007). MRSP is considered the largest urban agglomeration in the country and one of the largest

economic centers of the world. This is where sources of pollution are located, and increase in water demand automatically increases vulnerability and decreases resilience of springs that supply the region, dramatically affecting all environmental services provided (Tundisi 2008). This problem is increased because the MRSP presents low water availability per capita, where 48.04% of the population of the entire state is concentrated, on a bedside region, representing about 3% of the total territory of the State of São Paulo (Baltrusis and D’ottaviano 2009). The authors Fadini (2005), Suarez (2005, 2010), Hoeffel et al. (2008), Seixas et al. (2010), and Silva (2012) reported that the region of the Cantareira System has been increasing the agricultural, urban, industrial, and tourist activities, causing a number of impacts. This compromises quality and quantity of natural resources in particular water resources (Fig. 2). The fragile situation of this system has also been identified by the environmental institute in

Itapeva

Camanducaia

Estado de Minas Gerais

Sapucai-Mirim

Extrema Vargem

Bragança Paulista

Estado de Säo Paulo

Joanópolis

Piracaia

Nazaré Paulista

Cantareira Water System Limits

Brasil

Franco da Rocha Caieiras

MG SP

Cantareira Water System Reservoirs Minas Gerais State Municipalities São Paulo State Municipalities

N W

Mairiporä

E

Map not in scale

São Paulo Municipality

S

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Location of the Cantareira Water System. (Source: the authors (2018))

E

630

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Occupations and grazing areas surrounding the reservoir Jaguari-Jacarei Cantareira System. (Source: the authors (2012))

environmental participatory diagnosis of Cantareira System (Whatley and Cunha 2007), which found that the region is extremely altered by anthropogenic uses. Recently, the IPE – Institute for Ecological Research – conducted a diagnosis in the Cantareira System between the years 2011 and 2014, identifying that in about 60% of the permanent preservation areas (PPAs), there is some misuse set in the native forest. It was also possible to identify that in 49% of PPAs there are degraded pasture and other uses and in about 10% there is forestry (eucalyptus) (Uezu et al. 2017). Hoeffel et al. (2004, 2012), Fadini (2005), and Whatley and Cunha (2007) report that the main uses and land occupation in the region are urban, touristic, forestry, and industrial, and the latter occurs more frequently in the municipalities of Atibaia (SP), Bragança Paulista (SP), and Extrema (MG). Besides the prime location for

installation of companies, the proximity to the MRSP makes the region, especially the area of the springs, characterized by beautiful scenery, being also attractive to the real estate market. This has been increasing urbanization processes due to easy access by regional highways, D. Pedro I and Fernão Dias. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the region is extremely important for the production of water, responsible for the maintenance of local and regional water availability and also the remnants of the Atlantic Forest (Fig. 3). As a result, industrial expansion and population growth have been emphasizing the urban expansion of Extrema toward natural areas, causing major impacts on the flora, fauna, and especially water availability (quality and quantity) in the area (Hoeffel et al. 2012). Silva (2012) and Uezu et al. (2017) report that currently the Cantareira System is a vulnerable

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

631

E

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Major uses of soil present in the Cantareira System area. (a) livestock, (b) extensive agriculture,

(c) and (d) forestry and in Extrema urban municipality (MG). (Source: the authors (a) and (b) (2009), (c) (2012), (d) (2006))

system and less resilient, especially the riparian areas (environs of the rivers and springs). For some years it has been losing environmental and ecological quality, and hence its water production and maintenance has also been impaired. This fact has further been jeopardized by serious problems of erosion and silting of rivers, springs, and reservoirs, thus reducing production capacity and water storage in this system. In view of this context, many of the environmental and ecosystem services are altered by deforestation actions or by disturbances in vegetation cover, compromising the quality of water, recharge aquifers, and loss of biomass, causing increased toxicity and eutrophication of these hydric bodies. Consequently, there is increase in the cost of water treatment and great loss in protecting these sources (Tundisi 2008).

Família Orgânica Ranch: How Agroforestry Is Contributing to Improve the Cantareira Environmental System This entry has been elaborated based on a case study, the Família Org^anica Ranch, located in the city of Piracaia, SP, inserted in the territory of Cantareira System. It is a small family farm. This entry has been formatted based on observations in the field of on-site visits, in testimonials and informal conversations with the owners, and in surveys with materials available in the media, such as reports and the site of the Família Org^anica (http://familiaorganica.com). On that location, a long time ago, there was a large farm called Fazenda do Rosario, which was later divided into small farms and offered for sale. Land was used basically for pasture and cattle farming, resulting in a low environmental

632

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Degraded areas surrounding Família Org^anica. (a) headquarters of the former Rosario farm and pastures around, (b) intense erosion processes in the

neighborhood, (c) degraded area inside the property (site with no recovery intervention). (Source: the authors (2017))

quality, and, unfortunately, this reality remains until today (Fig. 4). In 2012, present owners of the Família Org^anica site acquired part of the Rosario farm and began a major environmental and social contribution. In 2013 they acquired another property, which together form an area of 18 ha. The purpose of the acquisition of these lands was to return to the rural origins of the first owners, enjoy a better quality of life with healthy eating habits, and provide their children with the same lifestyle they had as children, as well as to start agricultural activities based on the pillars of sustainability and be able to influence others in agricultural production processes to transform the local environmental and social reality. The property is part of a historical process of degradation, as is the reality of much of the Cantareira System territory: grazing land and land without vitality and with advanced erosion processes. Given this reality, the owners began a thorough process of recovery by agroecology and syntropic agriculture, giving rise to the Família Org^anica, a microenterprise that aims at sustainability and respect for environment and people.

The Família Org^anica operates in the cultivation of organic food, as well as assists other producers and surrounding professionals in the region of Campinas and São Paulo. They also participate in the Unicamp Agroecology Network, East Paulista, and through the Participatory Guarantee Systems, part of the Campinas and Region Natural Agriculture Association (NAA). Included in this organizational context was also the Organic Piracaia Association, which seeks to strengthen the organic production in the city, influencing municipal policies toward sustainable actions and activities in the municipality (Família Org^anica 2018). It is also important to notice that in rebuilding the property, all existing infrastructure was reused, and the new ones were planned and implemented following the guidelines of permaculture, aimed at creating sustainable, productive, balanced, and harmonious environment. As sustainable alternative for effluent treatment, structures and techniques were implemented for processing waste generated in the property. Three digester tanks start the process; the first filter effluent is then carried

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

633

E

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 Environmental management tools present in the property. (a) lake used in the treatment of effluents, (b)

consortium cultures in AFS, (c) vegetation of the formation surrounding the spring, (d) rain containment ditches. (Source: the authors (2017))

out in an area with banana trees, the second filtering is done by some species of aquatic vegetation present in the lake, and, in turn, the treated effluent follows a stream that cuts through the property. This treatment has efficiency of about 95%, a high rate as compared to the effluent treatment performed by municipalities. Several other sustainable management tools that contribute to the environmental improvement of the property are used. Some of them are (Fig. 5):

– Containment trenches built within the AFS, which allow a better flow of rainwater, preventing erosion and leaching of soil – Level curves, ordaining planting in rows, applied because the area is steep and provides better water drainage avoiding landslides and assisting in soil conservation – Consortium cultures, which allow the soil to replenish nutrients, periodically alternating different species in a single area – Composting, which is the recycling of all organic waste generated in the property

– Maintaining and improving the vegetation around the spring that supplies the entire property

The property also participates in traditional forest restoration projects. Part of it is being

634

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

restored by planting native trees; however, the largest area of the property has been recovering through techniques involving agroecology and syntropy. In an interview given to a state newspaper, the owner of the site, Ms. Maria Alejandra, reaffirms the importance of being part of a project to restore degraded areas, because “[. . .] with the recovery of springs and the river bank, it is clear how the land has recovered. Birds, amphibians and bees returned. Water in the river rose again. The quality of what we are doing here is important for the health of those who are in São Paulo” (Girardi 2017). It is important to mention that the use of techniques that involve the syntropy concept is prioritized in the area as it is a process that extracts life from where you least expect it, letting nature work on its time. The implementation of agroforestry systems within the Família Org^anica property began shortly after the acquisition of the land, within the conditions and limitations of the area. The property is in continuous increasing process of evolution, toward balance (Fig. 6). The owners have noticed improvement in water availability and in local climatic conditions, primarily by the use of AFSs (agroforestry)

(Fig. 7). Due to good results like these, agroecology has been increasingly used as a tool for degraded area recovery. Another example is the recovery process of Fazenda Olhos D’Água, owned by Mr. Ernst Gotsch, currently considered the father of syntropic agriculture. Mr. Gotsch turned 410 ha of impacted and degraded soil through syntropy and agroforestry systems into a large productive forest, where 350 ha of the total area was transformed into protected area, a private natural heritage reserve – PNHR (agenda Gotsch 2018). Given these scenarios, one can also mention the increase in plant diversity (native and cultivated vegetation), a fact that generated a significant growth of bee, insect, and bird communities, improving the natural pollination of flowers and thereby increasing food production. In the social sphere, the property also contributes to healthy food to students from public schools in Piracaia, SP, offering organic food for the preparation of school meals. They also share techniques, methods, and knowledge of agroecology and syntropy with the community and farmers of the surroundings. The property also trades their products and services, encouraging the local market.

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Area recovery process through traditional techniques and AFS deployed on the property. (a) 2016 and (b) in 2017. (Source: the authors (a) (2016) and (b) (2017))

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

635

E

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development, Fig. 7 Areas in recovery process within the property. (a) and (b) gallery forest and (c) and (d) agroforestry. (Source: the authors (2017))

Final Considerations Agroecology (agroforestry) and syntropic agriculture have been gaining attention in food production and improving the quality of environmental systems. The AFS has been an important recovery tool of degraded areas, many of which have been modified by human activities, causing deterioration of environmental system, undermining the ecological relationships therein and its overall balance. Due to the severity of this scenario, the United Nations, in 2015, stressed the need to increase sustainable agricultural productivity through a global agenda, with different goals and objectives. This included delaying the use of chemical inputs, which are methods that involve quality of life and environment and recognize farmers as contributors to agricultural sustainable development. By analyzing the context in which the Família Org^anica property is set, it is clear that they have been able to change the local reality and, at the same time, achieve significant results in their agroecological practices. Improvement of environmental quality and reduction of degraded areas within the property have been gaining

attention, alongside the increased production of sustainable and organic food. In this context, the property is becoming stronger and protruding as an example to be followed and replicated by other properties, mainly inserted in spring areas, such as the Cantareira System. The results of this analysis show that agroecology and syntropy can be used as a secure, sustainable, viable, and alternative conservation practices of natural resources and recovery of degraded areas besides performing agricultural production within the pillars of sustainability. This model of agricultural production has become an instrument of changed actions and behaviors improving environment from degradation, encouraging cleaner and fairer production, favoring natural systems and local and regional socioeconomic-environmental quality.

Cross-References ▶ Action Research on Sustainable Development ▶ Behavior Change for Sustainable Development ▶ Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

636

Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development

▶ Education for Responsible Consumption and Sustainable Development ▶ Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Engineering Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Friendly Products and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Labeling and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Living Guide and Sustainable Development ▶ Green Revolution and Sustainable Development ▶ Incorporation of Sustainability ▶ Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development ▶ Renewable Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Justice in Sustainable Development ▶ Social Responsibility and Sustainability ▶ Strategic Thinking and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Barriers ▶ Sustainability Challenges ▶ Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Responses to Sustainability ▶ Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability

7ea17/FATORES-DE-DEGRADACAO-AMBIENTA L-NOS-AGROPOLOS-DO-CEARA.pdf. Acesso em 06 Dez 2017 Fadini AAB (2005) Sustentabilidade e Identidade Local: pauta para um planejamento ambiental participativo em sub-bacias hidrográficas da região bragantina. 2005. 204f. Tese (Doutorado em Geografia), Instituto de Geociências e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro Família Org^anica (2018) O Que Fazemos – Nossa melhor parceria é a sua natureza!. http://familiaorganica.com. br/servicos-organicos. Acesso em 13 Jan 2018 Girardi G (2017) Solução verde para o Sistema Cantareira. O Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 18 Dez 2017. http:// sustentabilidade.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,solucaoverde-para-o-sistema-cantareira,70002123602. Acesso em 13 Jan 2018 Gotsch E (2018) O ser humano em harmonia com a natureza. Conheça a agricultura sintrópica de Ernst Gotsch. http://www. agendagotsch.com. Acesso em 12 Jan 2018 Hoeffel JLM, Machado MK, Fadini AAB, Lima FB (2004) Concepções e percepções da natureza na Área de Proteção Ambiental do Sistema Cantareira. Anais do IV Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação, vol. 1.FBPN, Curitiba, pp 346–356 Hoeffel JLM, Fadini AAB, Barbosa JEC, Fermino ES (2008) Jaguary mineiro: usos e ocupação do solo e impactos socioambientais. OLAM – Ciência & Tecnologia, Rio Claro, ano VIII 8(3):140–159 Hoeffel JLM, Fadini AAB, Barbosa JEC, Fermino ES, Carollo ERD (2012) Identification and characterization of socio – environmental impacts in the Jaguary river watershed basin (Minas Gerais Area). In: Bilibio C, Hensel O, Selbach J (Orgs) Sustainable water management in the tropics and subtropics and case studies in Brazil, vol. 4. Fundação Universidade Federal do Pampa, UNIKASSEL, PG Cult – UFMA, Jagurão Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21 Kazay DF, Oliveira LA (2014) Avaliação da Capacidade de Infiltração e do Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais em Sistemas Agroflorestais Sucessionais: o caso da Cooperafloresta. Projeto de graduação (Engenharia Ambiental) – Escola Politécnica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. https://s3. amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/43593200/ _MONOGRAFIA_FINAL_FINAL.pdf?AWSAccess KeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires= 1515111113&Signature=BLD6mk0%2FFzefNGM gDy0pKaQ1%2Fjc%3D&response-content-disposi tion=inline%3B%20filename%3DAVALIACAO_ DA_CAPACIDADE_DE_INFILTRACAO_E.pdf. Acesso em 02 Jan 2018 ONU. Organização da Nações Unidas (2015) https:// nacoesunidas.org/pos2015/agenda2030. Acesso em 27 Dez 2017 Ortis RS, Pita MCG, Estender AC, Juliano MC (2012) Gestão Ambiental e a Recuperação de Áreas

References Antoniazzi LB (2008) Agricultura como provedora de serviços ambientais para proteção de bacias hidrográficas. Revista Tecnologia & Inovação Agropecuária, pp 52–63 Armando MS, Bueno YM, Alves ERS, Cavalcante CH (2002) Agrofloresta para Agricultura Familiar. Brasília. https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstr eam/doc/184803/1/ct016.pdf. Acesso em 13 Dez 2017 Baltrusis N, D’ottaviano MCL (2009) Ricos e pobres, cada qual em seu lugar: a desigualdade socio-espacial na metrópole paulistana. SciELO, Salvador, Cad. CRH 22(55):135–149 Caporal FR, Costabeber JA (2004) Agroecologia: Alguns conceitos e princípios. MDA/SAF/DATER-IICA, Brasília. http://www.fca.unesp.br/Home/Extensao/Grup oTimbo/Agroecologia-Conceitoseprincipios.pdf. Acesso em 13 Dez 2017 Cruz CEB, Lima JS, Brito AVC, Farias RMO, Lima PVPS (2008) Fatores de degradação ambiental nos agropolos do Ceará. https://www.researchgate.net/pro file/Patricia_Lima9/publication/254389366_FATORE S_DE_DEGRADACAO_AMBIENTAL_NOS_AGR OPOLOS_DO_CEARA/links/540611cf0cf23d9765a

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development Degradadas: IX SEGeT. São Paulo. https://www.aedb. br/seget/arquivos/artigos12/20216149.pdf. Acesso em 27 Dez 2017 Padua S, Padua C, Ditt E, Almeida T (2011) O Código Florestal é capaz de nos deixar sem água. O Eco. http:// www.oeco.com.br/suzana-padua/25289-o-codigo-flore stal-e-capaz-de-nos-deixar-sem-agua. Acesso em 10 Fev 2011 Pages GM (2011) O Homem e a degradação ambiental. Revista Meio Filtrante. São Paulo, 10(51). http://www. meiofiltrante.com.br/edicoes.asp?link=ultima&fase= C&id=719. Acesso em 27 Dez 2017 Sá IB, Fotius GA, Riché GR (1994) Degradação ambiental e reabilitação natural no Trópico Semi-Á rido brasileiro. Embrapa Semiárido-Folderes/Folhetos/ Cartilhas (INFOTECA-E). http://www.infoteca.cnptia. embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/152182. Acesso em 02 Jan 2018 SABESP – Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo (2010) Sistemas de abastecimento na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. http://www. sabesp.com.br. Acesso em 17 Mai 2010 Santos CC, Araujo YD, Barbosa LT, Martins JC, Pinto DS (2015) O uso do sistema agroflorestal para recuperação de áreas degradadas como ferramenta pedagógica no colégio técnico da universidade rural. In: V Congresso Latino-americano de AgroecologiaSOCLA (La Plata, 2015). http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/ bitstream/handle/10915/54385/Documento_completo. pdf?sequence=1. Acesso em 03 Jan 2018 Seixas SRC, Suarez CFS, Silva GD, Fadini AAB (2010) Conservação de recursos naturais e práticas turísticas sustentáveis em Vargem (SP). Rev Bras Ecoturismo, São Paulo 3(2):191–214 Siliprandi E (2002) Desafios para a extensão rural: o “social” na transição agroecológica. Revista Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável – EMATER/RS-ASCAR, Porto Alegre. http://www. pvnocampo.com/agroecologia/desafios_para_a_extens ao_rural.pdf. Acesso em 03 Jan 2018 Silva GD (2012) A din^amica temporal da vulnerabilidade ambiental do Sistema Cantareira: o caso de duas subbacias hidrográficas formadoras do Reservatório Jaguari-Jacareí. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências da Engenharia Ambiental) – Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos Suarez CFS (2005) Turismo e sustentabilidade: a demanda turística e seus principais impactos sócio-ambientais em Monte Verde – Camanducaia – MG. 2005. 143 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração). Faculdade Cenecista de Varginha – FACECA, Varginha Suarez CFS (2010) Turismo sustentável, qualidade de vida e políticas públicas em unidades de conservação: um estudo de caso em Vargem – SP (APA do Sistema Cantareira). 2010. Tese (Doutorado em Ambiente e Sociedade). Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, NEPAM, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas Tundisi JG (2008) Desafios atuais e futuros para garantir a qualidade da água dos mananciais do município e da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. In: Whately M,

637

et al (Org) Mananciais: uma nova realidade? Instituto Socioambiental, São Paulo. Acesso em 04 Jan 2018 Tundisi JG, Matsumura-tundisi T (2010) Impactos potenciais das alterações do Código Florestal nos recursos hídricos. Biota Neotrop 10(4):67–75 Uezu A, Sarcinelli O, Chiodi R, Jenkins CN, Martins CS (2017) Atlas dos serviços ambientais do sistema Cantareira, 1st edn. Memnon Edições Científcas: ^ – Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas, São Paulo IPE Veloso AS (2015) Implantação do sistema agroflorestal sucessional para conservação de sete nascentes em área degradada por pastagem. Revista Terceiro Incluído 5(2):428–451 Whatley M, Cunha P (2007) Diagnóstico Socioambiental Participativo do Sistema Cantareira. ISA, São Paulo

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development Missulia de Lima Ribeiro, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Environmental issues are complex and require an understanding that considers different areas of knowledge. Such understanding is essential so that the various sectors of society can collaborate to promote sustainability in its social, environmental and economic aspects.

Introduction For a better world, as humanity wishes, it is essential to understand the inherent complexity in the concept of environment. This understanding must be part of proposals that seek sustainability, ensuring quality of life for current and future generations. Carvalho (2012) points out that a social and environmental vision is in a dynamic interaction with culture, society, and the physical and biological basis of life processes, thus being guided by a complex and interdisciplinary rationality.

E

638

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

In this context, given the complexity, urgency and importance of environmental issues, in September 2015, 193 UN member states formally adopted a new sustainable global agenda – Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. This document has 17 goals, successors of the eight objectives of the Millennium Development Goals, and 169 goals (United Nations 2015). Among other issues, the document recognizes that education is fundamental to assure quality of life of human beings and the planet environmental conservation. The agenda also emphasizes that: “We are determined to protect the planet from degradation above all through sustainable consumption and production, sustainable management of natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of present and future generations” (United Nations 2015). Considering this proposition, it is worth mentioning that the construction sector is essential for the realization of the overall objectives of sustainable development. The International Code Council (ICC) indicates that the construction industry as a human activity sector that consumes natural resources and use energy intensively generates considerable environmental impacts. There are also impacts related to the generation of solid, liquid, and gaseous waste. It is estimated that over 50% of solid wastes are generated from the construction sector. Environmental aspects added to the quality of life that constructions provide, synthesize the relationship between construction and environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2017). Given this reality, sustainable construction can minimize environmental impacts, promote more efficient and rational use of natural resources, preserve biodiversity, maintain the quality of life, encourage the creation of more environmentally friendly production systems, and the development of researches focused on sustainable technologies. According to Motta and Aguilar (2009, p. 93), “sustainable construction is committed to sustainable development. Its concepts and practices are usually related to actions and goals set out by sustainable development and should be an answer to these”. In order to do so, it is fundamental to bring to the center of the discussions on sustainability, a review

of how individuals, companies, and governments consume natural resources, discard waste, and interact with the environment. Specifically regarding use and disposal of goods, Dourado et al. (2014) report that “A society that values the act of consumption and the renewal of this act more and more rapidly and in greater quantity, with consumption occupying more time of daily life, is also a society that values discard as part of the process of social classification in which the volume of consumption and the amount of discard are part of the process of social classification, and are part of the same process of legitimation and recognition”. Given the above, it is evident that enabling processes in which individuals can have greater understanding of issues related to the environment and sustainability is critical to be able to glimpse a sustainable path without resource depletion, while the population benefits from the reduction of pollution levels and from mitigation of the effects of harmful activities to the environment. Among these processes, construction, made from a more committed approach to environmental conservation, can be regarded as decisive. This work seeks to analyze how the understanding of the concept of sustainable development has influenced sustainable construction practices, verifying their contribution to environmental conservation and to the improvement of quality of life. It also seeks to present diverse impacts that the construction sector brings to the environment, the challenges that must be overcome in this area, and demonstrate some of alternatives for environmental conservation and to minimize the generated impacts.

The Civil Construction and Sustainability Since the dawn of civilization, humans sought shelter in their habitat, with the evolution and with human beings settling, they started to build their own shelters, thinking on safer and comfortable housing for their families. Nowadays people seek modernity, beauty, and practicality when they think of construction and are increasingly interested in trends to follow. According to Tajiri et al.

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

(2011), the choice of a property is made considering factors such as adequate size to accommodate the family, comfort, location, among others, without concern for the impact that it will generate to the environment and people. According to Spadotto et al. (2011) the construction industry is responsible for various reflexes and changes, to the site and region where the work is installed, caused by their activities directly or indirectly, from the manufacture of cement and transport of materials to the formation of a lake by a dam or changes in an area for excavation. These “reflections” have environmental, social, and even economic aspects. The project located in an already changed urban space, at first glance does not appear to cause significant damage. However, a close and critical look can perceive and predict damages such as waterproofing a large part of the land; the visual impact caused by the work, dust, and noise; generation of construction waste, among many others that could be cited. The construction industry is responsible for the transformation of the natural environment sector into a built environment and is considered the industry that consumes more resources and requires an energy mass consumption, which degrades the environment and generates numerous environmental impacts (Agopyan and John 2011; Kozáková et al. 2014). Degani (2003), Lenzen and Treloar (2002), and Akadiri et al. (2012) point out that among the main contributors to the depletion of natural resources are the built goods, whose physical dimensions are considered the largest on the planet and, therefore, the resources consumed in the implementation phase. Degani (2003) also mentions the significant consumption of energy and water use in the construction phase. Regarding pollution, waste generation at all stages of the life cycle of a construction causes pollution of soil, water, and atmosphere. The environmental impacts caused by construction are present throughout a large supply chain, the extraction of raw materials such as sand, rock, and water; production and transportation of processed materials and components, as block and cement; in the design and development of projects which are chosen techniques and materials that will be used; execution where there may

639

be waste in the use and maintenance practices; and during lifespan and demolition and disassembly involving, for example, the generation and disposal of waste. All this process is influenced by technical standards, construction codes, master plans, and public policies. In addition, all of these steps involve environmental and economic resources and have social impacts that affect all citizens, businesses, and government agencies, and not just the direct user (Agopyan and John 2011). According to Keller and Burke (2009), sustainable construction policies, license applications, and construction codes are means that can collaborate to make the project sustainable in the sphere of voluntary initiatives and may take it to mandatory public policies. With these methods, the design and construction of buildings may become part of the solution to environmental problems. However, it is important to note that with the implementation of sustainable policies society needs changes in the current socioeconomic structure and the way of doing things, in modern capitalist societies (Keller and Burke 2009). In this regard, it is noteworthy that the current environmental reality will only be possible if one knows it objectively. Therefore it is necessary that “knowledge and skills are incorporated, and that attitudes are mainly formed from ethical values and social justice, because these are attitudes that predispose to action” (Pelicioni and Phillipi 2014, p. 6). The lack of initiatives, aimed at promoting environmental awareness and knowledge about elements belonging to the idea of sustainability, can significantly compromise the more balanced relationship between human actions and environmental conservation. Society as a whole was slow to realize the impacts generated and how it would reflect on the survival of the planet and humanity, forcing changes in culture, technology, and behavior, seeking to meet the desires of a more enlightened and demanding society in terms of environmental preservation (Agopyan and John 2011). Although there are several initiatives aimed at the inclusion of environmental and social criteria in the construction sector, it is noted that the proposed methods for the adequacy of processes are still being used in an incipient way (Tajiri et al. 2011).

E

640

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

Pardini (2009) mentions that the civil construction sector is closely related to the sustainability of the planet, playing an important role, perhaps greater than imagined, related to both the impacts generated and the possibilities of contributing to their minimization. The ecological awareness spread throughout the planet, together with the dissemination of environmental issues, especially those related to deforestation and climate change, have created an alert for the creation and implementation of measures that can reduce the impacts generates by buildings (Agopyan and John 2011). According to Meda and Suzuki (2003) at present, the need to rationalize natural resources has led human beings to change their way of life for the preservation of the environment. This change is related not only to the family environment but also to the work environment, leisure, culture, and means of locomotion. According to the authors, the greatest millennium challenge is the environmental issue and will depend on the human capacity to find solutions to the impacts generated on hundreds of years of unconscious degradation, and this will define the appropriate use of natural resources available. In this sense, due to this increasing demand for environmental preservation, humans started thinking about how not to degrade the environment and minimize the impacts generated, thus, sustainability and sustainable development took shape. Specifically, considering sustainable construction in 1999 was published the Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, according to which the construction industry and the built environment are fundamental to the sustainable development of society. In general, the notes for sustainable construction would reduce energy consumption and extraction of mineral resources, the conservation of natural areas and biodiversity, maintenance of the quality of the built environment and management of the indoor air health (Degani 2003; Plessis 2007). According to Pardini (2009) and Plessis (2007), the concept of sustainable development, in this agenda is founded on three pillars: social, calling for a fairer society in relation to human development and quality of life; environmental, requesting balance between protection and use of natural resources; and economic, requiring access

to resources and opportunities without hurting the ecological limits and human rights. Thus, on the contrary, “sustainable development is not a goal but a kind of necessary development to achieve a state of sustainability” (Pardini 2009, p. 9). In 2000, it was drafted Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries, attended by representatives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. According to this document, “Sustainable construction is a holistic process that aims to restore and maintain the harmony between the natural and built environments, and creating settlements that affirm human dignity and encourage economic equity” (Agopyan and John 2011). This agenda sought to identify specific characteristics of developing countries and suggest appropriate strategies. Agopyan and John (2011, p. 32) emphasize the importance of this document with a view that “it is certain that the main problems of sustainability are global and are for all countries. However, social and environmental priorities and the resources available are different.” The authors mention also that one of the Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries highlights is the discussion about social tensions that are not only present on construction sites but also in society at large, requiring a higher quality built environment. In this context, the systemic approach in the form of a set of actions, appropriate to each situation, becomes a requirement for sustainable construction in developing countries. Sustainability depends on a coordinated effort between different areas, and construction is one of the areas that can most collaborate ceasing to be so degrading, using less aggressive techniques and materials with less use of natural resources, and where its production is designed to minimize environmental impacts. Since the beginning of the discussion on sustainability, the construction sector began a process of techniques development, such as sustainable construction, which makes use of techniques aimed at the rationalization of the work. Thus, collaborates with conservation of the environment by using only the necessary natural resources, without causing waste, generating less waste and providing a humane working environment.

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

In order for a real change to happen towards sustainability, a systemic view is needed, the perception that within the productive chain of construction an action depends on the other, and that this must be coordinated so that it reaches the common goal (Agopyan and John 2011). In this sense, the following topic presents a reflection about the construction respect to sustainability, presenting new proposals for the planning and execution of constructions with a focus on environmental conservation and the role of environmental certifications in this context.

Civil Construction Alternatives and Conservation of Natural Resources The scale of the environmental impacts generated by the construction activity is unquestionable; therefore, it becomes indispensable constructive alternatives, new techniques, products, and services designed for sustainable construction, aiming to minimize environmental impacts and guaranteed the quality of life for populations. To this end, the sector faces several challenges, but in short, they consist of reducing and optimizing the consumption of materials and energy, reducing solid waste generation, preserving the natural environment, and improving the quality of the built environment. For this to occur, it is recommended: a change of conventional architecture concepts, so that flexible designs can be elaborated and prepared with possibilities of readjustment for future changes of use and new necessities; rational use of energy and use of renewable energy; ecological water management; reduce the use of construction materials with high environmental impact in their production; reduce waste generated in the execution with the modulation of components to reduce losses and specifications that allow reuse of materials (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2017). At present, the trends for sustainable construction are focused on two paths. To one side are the research centers in alternative technologies that defend the rescue of materials and vernacular technologies with the use of raw earth, stone, bamboo, natural materials, and little processed. On the other side are the entrepreneurs who bet on “green

641

enterprises,” with certifications, both within the construction and in urban areas (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2017). The professionals involved in construction developed new proposals such as sustainable architecture and bio-construction so that the practices described above are put into action. In addition, government and nongovernmental organizations have developed and encouraged the adoption of environmental certification in this area, aimed at encouraging the changing practices in the construction and its relationship to the environment. Sustainable architecture seeks solutions that meet the customer’s desires and budget constraints, the wishes of users, the physical and social premises conditions, available technologies, and legislation and anticipating needs over the lifetime of the construction or built space. In this perspective, the proposed solutions must meet the requirements in a rational way, less harmful to the possible social and environmental means, allowing future generations also to enjoy built more comfortable and healthy environments, with a responsible use of resources and lower consumption of energy, water, and other inputs (Associação Brasileira dos Escritórios de Arquitetura, 2012). According to Keller and Burke (2009), there are many definitions for construction or sustainable construction, but most have in common at least one or more key components. Most architects agree that to be sustainable, a construction needs to address more than one environmental problem and even if they cannot solve all the factors presented in Table 1 must be considered: In addition to the perspective of sustainable architecture, they have also developed (or reintroduced) an alternative for construction systems and other concepts for the construction industry to become more sustainable and that is based on the principles described above. Among the alternative construction systems, it is noteworthy the bioconstruction that includes several techniques of traditional architecture from different parts of the world, some of them with hundreds of years of history and experience. They have as characteristic the preference for existing materials on site, as earth and bamboo,

E

642

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Actions for sustainable construction Address issues of site demolition and construction waste, as well as waste generated by users Search for efficient use of resources:

Minimize the impact of mining and extraction in the production of materials and contribute to the recovery of natural resources Reduce soil consumption, water, and energy during manufacture of materials, the construction of the building, and the use by its members Plan a built-in low energy while transporting the materials to the ground Working logically as the production line is drawn

Search for energy conservation and design aiming at efficient energy consumption in the supply of heating, cooling, lighting, and power. Since the construction of buildings is among the leading carbon dioxide emitters (CO2), plan to reduce such emissions is a major challenge and will soon become a social obligation and non-negotiable policy Offer a “healthy” internal environment: Avoid the use of building materials and cleaners that emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and their synergistic interactions Avoid the use of equipment that does not adequately control or infiltrate the entry or production of particulates Controlling the entry of external pollutants by means of filtering the air, adequate ventilation and suitable mats; the same applies to contaminants used by users, such as toiletries Design an exterior-like connection that provides natural ventilation, daytime lighting and exterior views Source: The authors based on Keller and Burke (2009, pp. 33–34)

among others, in order to reduce the costs of manufacturing and transportation, besides building housing with reduced cost and that offer excellent thermal comfort (Soares 1998). This concept uses construction techniques such as adobe, cob, super adobe, and rammed earth, among others. Alternative construction techniques usually reveal the hands that built it, and so tend to be considered rudimentary structures built due to the need to use locally available materials. Various techniques are used for decorative, spontaneous, and other purposes, while others require construction methods more rigid using conventional modules. Anyway, these techniques use abundant and available materials such as natural fibers, manure, mud, and agricultural waste, depending on the characteristics of a particular region or climate (Keller and Burke 2009). Other alternatives for sustainable construction are the ones designed and executed based on the stipulated guidelines by the certification schemes, in order to have a construction with sustainable

construction seal. For the construction to be sustainable, it must have really collaborated with the planet, minimizing or not generating environmental impacts, and not only in its implementation phase but throughout its life cycle. In order to certify the construction standards that seek sustainability diverse certifications have been created to analyze the level of contribution and the level of impact generated by the construction (Hamedani and Huber 2012). There are several certifications in the world, as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which originates in the United States of America, Démarche Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE) that is French, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) created in the United Kingdom among others (Hamedani and Huber 2012). It is worth mentioning and exemplifying the LEED certification that is one of the most known and applied in the world (Hamedani and Huber

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

2012). LEED certifies buildings based on harmonization, credit weighting (based on environmental and human health impacts), and regionalization. The items considered most important are: energy efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. Certification is awarded if the building meets a list of prerequisites and credits, and has four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum (Grüberg et al. 2014). The categories are (Table 2). Due to the abovementioned aspects, it is important to mention that green certifications play an important role in changing construction practices and are directly related to aspects of project management. However, planning the length of a tool requirement to certify a building does not necessarily guarantee its sustainability (Motta and Aguilar 2009). Therefore, it is important to consider that “sustainability condition is a creative search, inventive and dialectical new knowledge in a complex, dynamic and open process” (Motta and Aguilar 2009, p. 99). For Agopyan and John (2011) certifications need to consider the life-cycle assessment, so one can really assess and quantify the minimization of environmental impacts. The authors also consider important the development and implementation of certification systems appropriate to the reality of each country and integrated with local policies given the diversity and complexity of the environmental characteristics of the different locations.

643

With new techniques, concepts, or certification systems, civil construction can only effectively contribute to sustainability from a shift in the understanding related to the role and integration of the human being in the environment. Thus, it is evident that it is necessary to transcend the structural and organizational activities of this sector, seeking a development model that is really based on sustainability.

E Final Considerations Civil construction causes undeniable impacts to the environment and will not be finite; edification is necessary and essential for human survival, and therefore, society will always have to deal with the consequences of the often wrong use of natural resources. The construction industry is considered the one that consumes the most natural resources and that most degrades the environment, considering the use of natural resources for the generation of energy and to compose the materials used in the buildings and also the generation of solid, liquid waste and gaseous during and after its execution. For the construction industry to collaborate with sustainability, it encounters enormous challenges to be overcome, such as the acceptance of sustainable construction by society, because for having a higher initial cost people end up giving

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Leed rating system certification levels BD + C Building design and construction resources ID + C O+M

ND

Homes

Interior design and construction resources Operations and maintenance resources Neighborhood development resources

Applies to constructions that are being newly constructed or going through a major renovation; includes new construction, core & shell, schools, retail, hospitality, data centers, warehouses & distribution centers, and healthcare Applies to projects that are a complete interior fit-out; includes commercial interiors, retail and hospitality Applies to existing constructions that are undergoing improvement work or little to no construction; includes existing constructions, schools, retail, hospitality, data centers, and warehouses & distribution centers Applies to new land development projects or redevelopment projects containing residential uses, nonresidential uses, or a mix. Projects can be at any stage of the development process, from conceptual planning to construction; includes plan and built project Applies to single family homes, low-rise multi-family (one to three stories), or mid-rise multi-family (four to six stories); includes homes and multi-family low-rise and multifamily midrise

Source: The authors based on USBC (2017)

644

Environmental Understanding and Sustainable Development

up and opt for conventional construction, without thinking about cost-benefit in the long term brought about by this type of construction. There are already new concepts developed, with sometimes millenarian techniques that have been rescued and incorporated into the new context of civil construction to make it more sustainable. Regarding sustainability certifications, although they are still widely used as a marketing strategy by large companies, they contribute by actually attesting that the property is really sustainable in the aspect that the project was proposed and intended to do. There is still much to evolve in this respect, in terms of awareness of the world that people want for the future and in the search for more sustainable alternatives and not only thinking of economic gains with the increase in property value for being green, for example. It is necessary that governments also act so that arrangements are made for development of sustainable conditions, providing support for corporations to develop sustainable materials, stimulating researches, and providing conditions for the population to have access to these green constructions. Disseminating the concept of sustainability is one of the alternatives for natural resources to continue to exist and for humanity to enjoy consciously, so the importance of sustainability education. Sustainability must be taught from the beginning of learning in the child, remaining during its life trajectory. In the academic period, undergraduate courses should stimulate the search for new concepts and techniques to update sustainability in terms of evolution. The foundation for a conscious and sustainable world is education.

References Agopyan V, John VM (2011) O desafio da sustentabilidade na construção civil. Blucher, São Paulo Akadiri PO, Chinyio EA, Olomolaiye PO (2012) Design of a sustainable building: a conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2(2):126–152 Associação Brasileira dos Escritórios de Arquitetura (2012) Guia sustentabilidade na arquitetura: diretrizes de escopo para projetistas e contratantes. Prata Design, São Paulo

Carvalho ICM (2012) Educação ambiental: a formação do sujeito ecológico. Cortez, São Paulo Degani CM (2003) Sistemas de gestão ambiental em empresas construtoras de edifícios. Dissertação, Universidade de São Paulo Dourado JB, Belizário F, Sorrentino M et al (2014) Educação ambiental para o consumo e a geração de resíduos. In: Toneto Junior R, Saiani CCS, Dourado J (eds) Resíduos sólidos no Brasil: oportunidades e desafios da lei federal no. 12.305 (Lei de resíduos sólidos). Manole, Barueri, pp 218–239 Grüberg PRM, Medeiros MHF, Tavares SF (2014) Environmental certification for habitations: comparison between LEED for homes, AQUA process and “Selo Casa Azul”. Ambient Soc 17(2):195–224 Hamedani AZ, Huber F (2012) A compartive study of DGNNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate systems in urban sustainability. In: Pacetti M, Passerini G, Brebbia CA (eds) Sustainable city VII: urban regeneration and sustainability. Wit Press, Southampton/ Boston, pp 121–132 Keller M, Burke B (2009) Fundamentals of integrated design for sustainable building. Wiley, Hoboken Kozáková I, Prostějovská Z, Schneiderová Š (2014) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings. In: Proceedings of the creative construction conference, Czech Technical University, Prague, 21–24 June 2014 Lenzen M, Treloar GJ (2002) Embodied energy in buildings: wood versus concrete-reply to Borjesson and Gustavsson. Energy Policy 30(3):249–255 Meda JF, Suzuki JH (2003) Eco-arquitetura: Considerações para o incremento do turismo ecológico. Revista Terra & cultura 19(36):39–50. http://web.unifil.br/docs/revista_ eletronica/terra_cultura/36/Terra%20e%20Cultura_ 36-5.pdf. Accessed 29 Maio 2017 Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2017). http://www.mma.gov. br/cidades-sustentaveis/urbanismo-sustentavel/constru %C3%A7%C3%A3o-sustent%C3%A1vel. Accessed 14 Nov 2017 Motta SRF, Aguilar MTP (2009) sustentabilidade e processos de projetos de edificações. Gestão & Tecnologia de Projetos 4(1):84–119 Pardini AF (2009) Contribuição ao entendimento da aplicação da certificação LEED e do conceito de custos no ciclo de vida em empreendimentos mais sustentáveis no Brasil. Dissertação, Universidade Estadual de Campinas Pelicioni MCF, Philippi A Jr (2014) Bases políticas, conceituais, filosóficas e ideológicas da educação ambiental. In: Phillippi A Jr, Pelicioni MCF (eds) Educação ambiental e sustentabilidade. Manole, Barueri, pp 3–12 Plessis CD (2007) A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries. Constr Manag Econ 25(1):67–76 Soares ALJ (1998) Conceitos básicos sobre permacultura. MA/SDR/PNFC, Brasília Spadotto A, Dalini DN, Turella ECL, Wergenes TN, Barbisan AO (2011) Impactos ambientais causados pela construção civil. Unoesc & Ciência 2:173–180

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development Tajiri CAH, Cavalcanti DC, Potenza JL (2011) Habitação Sustentável, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente Coordenadoria de Planejamento. Ambiental, São Paulo United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017 US Green Building Council (2017). https://new.usgbc.org/ leed. Accessed 20 Mar 2017

ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) e-Learning ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development Joseph Karuzis Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

Definition Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development can be defined as a set of ethical inquiries that assist in determining correct actions and the best pathways to take in relation to sustainable practices and development.

Part One: Introduction Ethics is the branch of philosophy that is charged with the task of determining virtuous human actions. An ethical investigation attempts to show why something is right or wrong and how virtuous and correct actions can lead to living a good life. Due to the infinite permutations found within human actions and life itself, ethical solutions are imprecise and may require adjustments

645

or modifications depending upon unforeseen and known or unknown variabilities and factors. This is true and apparent when conducting ethical investigations into sustainable development. Ethical resolutions of questions found within sustainable development may be applicable to some countries or cities, yet irrelevant or even harmful to others. Aristotle categorized ethics as a part of political science, which studies the achievement of the human good as its main goal. Aristotle concluded that moderation is what one must strive for in order to achieve happiness and a life welllived. Too much or too little of something creates vices based on excess and deficiency. Aristotle’s ethics provide a relevant and useful ethical framework for understanding the various challenges facing sustainable development, and much can be understood and made apparent when considered in relation to moderation, deficiency, and excess. Perhaps Aristotle’s ethical framework has been forgotten by most throughout modern history. This claim is evidenced by the fact that many people embrace excess as a virtue and moderation as something that is unworthy of pursuit. This claim is further evidenced by critically observing the dire state of the world that was created by embracing excess and ignoring ethics. As descendants of technological revolutions and advancements, we live, now, mostly in urban and in suburban areas, pushed into smaller and smaller living quarters, under the glare of light pollution that blocks our view of the stars above that remind us of our place in the universe. The modern citizen of almost any country today is constantly bombarded with an almost countless variety of types of commercials and advertisements that sneak into one’s frame of vision that compel one to purchase the newest product that will bring not only convenience but happiness. The majority of humans are now willing participants in a system of consumption and production that is untenable due to its reliance on non-sustainable practices that create negative short- and long-term consequences. Modern-day humans have forsaken nature for convenience, the stars above for a fluorescent glow, and asphalt and concrete for the forest path. Humans now almost demand

E

646

convenience and cannot accept a situation in which a product or a service is not immediately available. The schedules of the modern worker actually necessitate convenience. The price of this convenience, however, is compounded stress and the ecological imbalance that results from unnatural practices of production and consumption. Stores and restaurants of prosperous and even developing countries offer ready to eat food products that are produced through industrial farming. Industrial farming and intensive farming employ practices that include the heavy use of artificial and dangerous herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, and ready to eat food products themselves are usually created in a factory, mostly by machines, and these food products contain massive amounts of preservatives in order to increase the shelf life of the product. This mechanized process of food production utilizes singleuse plastic so that the artificial food product is kept “clean” between the factory and the store. After the purchase, however, the plastic has no use and quickly becomes forgotten and thrown away. The modern human dependence upon convenience has created stores and restaurants that are open 24 h a day, and that is the pinnacle of utility, profitability, and pollution. The desire for profitability at all costs tempts humans to betray their diurnal nature. Humans are not creatures of the night for we are not equipped by nature to navigate in true darkness. It is also not in our nature to work at night, which is proven by the compromised health of late-shift workers. It is difficult to criticize the free individual that makes a choice to work or pursue leisure from night until dawn. Economic incentives like a higher salary or busy daytime working schedules compel many to ignore the necessity to sleep and embrace nighttime as if they were nocturnal. Many workers of the world are in fact obligated to socialize late into the night, long after the markets have closed, for comradery, and to show allegiance to the corporation. In many parts of the world, it is a false sign of prosperity to block out the night in urban centers with neon, fluorescent, and sodium vapor lamps that attract and mesmerize the crowds seeking entertainment and relief from the stresses of modern living. Even

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

LED lights are contributing to light pollution. The financial savings from low-energy LEDs have led to cities and states using brighter and brighter LEDs to block out the night. Somewhere and sometime in our modern world most people stopped thinking, “Hey, maybe this is enough.” This incessant 24-h mode of production, consumption, and transportation has seized the wonder of the night from the world’s urban and suburban residents, a wonder and a form of renewal that Erazim Kohák describes as the “Gift of the Night”: The night comes softly, beyond the powerline and the blacktop, where the long-abandoned wagon road fades amid the new growth. It does not crowd the lingering day. There is a time of passage as the bright light of the summer day, cool green and intensely blue, slowly yields to the deep, virgin darkness. Quietly, the darkness grows in the forest, seeping into the clearing and penetrating the soul, all-healing, all-reconciling, renewing the world for a new day. Were there no darkness to restore the soul, humans would quickly burn out their finite store of dreams. Unresting, unreconciled, they would grow brittle and break easily, like an oak flag dried through the seasons. When electric glare takes away the all-reconciling night, the hours added to the day are a dubious gain. A mile beyond the powerline, the night still comes to restore the soul, deep virgin darkness between the embers of the dying fire and the star-scattered vastness of the sky. (Kohák, The Embers and the Stars, pp. 29–30)

It would be another great mistake in the world for developing countries to embrace the overconsumption and endless days that plague the West. This is why it is important to show the inherent flaws of globalization and industrialization, for if we are acutely aware of past and current mistakes, there is a chance to take correct action and redeem our forsaken Earth. Regardless of whether an individual lives in a full democracy, a flawed democracy, a hybrid regime, or an authoritarian regime, he or she should have the tools and opportunities to fully realize his or her potential and the actions to realize that potential should take place within a clean and prosperous environment, an environment that is sustainable, lasting, and good. One sorrowful consequence of global warming is that the majority of the first wave of victims are the impoverished citizens from developing or third-

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

world nations, many of whom live in low-lying coastal areas. There is a great hope, however, that many millions of people will be saved by engineering and infrastructure projects based on sustainability. And it is an analysis of the ethical pathways concerning sustainable development that will lead to assisting us in making the correct choices about what those projects will be and which projects are appropriate and inappropriate for a certain country or city.

Part Two: Ethical Pathways to Sustainable Development The majority of the sovereign countries of the world have come together and have agreed on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. In order for these goals to become a reality, it is necessary to explicitly state the moral actions and ethical principles that will guide humanity toward an ecological future that is prosperous for all. It must be said that regardless if a country is democratic or communist, repressive or free, there is a clear lack of ethics in many of the choices governments make. To be sure, there are many good ethical people in positions of power in governments and corporations all around the world who make decisions for the good of the people and the planet. And, there are the wicked, whose decisions are based on greed and profiteering that exploit the underprivileged and our delicate ecosystems. Furthermore, there are good people who make poor decisions because of ignorance, lack of study in ethics, and lack of caring about consequences or because they are weak-willed. One example of good people partaking in immoral actions are farmers involved in intensive farming. Their overuse of artificial herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer is destroying the land and the drinking water, and it is affecting the health of the people that consume their products. (Some farmers in the United States and other countries apply Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) dangerous herbicide Roundup to their crops in order to hasten the harvest. Roundup desiccates the foliage of harvestable crops, thereby supposedly reducing the amount of labor required for farmers during

647

harvest. The main ingredient, glyphosate, ends up in food products such as cereal and is then consumed by people. While the farmers themselves might not be wicked, such an action is, and it is rooted in their desire and pressure from society to produce more food in less time for a greater and quicker profit. So, not only are many Americans eating GMO oats and many other grains and vegetables, those questionable strains of grains and vegetables are also being drenched in Roundup. How this practice is allowed and how Monsanto is allowed to create and sell such poisons are beyond belief.) There must be a better alternative to conventional, intensive farming, because it is comprised of unsustainable practices and is mainly powered by fossil fuel. In consideration of the 17 SDGs and the realization of the fact that the majority of people live in or around urban areas, it makes perfect sense to promote soil- and waterbased organic farming techniques within urban areas. All urban rooftops should have their space equally divided between solar panels and organic gardens. Instead of the globalization of food, it is possible to create the localization of food. Affordable housing with indoor, rooftop, or outdoor organic gardens will increase the well-being and health of all residents. All public and private schools should build greenhouses and farms on their campuses not only to grow organic vegetables and fruits for the students and faculty but to also offer instruction in botany, organic farming, and organic hydroponic growing techniques. City governments should redirect infrastructure projects away from paving roads and toward increasing the happiness of its citizens. Happiness is what all people are striving for, and it is in the city where one should be able to freely and easily pursue that goal. Concerning this point, Leo Strauss clearly states this is so in his interpretation of the purpose of the city in Aristotle’s Politics: The city is a society which embraces various kinds of smaller and subordinate societies; among these the family or the household is the most important. The city is the most comprehensive and the highest society since it aims at the highest and most comprehensive good at which any society can aim. The highest good is happiness. The highest good of the city is the same as the highest good of the individual. The core of happiness is the practice of virtue

E

648 and primarily of moral virtue. Since the theoretical life proves to be the most choiceworthy for the individual, it follows that at least some analogue of it is the aim also of the city. However this may be, the chief purpose of the city is the noble life and therefore the chief concern of the city must be the virtue of its members and hence liberal education. (Strauss, The City and Man, p. 31)

Those that receive a comprehensive liberal education will undoubtedly study philosophy and ethics as a part of that education. A liberal education, an education in the humanities, allows one to explore the most fundamental aspects of human existence. Ethics is perhaps the best course of study that offers insight into the reasons behind human action. And logic is the best subject to study in order to understand the reasoning underlying people’s choices and decisions. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle offers a stunning solution to the puzzling actions partaken in by humans (see Karuzis, Aristotle’s Pursuit of the Good Life, for a full analysis of Aristotelian ethics). To be good, and virtuous, one must strive for that which is moderate both in action and in thought. To strive for moderation is virtuous because the proper amount of something in relation to a situation, action, or emotion is adequate and enough. Temperance is a virtue in relation to experiencing pleasure and pain, and self-respect is a virtue in relation to the pursuit of honor on a small scale. To pursue pleasure and pain and honor on a small scale beyond moderation for Aristotle is to do things in excess, which creates not virtues, but vices. Those vices are prodigality, self-indulgence, and ambitiousness, which in turn lead to greed. Vices are also derived from deficiencies, as is the case with shamelessness, which is a deficiency of modesty. Pettiness and stinginess are vices derived from magnificence, when considered in relation to bestowing and acceptance of money on a large scale. These types of actions are not virtues and in no way lead to happiness as described by Aristotle. To pursue moderation in conjunction with the possession of a liberal education helps to create individuals that do good and are good. Such individuals do not seek to disturb that which where one lives. If one is able to understand where greed originates from, and that it is a vice, and therefore an incorrect

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

pursuit, then one will be more clearly able to avoid its pursuit throughout life and instead pursue what is moderate and virtuous, and this will make the world a better place. A study of ethics and philosophy is necessary because there are too many specialists in this world, and not enough generalists. Specialists are professionals like medical doctors, architects, and engineers. We need them because of the distinct nature of their work. Generalists are basically philosophers, people that consider things in the most general way possible. Concerning the distinction between specialists and generalists, Kei Chiba writes: Specialists may be inclined to be involved in specific matters so much that they might lose a general point of view so as to be unable to put their activities in a wider context. They may tend to think of human matters from their own established perspective based on their specialty. For instance, a specialist of management who claims that ‘the goal of any firm is to maximize its benefit’, does not consider its place in society as a public vessel and its performance as a human activity. Also, a biologist who claims ‘Man is the vehicle of genes’ as the basic proposition of biology does not consider a more fundamental and teleological proposition such as ‘living is better than not living’ (Aristotle, 731b29). This may be called a kind of ‘fixed mind’ or ‘narrow scope’. On the other hand, training in general arts such as dialectic, logic and mathematics provides a generalist with a basic power of thinking so that they can quickly analyze concrete matters raised in any subject in terms of formal structure, and put them into analyzed and ordered groups and systems. But generalists may be inclined to be involved in abstractive thought so much that they lose contact with concrete realities. This kind of thought is pejoratively described as being like ‘Rocking chair’. They may have a tendency to be aloof from ordinary and basic human matters. We can say, following Kant’s maxim on the relationship between concept and intuition, that without being a specialist, a generalist is empty, and without being a generalist, a specialist is blind. (Chiba, What is it like to be a generalist, p. 57)

Following Chiba’s line of argumentation in relation to the 4th SDG, i.e., quality education, it is crucial to provide students access to an education in the liberal arts, especially philosophy ethics, and logic. These studies should be provided in addition to their professional studies, such as the hard sciences, engineering, medicine, and so on. Instead of producing just specialists, or just generalists, the goal is to produce a person that is a

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

combination of both, someone that is an “allrounder,” i.e., someone that possesses a variegated skill set. If an education system is able to develop academic programs that encourage the cultivation of these two distinct skills, then that institution will succeed in producing a person that will “possess both an acute intelligence and a moral decency” (Chiba, What is it like to be a generalist? p. 47). What Chiba is calling for, I believe, is a highly educated free citizen that does good with his or her specific skill set because he or she knows that it is good, and this is because of philosophical analysis and reasoned accounts. A world filled with educated people that have the skills of the specialist and the understanding of a generalist will be more moral, and better, because moderation is the goal in all actions and activities, not excess and the vices it creates. An education in philosophy and ethics will also assist people in recognizing past and current mistakes, and as specialists they will be able to correct those mistakes with their distinct skills. Part of the process in correcting mistakes is having the ability and imagination to ask the right questions. Being able to ask the right questions also assists people in identifying mistakes in reasoning. “Certain mistakes in reasoning are made so regularly that it has seemed wise to identify them and give them a name. Traditionally, these have been called fallacies” (Hintikka, What If. . .? Towards Excellence in Reasoning, p. 179). By spotting the mistakes in reasoning put forth by individuals or by groups, an educated person is able to discern truth from falsity and right from wrong. A quality education is an education that is available to all, and it should be basically free, including university. Such an education system creates better chances for students to recognize their skill sets, and to pursue those activities as virtues, and something that is good. If a government creates a robust social welfare system, basic necessities are met, such as health care, housing, and education, and there will be increased happiness because citizens will be able to pursue activities that are essentially good and productive, and not exploitative or dangerous. Artifacts are the remnants that were crafted through what Aristotle calls technē. In order to assist humanity on the way to regaining its ethics

649

and moral compass, artifacts created out of mistaken ideas should be disavowed and dismantled. The modern world’s most stunning artifacts are the engineering megaprojects that harness renewable and nonrenewable energy. Modern artifacts reveal not only the intelligence of the engineers but also the ethical stance and ecological awareness when considering function. Fossil-fueled power stations are poisoning the environment and are creating dire health consequences for people and the world as a whole. By investing in solar and wind power and all forms of renewable energy, individuals and cities and states will be able to separate themselves from these power plants and disavow them. And creating clean energy makes people feel good. This is because it is good, and it is a moderate, virtuous activity, that aims toward the good, which is eudaimonia, or happiness. Therefore, a practical ethical pathway is the dismantling of modern-day artifacts that contribute to global warming and pollution which in turn would also immediately cease and correct specific destructive mistakes in capitalism and globalization. This type of action would apply to many things, such as the internal combustion engine, nuclear power stations, and nuclear weapons.

Part Three: Conclusion The 17 SDGs were agreed upon internationally, yet they must be implemented not only internationally but nationally and locally. There exists an interconnectedness among all of the Sustainable Development Goals, and smart policies and moral actions that are focused on a specific SDG will undoubtedly facilitate the realization of other SDGs. In order to achieve the 1st SDG, No Poverty, countries and municipalities around the world must create affordable and sustainable housing in areas that are safe, clean, and accessible. Affordable housing must be built with the idea of permanence in mind, in safe zones, inland, and away from the threat of rising sea levels. A place that is accessible is usually located in or near a city, and a good city is concerned with the happiness of its citizens, and public transportation

E

650

is an essential part of any good city. Wherever possible, roads, trains, subways, and utilities should be built underground, and the resulting open land found within an urban area should be reserved for walking, cycling, recreation, and organic farming. Cars and trucks that are powered by gasoline or diesel should be completely prohibited from city centers. Local, urban organic farming projects will assist in the achievement of the 2nd SDG, Zero Hunger, and the 8th SDG, Decent Work and Economic Growth. Organic farming is good, hard work, and it will require thousands of local organic farmers to sustain a city. The active pursuit of the 9th SDG, Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, will assist in realizing the 11th SDG, Sustainable Cities and Communities. In order to prepare for the unexpected consequences of global warming and climate change, massive worldwide infrastructure projects are needed. There are many ways to pay for these projects, such as a carbon tax, a climate change tax applied to all companies, or the redirection of unnecessary funding in federal budgets, for instance, the ever-growing financing of the world’s militaries and incentives such as subsidies and tax breaks for corporations that profit by polluting. Sovereign nations could also completely ban the new construction of coalfueled power plants and redirect those funds toward renewable energy projects. And private, free citizens could redirect their spending away from normal expected consumption and toward projects that make their homes and lives greener and more mindful of the ecology. Boycotting companies that sell poisons and partake in actions that contribute to global warming is a smart moral action and a smart financial one. The boycotting of unnecessary single-use plastics is a moneysaving action that is good for the Earth. Targeted and general boycotting reduces both individual and group consumption and is a way to help realize the 12th SDG, Responsible Consumption and Production. Local and regional production of high-quality goods reduces CO2, unnecessary consumption, and spending and bolsters local economies. The 13th SDG, Climate Action, requires a complete abandonment of outdated and obsolete methods of energy production and

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

usage, from the internal combustion engine to fossil fuel power plants. The operators and the owners of the machines of the world must initiate a great retooling in order for these goals to become a reality. This great retooling is entirely possible if we can reduce or eliminate avarice and by declaring that prosperity and sustainability are both possible within a revised, more ecological model of capitalism. Again, the power of the boycott could also quicken this retooling. Once large populations of people decide to stop flying in polluting jets, riding in diesel buses, and making their voices heard via the lost revenue of private companies and lazy municipalities, then change will quicken. (Tourism is booming internationally and is accelerating climate change. For instance, in Japan, the number of tourists is increasing every year, which the Japanese government is very pleased about, yet the number of diesel buses on Japanese roads is now incredible. Why Japan doesn’t produce and promote the use of electric buses is astonishing.) Perhaps someday ecology and sustainability will be considered by politicians to be as sacred as the economy. There is an acceptance in the thinking of many politicians and industrialists that a strong economy requires weak regulation of greenhouse gases and weak or no regulation of the detrimental products that poison people and sicken the environment. These types of people are committing constant mistakes because of their flawed thinking and lack of insight. The 14th SDG, Life Below Water, and the 15th SDG, Life on Land, are closely connected because policies focused on protecting one SDG will directly benefit the other. Pollution, garbage, chemicals, and poisons left or applied on land eventually find their way into the Earth’s water systems, either by seeping slowly through the soil and then into groundwater, lakes, rivers, or oceans or by being dumped directly into the ocean and waterways due to insensible and oblivious people. One way to change this flawed behavior is to initiate comprehensive recycling programs in which 100% of all waste is recycled. The amount of waste that ends up in landfills and the amount of plastic in our oceans are obscene. The elimination of anything that is disposable would be an action that would

Ethical Considerations on Sustainable Development

make recycling much simpler. (To say that something is disposable almost makes no sense. The word itself tricks people into thinking that it is okay to get rid of something. “Oh, it’s disposable, we just throw it away afterwards.” Plastic utensils, aluminum cans, wasteful packaging, paper cups, and paper plates aren’t disposable; they just go somewhere else, either to be burnt or to a landfill. The same stands for the misleading phrasal verb “throw away.” Where is this place called “away”? Deep space? Mars? How language sometimes placates the conscience is startling.) Consumers and producers need to realize that they both hold a responsibility for not only the creation of, sale of, and use of a product but also for the recycling of a product when it breaks or is no longer useful. The cost of recycling, whether it is in relation to magazines, or cars, or electrical equipment, should be included in the original price of the item. Our oceans and our lands need a pause from the polluting and constant overuse that characterizes humanity’s relation to the environment. Philosophers and ethicists are required for sustainable development because they can provide a critical assessment for actions and projects because the solutions to climate change and global warming cannot be solved by simple decisions. It seems as if humanity is finally waking up to the negative consequences of extreme capitalism and global industrialization. This has been by no means so far an ethical or moral self-awakening, though. The truths provided by the empirical sciences have been for many decades warning humanity of the devastating series of consequences which are the result of a series of mistakes within our economic systems. Until recently such warnings and calls to action have been received with apathetic responses. Yet there is a great hope, if one looks to the environmental policies of Earth’s greenest countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and other mainly European countries. Perhaps one of the positive consequences of all of these mistakes is that in order to attempt a rectification of these flaws, then humans must become in some way ethicists. Every purchase, every decision, and every action must be considered in terms of both short- and long-term consequences. By reexamining extant ancient and

651

modern texts on philosophy, ethics, and logic in conjunction with the active pursuit of the 17 SDGs, the possibility of the emergence of a more ecological form of capitalism will arise, and when it does, those that fail to embrace it will be committing another mistake and will be left behind economically and morally. This ecological capitalism will require great infrastructure projects and hundreds of millions of jobs. The shift from industrial farming to local organic farming will itself create enormous employment opportunities. Achieving the 17 SDGs will indeed require many changes and immense efforts, and this is because of the entrenched mistakes found within our economic and political systems. Emerging technologies including machine learning may hasten the retooling required for the transition to green energy. And by rallying around common, fundamental environmental, and sustainability causes, and not nationalistic ideas that separate, then all of humanity, especially universities and research centers, will become closer and more interdisciplinary. And humanity will eventually become more ethical with the realization that it has a moral obligation to protect that which has been exploited, that which has been poisoned, and that which has been devastated. A green, clean, unpolluted Earth in relative balance is what was lost. Pathways that lead to Earth’s long-term recovery are discovered by the attainment of a basic understanding of what is good and which activities contribute to its permanent possession. Such a possession is what is sought, for it leads to living a good life in moderation, a good life that contributes to the care and protection of our ecosphere and all of the beings that exist within it.

References Barnes J (1984) The complete works of Aristotle. (The revised Oxford translation), 2 vols. Princeton University Press, Princeton Chiba K (2010) What is it like to be a generalist? In: A study of healthy being from interdisciplinary perspectives. Azusa Syuppansha. Matsudo City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan Hintikka J, Bachman J (1991) What if. . .? Towards excellence in reasoning. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View

E

652 Karuzis J (2017) Aristotle’s pursuit of the good life. In: Proceedings of the Geneva international conference on advance research. Geneva, Switzerland Kohák E (1984) The embers and the stars. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago McInnes N (1972) Karl Marx. In: Edwards P (ed) The encyclopedia of philosophy, vol 5. Macmillan, New York, pp 171–173 Scruton R (2012) How to think seriously about the planet. Oxford University Press, New York Strauss L (1964) The city and man. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Ethical Investing ▶ Value-Based Investments in Sustainability

Ethical Investing

Expense ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development Irene Muller Faculty of Education – School of Mathematics, Science and Technology, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa

Ethics Based Investing ▶ Value-Based Investments in Sustainability

Evaluation of Sustainability Competencies ▶ Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

Evidence-Based Teaching ▶ Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development

Exhaustion ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Expenditure ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Definition ESD is, for the purpose of this chapter, defined as a complex learning or teaching – training process based on sustainability principles within all levels and types of education at higher educational institutes (Karatzoglou 2013). ESD is therefore regarded as sustainability in relation to curricula (Hoover and Harder 2015).

Introduction The role of educational institutes as societal partner to incorporate sustainable principles received notable attention during the last decade. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared 2005–2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). To indicate further commitment and belief in education as a transformative tool in society to enhance sustainability causes UNESCO to initiate the Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD. The GAP reached the halfway implementation mark in 2017. In 2017 the UNESCO publication Education for Sustainable Development: Partners in Action displays successes of the GAP program in significant figures. A network of 90 key GAP partners aids to

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development

653

develop 432 strategic policy documents and 701 programs. 73,143 Schools and 14,873 teacher training institutions participate in GAP (UNESCO 2017). The publication on GAP reveals that 1192 civil society organizations participated and 745 local programs run by local authorities form part of the action initiative. Commitment to ESD at higher educational institutions is in general linked via teacher training. University campuses, as testing fields for change, can by integration of ESD principles in curricula increase knowledge, as well as enhance transformative, future change at educational institutions. The implementation of ESD at university campuses is a challenging process and requires a longterm commitment from multiple stakeholders with often diverse, conflicting interests. Universities contribute to ESD in the fields of campus, curriculum, and community. ESD implementation is often noted by small, incremental changes like “greening of campuses” efforts within the campus, although more fundamental changes, like sustainability declarations within established frameworks, can lead to more favorable results (Müller-Christ et al. 2014; SingerBrodowski 2017). The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the experience revealed by current ESD practice at campuses and to provide possible directives to implement ESD successfully at campuses in the future. In the first part, the relation between curriculum as a concept and ESD is explained.

and Jansen 2009). Curriculum in practice is often regarded as implicit. Implicit curriculum refers to all things learnt as educational institutes which are not part of the official, explicit curriculum. Intended, implicit curriculum, known as covert curriculum, is displayed on university campuses by sport and games which improve the values of cooperation and teamwork. Unintentional and implicit curriculum, known as hidden curriculum, is often not visible therefore unconscious learning opportunities (Hoadley and Jansen 2009). The management of university facilities and grounds is regarded as hidden curriculum (Karatzoglou 2013). Three types of curriculum exist for incorporating sustainable principles. Formal curriculum, one of the main activities of universities, indicates where the campus is used as a resource for learning. Formal curriculum can be linked to ESD in virtually any discipline or program due to the diverse scale and extent of engagement. Sustainability courses are usually added to existing degree programs in a compartementalized way. Few higher institutions integrate ESD in all degree programs (Singer-Brodowski 2017). Informal curriculum refers to the campus as a place which provides a wider experience to students. The learning activities, like volunteering, internships, clubs, societies, and events, are largely student driven with a strong voluntary focus. These activities are open to all students and noncredit bearing (Hopkinson et al. 2008). Informal curriculum provides university campuses to be physical entities which represent and mediate values and culture as an educational tool (Hopkinson et al. 2008). Informal curriculum of ESD is often driven by projects like energy-saving campaigns and the reducing, recycling, and reusing of waste. Campus curriculum of ESD refers to how management implements sustainability issues in campus buildings and infrastructure as well as in culture and management of the institution in general (Hopkinson et al. 2008). Research in campus curriculum indicates that most students have limited and fragmented connection to the values, ideals, and practical aspects of living and working in a sustainable way on campus (Hopkinson et al.

Curriculum in Relation to ESD Curriculum is regarded as an ever-evolving process which includes all the planning and experiences of participants at educational institutes (Hoadley and Jansen 2009). Curriculum is broadly divided into two main groups, namely, the intended curriculum or curriculum as plan and the curriculum in practice. Curriculum as plan focuses on explicit, official curriculum documents displayed in course planning and assessment documents. Curriculum in practice is what happens in real life to the planned curriculum in the context of campuses and teaching (Hoadley

E

654

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development

2008). Müller-Christ et al. (2014) report that curriculum is never regarded as neutral and converts values, which are either negative or positive. Singer-Brodowski (2017) reported that emotion plays an important role in sustainability education. Positive emotions can be a driving force of student commitment to ESD, and negative emotions can lead to refusal to learn. It is therefore reasoned to successfully implement the ESD in curriculum at university campuses’ specific practices which evoke positive emotions that need to be included. The question therefore exists: which practices at campuses can enhance ESD implementation in general? The next section discusses these initiatives to implement ESD with success.

participation and social responsibility by allowing and promoting partnerships between the university and community organizations; (c) provides community services in practical hands-on ways by demonstrating sustainable behavior regarding natural resources and environmental management and providing expertise and volunteers to work in communities; (d) strives for social justice by promoting human dignity, equality, peace and justice, security, and civil rights in their region; (e) explicitly uses sustainability as a teaching tool to infuse and integrate ESD in graduate and undergraduate courses (ESD allows for the opening of new fields in different curriculums and for real-life and collaborative efforts in different disciplines); and (f) allows for the focus to promote ESD in sustainable design of campus buildings, environmental justice, and good governance (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). The notion of university campuses as regional assets of expertise and knowledge regarding sustainability issues is therefore proposed. The regional university campus represents a unit which consists of formal and nonformal education and informal tutoring. A local network who delivers ESD to local community, with a vision to increase to wider approval and world expansion, is proposed (Karatzoglou 2013). The regional position and contribution of local campuses to interact with local, regional, and global participants on reallife problems seem to be a better ranking system of the reputation of university campuses. Tangible benefits provided by regional university campuses include regional population growth, in the form of students and faculty members; the provision of employment and housing and enhancement of the gross domestic product (GDP) cannot be ignored (Karatzoglou 2013). Regional university campuses support notions of openness, participation, and cooperation with the regional community which is regarded as a whole university approach (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Each regional university campus is regarded to be unique and will therefore develop ad hoc and self-organized structures according to regional conditions. Hoover and Harder (2015) propose dialogue, relationships, and networks as

Practices to Enhance ESD Implementation on University Campuses Educational institutes not only educate future scientists but are meeting places for interaction between the scientific community and society at large (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). The implementation of ESD principles in all types of curricula therefore demands institutional transformation. Universities need to change their role from traditional institutions with rigid structure to actionoriented and transdisciplinary research entities that enhance practical collaborative projects (Karatzoglou 2013). Thinking beyond the boundaries of a campus, universities can play a leading role to coordinate, promote, and enhance engagement of local authorities and society in the design and implementation of ESD (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) propose an integrated approach for achieving campus sustainability and promoting ESD. A university environmental management system (EMS) is proposed as a single organizational document to incorporate the structure, procedures, and resources for environmental and quality management. An integrated or whole campus approach, as displayed by the EMS, (a) embraces green campus initiatives; (b) promotes public

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development

655

processes to mediate change regarding ESD. Collaboration breaks down internal boundaries and initiates creativity and ownership of groups to support innovative change (Hoover and Harder 2015). Dialogue is central to build relationships and therefore support the creation of networks (Hoover and Harder 2015). Dialogue between diverse groups of participants, like students and NGO expert groups, promotes sustainability projects in communities and the region by providing flexibility and bridging internal boundaries (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Disterheft et al. (2015) propose a variety of participatory approaches, which display individual to social and public participation, to implement ESD on university campuses. Initiatives include (a) campus retrofitting, (b) the creation of a campus garden, (c) the execution of a student-lead referendum for campus sustainability tax, (d) small group discussions in a cafe setting (World Cafe) as a starting point for campus sustainability ideas, (e) conferences about climate change and sustainability issues, (f) the implementation of EMS, (g) the signing of declarations, (h) online forums and workshops on sustainability, (i) student projects related to campus sustainability/biodiversity with incorporation of the campus grounds, and (j) town hall meetings for the development of sustainability action plans (Disterheft et al. 2015). Informal ESD curriculum benefits from the inclusion of all members of the university community, especially senior administrative officials, in campus management. Hoover and Harder (2015) accentuate the importance of having committed individuals or champions with a specific worldview and ethical stance to promote ESD. Personal characteristics linked to initiators of change for ESD include an integrity to “walk the talk,” “do not take no for an answer,” have a real desire to get involved and DO things, have a positive vision of sustainability issues, and are optimistic and regarded environmental stewardship important. The hidden curriculum is especially displayed by these personal traits. Campus managements can increase institutional credibility in a region if they change their own practices

regarding participating in recycling schemes and energy-efficient initiatives (Karatzoglou 2013). Brundiers et al. (2010) are of meaning that activities linked to sustainability enhance three key competencies, namely, (a) strategic knowledge which include content and methodological knowledge which aid to understand the status quo and history to be able to create future scenario and sustainable visions, (b) practical knowledge to bridge the knowledge-action gap by the design and implementation of sustainability initiatives at any scale, and (c) the collaborative cluster which allows for teamwork and inclusion of diverse knowledge from the community. Academics often lack capacity to see the link between ESD and the use of pedagogies. Cebriάn (2017) indicates that the creation of strategies and learning processes to challenge existing assumptions and allow double-loop or transformative learning is a necessity. Five key actions to enhance engagement of academic personnel in ESD are (a) creation of collaborative and interdisciplinary research and learning regarding understanding and practices of ESD, (b) the identification of existing role models to organize leadership and support for curricular ESD, (c) provision of time and financial resources to embed ESD in curriculum and creation specific programs, (d) rewarding systems to recognize and acknowledge good ESD practice, and (e) provision for ESD as a part of the internal and external quality assurance process and benchmarking of universities (Cebriάn 2017). Brundiers et al. (2010) indicate that projectbased, service learning and internships are examples of real-world learning opportunities to sustainability education. Project-based learning is exceptional to promote co-production of knowledge with collaboration among diverse participants in a systemic innovation. SingerBrodowski (2017) reports that self-organized and project-based activities promote ESD among students. The following of “hands-on practice” allows students to perform a self-selected mini sustainability project of regional concern on their campuses. These mini projects raise student identification with the subject and make room for a sense of ownership. Students realize their own

E

656

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development

ideas and advance to collaboration and group work. In groups students are identified to be either newcomers or experts. Sustainability newcomer students interrelate their real-life actions with global sustainability issues and are often emotionally challenged by the complexity of sustainable issues. Expert students are regarded as networkers with previous insight in sustainability issues. Previous successful projects provided expert students with positive emotions and strategies to share with novices (Singer-Brodowski 2017). In regional universities students are regarded as co-creators of knowledge, gatekeepers in their communities, and drivers of change regarding ESD. By exposing students to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives on local, regional, and global scales, students are able to not only master disciplinary knowledge and competence but also to recognize the unique, authentic context of their campus and by collaborative knowledge construction aid to societal problems (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Verhulst and Lambrechts (2015) report that the Leuven University College (KH Leuven) in Belgium integrated sustainability at the campus in a prolonged four-stage process. Individual initiatives and projects, therefore a bottom-up approach, guided the first two stages. In the third stage, the students meet with management to implement an SD strategy plan. In the final fourth stage, the topdown approach failed to convert individual enthusiasm regarding sustainability into action. Lack of funding and management support at the KH Leuven leads to sustainability fatigue. The importance of a lived experience for students in terms of learning and practicing ESD requires that the campus curricula support the notion of sustainable infrastructure and social spaces to be part of the daily living experience of students and staff (Hopkinson et al. 2008). Volunteering, as an example of learning in informal settings, supports a lived experience. Informal learning is regarded as any activity which involves the pursuit of understanding, knowledge, or skill in the absence of formal curriculum (Barth et al. 2007). Three forms of informal learning exist, namely, (a) self-directed learning which is learning projects undertaken by individuals or groups without the assistance of an

educator – therefore intentional and conscious; (b) experiential or incidental learning when a student becomes aware of learning after an experience, therefore unintentional but conscious; and (c) socialization which is the internalization of values, attitudes, and skills during everyday life, therefore unintentional and unconscious (Barth et al. 2007). Skills like communication, team-leading, responsibility, time management, and motivation of self and others are all promoted via volunteering. Aspects in the learning process which are addressed by volunteering include reflective practices to critically evaluate actions; the ability to apply solutions to real-life scenario, therefore self-reliance and self-direction; as well as the competency to react to multiple, different demanding contexts (Barth et al. 2007). The gap in ESD implementation at university level seems to be the assessment of how effective and efficient campuses implement ESD at all levels of curriculum. “What gets measured gets done” motivates universities as open meeting places, to have agreed-upon systems for quality control and assurance for the ranking of new disciplinary knowledge (Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Yarime and Tanaka (2012) report that three primary functions are addressed via campus ESD assessment, namely, (a) to understand where the campus is situated regarding sustainability objectives, (b) to identify areas and develop strategies for increased sustainability performance, and (c) to support the development of a committed culture to sustainability principles. The complexity to measure ESD implementation is illustrated by the range of fields which need to be included in assessments. The university needs to indicate ESD inclusion regarding governance, operation, education, research, and outreach (Yarime and Tanaka 2012). Shriberg (2002) indicates that although campus contexts differ, a cross-institutional assessment tool which allows for a balance sheet of common shared experiences and goals can increase institutional reliability regarding ESD. Mutual success of institutions is shared when best practices are identified and efforts on continual improvement regarding ESD are noted. Ideal cross-institutional ESD assessments are able to:

Experiences on Education for Sustainable Development

657

(a) Identify contextually appropriate issues of major importance to campus sustainability. Assessment tools must therefore be able to identify issues with broad effects but must measure it specific. (b) Consist of flexible measurements, which include both quantitative and qualitative data to enhance calculable and comparable data collection of ESD activities. (c) Measure not only eco-efficiency but true sustainability. For example, eco-efficient measurement of energy conservation becomes a sustainable indicator if total greenhouse gas emissions are measured against a goal of zero. (d) Regard ESD as a process which includes both incremental and systemic change. Assessment tools therefore need to ask “why” and “how” campuses incorporate ESD but also “what” are currently been done. (e) Provide for a comprehensive range of stakeholders which includes novices, experts, management, and community members. (f) Portray not only the sustainability status but also the motivations, processes, and outcomes of ESD in a comparable, understandable, and calculable way (Shriberg 2002).

regarding sustainability. ESD, known as the curriculum of sustainability, requires more freedom regarding structure, content, and participants and thrives in freedom. Informal curriculum teaching and learning approaches, like project- and problem-based learning and volunteering, support ESD better. ESD incorporates and regards novices, like first year students and community members, as important as experts like lecturers and mature students. The playing field of ESD is open to accommodate transformative and new ways of doing connected to rigid structures and prescribed curricula. The hidden curriculum, which refers to the unintentional and unconscious curriculum, is emphasized in ESD. The attitude, commitment, and competencies of different participants like students, lecturers, campus management, and community members have an impact on the lasting success of ESD implementation. University campuses therefore have to accommodate multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary approaches with the incorporation of new pedagogical methods to teaching, learning, and research. The value of the engagement of various stakeholders and networking with a focus on action and practical outcomes is accentuated. Institutional commitment to funding, leadership, and reflexive practices to incorporate ESD in a whole, regional university approach is recommended via a single, organizational document like an EMS. The use of cross-institutional assessment tools for ESD not only decreases usage of energy, water, and other materials but promotes ESD as a long-term goal and process. Incremental steps to move toward eco-efficiency display of ESD is less effective than systemic changes which include incentives and reward structures, mission and goal statements, annual communication, and organizational decisionmaking. Active learning, which moves beyond the classroom and promotes sustainability at regional campuses to incorporate and link global ecological, economic, and social issues, is regarded as good ESD in practice. Strong assessment tools of ESD to measure progress in teaching, research, operations, and services but also assess campus investment in outreach and employment of graduates are proposed.

The development of a cross-institution ESD ranking system, which allows for the unique context of each campus/university to display to diverse participants the regional contribution on environmental, social, and economic aspects, is therefore a necessity. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2015) report that sustainability reporting (SR) using Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a sound way to campuses to report on sustainability. Few universities, at this stage, prefer this form of reporting, although European universities are regarded as innovators of this.

Conclusion The inclusion of ESD in different types of curricula at higher education institutions seemed to be a complex process. Formal curriculum, with a rigid structure, needs to accommodate new knowledge

E

658

References Alonso-Almeida MM, Marimon F, Casani F (2015) Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J Clean Prod 106:144–154 Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16:1777–1785 Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430 Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into real world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324 Cebriάn G (2017) A collaborative action research project towards embedding ESD within the higher education curriculum. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(6):857–876 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2015) Sustainable universities – a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 106:11–21 Hoadley U, Jansen J (2009) Curriculum: organizing knowledge for the classroom, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Cape Town Hoover E, Harder MK (2015) What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 106:175–188 Hopkinson P, Hughes P, Layer G (2008) Sustainable graduates: linking formal, informal and campus curricula to embed education for sustainable development in the student learning experience. Environ Educ Res 14(4):435–454 Karatzoglou B (2013) An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 49:44–53 Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R, Adombent M, Fischer D, Rieckmann M (2014) The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable development – a conference report. J Clean Prod 62:134–137 Shriberg M (2002) Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):254–270 Singer-Brodowski M (2017) Pedagogical content knowledge of sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(6):841–856 UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development: partners in action – halfway through the Global Action Programme on ESD. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0025/002597/259719e.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 Verhulst E, Lambrechts W (2015) Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education:

Experiential Learning lessons learned from a change management perspective. J Clean Prod 106:189–2014 Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education institutions – a review of recent trends and future challenges. JESD 6(1):63–77

Experiential Learning ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development Jessica L. Gaffney and Joy Kcenia O’Neil School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA

Definition Experiential learning and sustainable development is defined as a hand-on, action-oriented learning process that enables the learner to experience, reflect and change the way the learner conceives their place in the world and to take action towards sustainable development.

Introduction Education for sustainable development fosters change in how a learner thinks and learns to create a more sustainable world. Experiential learning is a broad-based term that describes this learning process. Experiential learning encompasses diverse action-oriented pedagogies often described as “learning by doing,” a term coined by experiential educational theorist John Dewey (1938). Learning by doing involves engaging the

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

learner in hands-on activities that take learners out of the traditional classroom and into environments that allow them to engage in learning through hands-on experiences. This shift in emphasis from teaching to learning supports sustainable development by empowering the learner to experience, reflect, and change the way they conceive their place in the world, positioning them to enact change. The theory of experiential learning goes beyond teaching about sustainability and into fostering a change through teaching and learning for and as sustainability (Sterling 2001). Learning as sustainability is a third order change that is transformative. Complimentary, UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) number four, quality education, calls for an “action-oriented, transformative pedagogy, which supports selfdirected learning, participation and collaboration, [and] problem-orientation. Only such pedagogical approaches that hold experiential learning at the forefront allow the conditions for the development of the key competencies needed to promote sustainable development” (UNESCO 2017). In short, experiential learning educators can support the SDGs by not only integrating sustainability content into curriculum but by fostering an experiential learning process by creating environments that are interactive and place the learner as the focus of the learning process (UNESCO 2017). In doing so, students come to understand how to enact change toward sustainable development. The remainder of this entry will explain the theoretical and philosophical history of experiential learning, the process of experiential learning, provide examples of predominant pedagogies of experiential learning in higher education, and presents a case study from higher education.

Theoretical Background of Experiential Learning John Dewey is credited with the founding idea of experiential learning. In Dewey’s seminal works (1910, 1938), he constructed a pragmatic view of experience as an integral component promoting learning through interactions with others and the

659

environment. The value of the educational experience resides in the quality of the experience, which has two aspects: the change (or influence on change) that the experience has on a learner and the sustained effect of the experience. A quality experience allows the learner to create and test solutions to problems in the moment and provides the capacity for the learner to apply these solutions to later life experiences (Dewey 1938, p. 16). He tested his theories by integrating traditional subjects such as science, mathematics, and reading, with practical skills such as carpentry, weaving, cooking, and gardening (Hickman 2009). These quality experiences were at the core of Dewey’s concept of education and his pedagogical approach. He posited that the objective of education is for the learner to be able to engage in experiences and to understand and interact with continuity, rejecting the then-standard, rote curriculum-driven approach to learning (Hickman 2009). There have been many theorists before, during, and after Dewey’s time that have similar views of experience in education that focus on human development and learning. These include Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, William James, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, and Carl Rogers (Kolb and Kolb 2011). David A. Kolb (1984) expanded on Dewey’s work by developing a specific theory of experiential learning (ELT). ELT focuses on the cognitive process of learning through a learning cycle with four unique learning styles: feel, do, watch, and think. Throughout the learning cycle, learners move through a concrete experience, observation, conceptualization, and finally, through active experimentation. In line with Dewey, Kolb posited that as learners move through this process of learning, the learning gained from the experience will guide the learner in future experiences. While Kolb focuses on learning as predominantly a cognitive process, whole person educators connect the cognitive aspects of experiential learning with affective learning in a visceral sense of emotion, as identified in John Heron’s theory of personhood (Heron 1992) and Lyle Yorks and Elizabeth Kasl’s theory of whole-person

E

660

learning (2002). Jack Mezirow has explained in his theory of transformative learning that a learner’s life experiences give them a frame of reference. This frame enables learners to grow and change through the learning process, contributing to the development of a more inclusive worldview (1997). Connecting back to Dewey, he believed that adjustment within an environment insists that the whole person adjusts, not just the intellect. In other words, holistic change occurs beyond the intellectual subject matter or conceptual knowledge change. This is significant for sustainability because change is not only the epistemic shift of knowing about sustainability but the ontological shift in being sustainability (O’Neil 2018). Learning by doing has the potential for embodying change and exemplified by sustainability educators who draw from experiential learning as the core pedagogy for change.

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

inclusive, participatory and relational, to create a shift in consciousness to change “educational thinking, policy, and practice” (Sterling 2017, p. 41). This shift must influence a systemic change and must help educators develop appropriate learning outcomes to modify current curriculums to include ideas that support education for sustainability (Sipos et al. 2008). A key concept to encouraging this shift in paradigm is to engage in three specific domains of the brain; cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, or head, hands, and heart. Sipos, Batisti and Grimm refer to these three as the “triad of engagement” (p. 73). By engaging these three domains, or engaging a more holistic approach to learning, the learner shifts their experience from an individual process and learns how their beliefs and values shape their view of the world (Dirkx 2008).

Experiential Learning Processes Sustainable Development Through Experience Stephen Sterling, researcher and professor, explores the importance of connecting learning to change to create a more sustainable world (2001). Education, or learning, serves four unique functions; socialization, train for vocation, develop potential and transform the learner or, “encourage change towards a fairer society and better world” (p. 25). To achieve these functions of education, experience must happen that connects the learner to the emotions felt during the experience with the intent of transforming society by eliciting change in the knowledge skills and attitude of the learner (Sipos et al. 2008). Sterling suggests that higher education institutions must understand the interconnectedness of the system of education and must “recognise the spiritual, affective, imaginal and practical aspects of learning, as well as the cognitive” and that further work in these additional aspects of learning must be done in order to facilitate sustainable development (Sterling 2003, p. 343). Sterling explains that an important shift in the paradigm of education must occur; one that is

Experiential learning is a theory that emphasizes experience as the central role in the learning process and that is happening constantly in the world around us (Roberts 2013). Experiential learning takes place in formal education settings but should not be confused with experiential education. Learning is something that can happen at any time, but education must occur with more defined parameters that are found in teaching and learning models. Experiential learning closely relates to transformative learning as sustainability because they both are situated as “learning process as change.” Dewey brought the connection of learning by doing to sustainability by linking experience with reflection. To pragmatists, “experience is a resource for learning that takes on meaning when we make it the object of reflection” (Yorks and Kasl 2002, p. 182). The pragmatic approach to learning asserts that a learner must first have the experience and then take time to reflect on and make meaning of the occurrence (Yorks and Kasl 2002). Dewey developed a five-step learning process to support this approach. The process includes the learner having an emotional response to an experience and then continuing through the

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

process by defining an experience and response, forming a hypothesis, testing or experimenting with the response in other situations and finally applying this response in other settings. Dewey’s ideas for the educational learning process and practice were rooted in the rational-cognitive, scientific method of inquiry. Heavily influenced by pragmatism, Dewey, however, moved out of a pure positivist paradigm. Thus, unlike the scientific processes, he believed the process was not linear and steps could be jumped. More recent research relying on a phenomenological approach to experience guides educators to build relationships that allow learners to be more present with each other through the process of learning (Yorks and Kasl 2002). Kolb and Kolb have written that experiential learning, “involves the integrated functioning of the total person – thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving” (p. 43). Fenwick (2001) described a more constructivist approach to the process of reflection in learning, explaining that the learner must take time to move through the process of reflection by considering a concrete experience, and extract their emotional connection from this experience so they can learn (2001). Richard Jordi (2011) has suggested that reflection needs to expand from a constructivist approach to a more holistic approach of “mind–body integration” (p. 182), to allow learners to experience both the conscious and unconscious parts of the learning experience. In each of these approaches, reflection is a necessary element that allows the learner to create knowledge and then take that learned knowledge forward to be applied in future situations (Fenwick 2001). Emotion Emotion is not tangential to the experiential learning process. Research in social and affective neuroscience has identified overlap in emotion and cognition as emotional thought (Immordino-Yang and Damasio 2007). Antonio Damasio (2012) has theorized the interconnection of human emotion and high-level cognition. Damasio (1999) and other affective and social neuroscientists have collectively suggested that emotions are cognitive and physiological processes involve both the

661

mind and the body. Immordino-Yang has drawn from Damasio’s neuroscience research and applied it to the field of education (2011). She and a team of neuroscientists studied how affect or emotion is the biological underpinning for rational decision-making. Because of this research, Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) would agree that affect is a part of the learning process, not something that happens only after cognition. Emotions can be played out on the face and body, a process that can be felt via neural systems for sensing and regulating the body. These feelings interact with other thoughts to change the mind in characteristic ways, and to help people learn from their experiences (Immordino-Yang 2011, p. 99). Yorks and Kasl (2002) encourage educators to incorporate strategies into their curriculum that provide opportunities for learners to engage in this felt process which “may include drawing, dancing, story-telling, and other forms of expression” (p. 187). Role of Educator The role of the educator in experiential learning can take on a variety of forms and can be quite complex. Four common roles include facilitator, instigator, coach, and assessor (Fenwick 2001). While each role is different, they share common themes, as explained by Fenwick: 1. Engaging learners in concrete experience as a starting point for building new knowledge 2. Creating conditions for educative dialogue during and after the concrete experience 3. Encouraging learners’ focused reflection at different levels 4. Providing support, as experiential learning can be confusing, emotionally challenging, unfamiliar, and uncomfortable for learners (p. 18). Yorks and Kasl (2002) strengthened the role of the educator in the experiential learning process by providing a theoretical framework that will help guide adult educators to understand and incorporate various ways of knowing into the learning process. The four ways of knowing Yorks and Kasl identified are “experiential,

E

662

presentational, propositional and practical” (p. 185), which result in a more holistic learning process and enhances the learners “capacity to learn deeply” (p. 185). Yorks and Kasl (2002) suggested that this framework for incorporating experiences in adult education expands Mezirow’s earlier work on “habits of mind” (p. 185) to include these new ways of knowing and should now be referred to as “habits of being” (p. 185). Garden-Based Learning In a UNESCO report, Revisiting Garden Based Learning (GBL) in Basic Education (Desmond et al. 2004), it was found that GBL tends to fall under two overarching frameworks: experiential education, environmental education, or some combination of both. Williams and Brown (2012) propose a third framework, sustainability education. In the UNESCO (2004) report, a group of contributors systematically gathered data from practitioners of garden learning spanning the globe. They identified that there is no defined discipline of GBL but rather a collection of philosophies and practices. There is also no universal curriculum or pedagogy for gardening either. GBL is treated more like a vehicle to multidisciplinary learning and according to UNESCO, seems to be an effective strategy for basic education. The dominant pedagogical theoretical frameworks are experiential educational and environmental education. The predominant educational theories are: theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner 2006), theory of ecological intelligence (Goleman 2009), emotional intelligence theory (Goleman et al. 2012), and experiential learning theory (Kolb 1984, 2011). The positive impact GBL has on students include academic achievement, environmental education, health and nutrition education, a deeper understanding of families and communities, principles and values of garden-based instruction, and better personal nourishment through healthier food choices. The synthesized data collected by a group of UNESCO educators showed gardenbased learning in basic education allows for interdisciplinary learning with a deeper understanding of natural systems. Students also become better

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

nurturers of community spirit within school and community. GBL links with school gardens, food services programs, local farms for nutrition while teaching about sustainable food systems (2004). Experiential Learning in Higher Education In higher education, experiential learning takes on a variety of forms and can be seen in formal experiential education curriculum. Some more traditional and formal types of experiential education include internships or field placements that are embedded in curriculum and allow learner’s hands-on application in a traditional work setting to observe and practice skills acquired in the classroom (Moore 2010). Service learning experiences are like the experiences one acquires in a community service project, mixed with learning objectives. Cooperative education experiences combine technical skills more commonly found in the technical or trades curriculums, with the opportunity to build upon skills and gain new ones in the professional setting. These formal types of experiential education are common in higher education pedagogy, but informal learning experiences, such as workplace learning, selfdirected learning, situated learning, and lifelong learning, are also a part of experiential learning and common in adult education (Fenwick 2001). Regardless of the pedagogical approach to experiential learning, “is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes” and to engage students it, “includes feedback on the effectiveness of their learning efforts” (Kolb and Kolb 2011, p. 43).

Research of Experiential Learning in Practice In a research study conducted by Sipos et al. (2008), an experiential learning project in practice was developed that is called, transformative sustainability learning (TSL). It was as they state, “a work-in-progress model” where they drew from the framework of A.D. Hauenstein, A Conceptual Framework for Educational Objectives: A Holistic Approach to Traditional Taxonomies (1998), transformative learning theory (Mezirow 1997) and incorporated sustainability

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

pedagogy. The pedagogies were then grouped into domains according to heads, hands, and heart to create a framework. A set of learning objectives was developed for each domain. This emerging pedagogical learning model included key concepts such as action learning, community service-learning, and pedagogy for eco-justice, community, problem-based learning, and traditional ecological knowledge (Sipos et al. 2008). Their work is one example of how higher education is taking on the challenge of building in experiential pedagogies to engage in a meaningful learning process for change. Head, Hands, Heart Until recently, the cognitive domain has been dominant in research done on experiential learning and sustainable development. Expanding on this research, Sipos et al. (2008) make an important case that embodied and affective learning, combined with cognitive learning, can create a “framework of transformative sustainability learning (TSL)” (p. 69). Within the “head” are: cognitive engagement, transdisciplinary curriculum, critical thinking, systems thinking, and understanding of sustainability. The realm of the “hands” includes: experiential learning, applied learning, democratic and participatory learning environment in the classroom, conflict resolution, community collaborative, and community service learning. Within the “heart” are: empowering, creative, fun, values-focused thinking, inclusive, and place-based learning. This framework, or pedagogical approach, when applied in the higher education settings, links the process of learning to outcomes that will “enact personal and society transformations to sustainability” (p. 69) by creating a setting where learners can have personal experiences that changes their “knowledge, skills and attitudes related to enhancing ecological, social and economic justice” (p. 74). Universities must connect with their local communities to create a space for learning that allows students to explore and grow in their values, beliefs, and find ways for their personal impact to exist in the community. In other words, their model is within the education for sustainability paradigm, and the

663

classroom dynamics and the deep learning process that takes place is overlooked. Within the emerging field of sustainability education in higher education, little empirical analysis has been conducted on the learning process (Tilbury 2011); therefore, the turn to include transformative learning offers a perspective for leading change. “Transformative educators do not necessarily teach content that is remarkably different from more instrumentally-orientated educators. However, they teach the content with a different end in view, often using quite different instructional strategies” (Dirkx 2008, p. 2). The difference lies in transformative educators’ assumptions about the aim and process of learning. It is typically referred to as an individualistic process that has expanded within a sociocultural context. Transformative Pedagogy In her model of sustainability pedagogy, Heather Burns (2011) explains that to create curriculum that focuses on transformation as part of sustainable development, the curriculum must contain four parts: content, perspective, process, and context. Each of these parts of the curriculum is integral in moving away from traditional transmissive approaches to learning and establishes a more holistic approach to support transformative learning. As part of the process, Burns defines the goal to “enhance the learners’ civic responsibility and intention to work towards sustainability through active participation and experience” (p. 8), through the experience, learners connect to their own emotions, connect to others and the world around them. This emotional connection encourages the transformation that will lead the learners to change. Both the transformative sustainability learning framework and the model of sustainable pedagogy are two examples of emergent theories in experiential learning in higher education with the goal of focusing on sustainable development. Connecting Community to the Classroom Research in the areas of affective learning is a newer idea to the areas of experiential learning and adult learning theories. To address the

E

664

shortcomings of research in affective learning for sustainable development, a qualitative case study conducted in 2005–2006, focused on an interactive learning experience with masters’ level students in the Sustainable Environmental Management Program at the University of Plymouth (Kagawa et al. 2006). Nine students participated in a field course in their first term of the program with the intent to “understand local sustainability-related challenges and initiatives, such as sustainable tourism, flood defense, nature conservation and farming” (p. 53). The trip was followed by a 1-day workshop to further reflect on the field experience. The workshop allowed learners to more thoroughly develop their own views on sustainability and their personal values and beliefs. Qualitative data collected before and after this experience supports the experience of learning in settings outside of the classroom. The experience taught learners to think more critically about the same concepts about sustainable development than they were learning inside the classroom. The experience was successful because of two reasons. The first was the involvement and opportunity of the learners to engage in the process in a more involved, transformative way instead of a more traditional transmissive focus on learning. The second was the interaction and involvement, along with the feelings, this experience evoked. Learners felt they were safe to explore and felt supported in their learning by both their peers and instructors. Experiences like these support the concept of moving beyond a passive form of learning to a more holistic approach, which allows learners to experience a transformative learning process.

Conclusion Experiential learning has been relevant to higher education since Dewey’s first seminal works in the early 1900s; however, connecting experience to the affective domain of the learning process is a rather new concept to more traditional learning theories and adult learning theories. Kolb and Mezirow expand upon Dewey’s initial work to include the importance of experience and

Experiential Learning and Sustainable Development

reflection on the process of learning. Sterling, Yorks and Kasl, and Heron all support the role of experiences in education, but all agree that learning must be holistic and focus on the whole learner. Sterling also indicates that in order for learning to be sustainable it must invoke change. More research needs to be done in this area including the role of affective and embodied learning in education for sustainable development. Educators of experiential learning must be aware of their role and the various forms this role may take during the learning process. This will help ensure their teaching pedagogy addresses multiple ways of knowing in a more holistic way. Educators must also be aware of the role of reflection in the process of experience to enhance a more whole-person model of learning. Newer models of learning such as Sipos, Battisti, and Grimm’s work in transformative sustainable learning and Burn’s model of sustainability pedagogy provide frameworks for higher education to implement newer ways of learning and knowing into their curriculum to provide learners the chance to learn through experience and reflect on the emotional and affective aspects of the learning process.

References Burns H (2011) Teaching for transformation: (re)designing sustainability courses based on ecological principles. J Sustain Educ 2:1–15 Damasio AR (1999, 2000) The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt, New York Damasio AR (2012) Self comes to mind. Random House, New York Desmond D, Grieshop J, Subramanium A (2004) Revisiting garden-based learning in basic education. International Institute for Educational Planning/Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from http:// www.ao.org/sd/erp/revisiting.pdf Dewey J (1910) How we think. D.C. Heath and Co, Boston Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Macmillan, New York Dirkx JM (2008) The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 2008(120):7–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.311 Fenwick TJ (2001) Experiential learning: a theoretical critique from five perspectives. Ohio State University, Columbus

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development Gardner, Howard (2006) Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books Goleman D (2009) Ecological intelligence: how knowing the hidden impacts of what we buy can change everything. Broadway Books, New York Goleman D, Bennett L, Barlow Z (2012) Eco literate: how educators are cultivating emotional, social, and ecological intelligence. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Hauenstein A (1998) A conceptual framework for educational objectives: a holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. University Press of America, Lanham Heron J (1992) Feeling and personhood: psychology in another key. Sage, London/Newbury Park Hickman L (2009) John Dewey at 150: continuing relevance for a global milieu. Educ Theory 59(4):375–378 Immordino-Yang MH (2011) Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educ Philos Theory 43(1):98–103 Immordino-Yang MH, Damasio AR (2007) We feel, therefore we learn: the relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind Brain Educ 1(1):3–10 Jordi R (2011) Reframing the concept of reflection: consciousness, experiential learning, and reflective learning practices. Adult Educ Q 61(2):181–197 Kagawa F, Selby D, Trier C (2006) Exploring students’ perceptions of interactive pedagogies in education for sustainable development field course. Planet 17:53–56 Kasl E, Yorks L (2002) Do I really know you? Do you really know me? Empathy amid diversity in differing learning contexts. Adult Educ Q 66(1):3–20. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0741713615606965 Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Kolb A, Kolb D (2011) Experiential learning theory: a dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In: Handbook of management learning, education and development. Sage, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3 Mezirow J (1997) Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 1997(74):5 Moore DT (2010) Forms and issues in experiential learning. New Dir Teach Learn 2010(124):3–13. https://doi. org/10.1002/tl.415 O’Neil J (2018) Transformative sustainability learning within a material discursive ontology. J Transform Educ 2018(16):365–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1541344618792823 Roberts JW (2012) Beyond learning by doing: theoretical currents in experiential education. Routledge, New York Roberts JW (2013) Experiencing sustainability: thinking deeper about experiential education in higher education. J Sustain Educ 5. http://www.jsedimensions.org/ wordpress/content/experiencing-sustainability-thinkingdeeper-about-experiential-education-in-higher-educa tion_2013_05/ Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86

665 Sterling SR (2001) Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and change. Green Books for the Schumacher Society, Totnes Sterling S (2003) Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: explorations in the context of sustainability. Doctoral thesis, University of Bath Sterling S (2017) Assuming the future: repurposing education in a volatile age. In: Jickling B, Sterling S (eds) Post-sustainability and environmental education. Palgrave studies in education and the environment. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham Tilbury D (2011) Education for sustainable development: expert review of processes and learning. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. UNESCO, Paris, pp 1–67 Williams DR, Brown JD (2012) Learning gardens and sustainability education: bringing life to schools and schools to life. Routledge, London Yorks L, Kasl E (2002) Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning: reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Educ Q 52(3):176–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136020523002

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development Kim Wahl1 and Joy Kcenia O’Neil2 1 University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA 2 School of Education, College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA

Definition Experiential teaching for sustainable development is a hands-on, practice-based teaching approach that fosters student learning and change towards building sustainable societies.

Introduction Experiential teaching draws from the theory and philosophy of experiential learning. Early seminal thinker, John Dewey, introduced the idea of “learning by doing.” Over time, experiential learning has been adapted and adopted to practice. Practice is not limited to K-12 education; it has migrated into higher education in recent years.

E

666

Experiential teaching goes hand in hand with sustainability education. This is because sustainability education advocates for educating for change. Students can enact change through novel ways of thinking and teaching in higher education. Some of these ways include systems thinking and placebased learning. Teaching methods can include, but are not limited to, experiences such as expeditionary education and problem-based, projectbased, and community-based education. By intentionally framing experiences to include authentic experiences and by promoting systems thinking, collaborative learning, and critical thinking skills, experiential education supports principles conducive to sustainability problems and solutions for sustainable community development.

Experiential Teaching as Sustainability Development Goals Educators are supporting teaching for sustainability by incorporating systems thinking, real-world connections, and collaboration in the methods of experiential education (Wiek et al. 2011; Wiek and Kay 2015). By connecting to real-world experiences, students have a growing appreciation of the connections in nature which help to encourage systems thinking, a competency of sustainable development education (SDE). SDE supports the well-being of our planet as we look to global development goals. In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly set forth a new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which included 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). SDG 4, focused on education and lifelong learning, mentions higher education and “equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university” (UN 2015). By tying in experiential teaching methods into higher education and connecting to community, higher education (HE) can also reach other SDGs, such as SDG 17, such that “a successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society” and these partnerships with people and planet “are needed at the global, regional,

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development

national and local level” (UN 2015). For urban communities, HE can further support the SDGs by including Goal 11 and having students solve problems through project- and problem-based learning, methods of experiential teaching, while making “cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” (UN 2015).

Experiential Teaching Connected to Learning Experiential teaching is complex, grounded in philosophy, and considered a field practice. The Association for Experiential Education defines experiential education as “a philosophy that informs many methodologies in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people’s capacity to contribute to their communities” (AEE n.d.). In experiential teaching, experiences are transformed into knowledge through the experience and reflection. Experiential education promotes self-directed and independent thinking on behalf of the learner (Gibbons and Gray 2004). As a pedagogy, it is a way to foster action-oriented and critical thinking skills in order to help students learn in an environment reflective of real-world experiences. As a philosophy, Christian Itin believes: It allows for the various expressions of this philosophy (service learning, cooperative learning, adventure-based, problem-based, action learning, etc.) to be linked together under this single philosophy. This provides a method of bringing those together who promote these various expressions and to argue for educational reform that would support experiential education in all settings. (1999, p. 97)

Experiential education is grounded in pedagogical learning theory and practice of John Dewey (1916, 1938). Subsequently, David Kolb developed experiential learning into learning inventory for individual change (Kolb 1984). In Experience and Education, John Dewey states that “the principle of continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development

modifies it in some way the quality of those which come after” (1938, p. 35). Dewey focused on the experience as it reinforces the learning, whereas others, such as Kolb, believed that learning was taking place throughout the experience. Kolb argues that “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (1984, p. 38). In this process, learning takes place in four adaptive learning modes: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb 1984). Kolb connects concrete and experimental modes in gaining the experience and then transforming the experience through conceptualizing and reflecting on that experience. Learning takes place at the beginning of the experience and develops upon reflection and conceptualization. Students are in direct contact with their experience in experiential education rather than just learning about it or “banking education,” a concept in which information from the teacher is deposited to the student (Freire 1970). As an alternative, Paulo Freire proposes problem-posing education, in which learners “perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (Freire 1970, p. 71). These experiences with the world as a learning process and how a student critically perceives their experiences are reflective of experiential education.

Experiential Teaching Connected to Practice The National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) has a set of principles that supports experiential education connected to practice. These principles of “good practice” include (1) intention, (2) preparedness and planning, (3) authenticity (real-world connections), (4) reflection, (5) orientation and training, (6) monitoring and continuous improvement, (7) assessment and evaluation, and (8) acknowledgment (NSEE 2011).

667

Educators need to be intentional in their practice as to why they chose their experience, and they need to properly prepare or frame an experience by thinking of the overall learning outcomes. Wiggins and McTighe expertly explained the importance of thinking of the big picture and backward design in their book, Understanding by Design (1998). Through careful consideration of how to frame the experience, thinking of the outcome, and by making connections to authentic and real-world experiences, the educator engages and empowers the students. “Creating a personal connection between students and the issues that they study can be one of the most powerful elements in improving a student’s level of engagement and performance in the classroom” (Domask 2007, p. 63). These experiences help to develop critical thinkers in a time where learners need to understand complex relationships in systems. Rather than being clear, simple and unambiguous, the concepts involved in ESD [education for sustainable development] are complex. Their complexity stems from the intricate and complicated interactions of natural and human systems. The challenge to educators is to derive messages that illustrate such complexity, without overwhelming or confusing the learner. (McKeown 2006, p. 32)

Experiential Education and Sustainability Competencies In order to connect to Education for Sustainability (EfS), experiential education principles may be linked to key competencies, or a “linked complex of knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Spady 1994; Baartman et al. 2007), in sustainability. These competencies have been identified by scholars and help learners become critical thinkers on sustainability issues, and they offer a framework for higher education. One framework of key competencies in sustainability includes: • • •

Systems-thinking: The ability to analyze complex local and global systems. Normative: The ability to assess problems in sustainability. Anticipatory: The ability to visualize future solutions to current sustainability issues.

E

668 • •

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development Strategic: The ability to design and implement solutions to sustainability problems. Interpersonal: The ability to work collaboratively with others on sustainability solutions. (de Haan 2006; Wiek et al. 2011).

Other competencies as listed in the Delors et al. report (1996), a report for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), include learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be. A case study by Besong and Holland (2015) involves addressing the competencies based on this report along with an additional fifth competency, “learning to transform oneself and society” (2015, p. 9). While applying a disposition, abilities, and behaviors (DAB) framework and key competencies to a curriculum for a sample of final year undergraduate students, it was found that the cumulative results showed that “a high percentage of learners exhibited competencies in the areas of sustainability” (Besong and Holland 2015, p. 14). In addition to viewing teaching and learning from a holistic perspective and assessing dispositions and behaviors, systems thinking, authentic projects, and community involvement link experiential education to sustainability competencies. “From a sustainability competency building perspective, the findings point to a need for research-oriented programs to integrate practice-based didactic approaches for building skills and methods via real-world learning projects with external stakeholders” (Trencher et al. 2018, p. 829).

Experiential Teaching Methods in Higher Education Connections to key competencies in sustainability development may be incorporated into learning in order to promote experiential education through a sustainability lens. By making connections through systems thinking and solving authentic, real-world problems, educators are creating an experiential framework that has meaning for learners. A deeper meaning is further emphasized by involving students in their own learning process and implementing time for active reflection

and making connections, reflective of experiential teaching. Five approaches that exemplify experiential teaching include place-based learning, expeditionary learning, project-based learning, problembased learning, and community-based learning. Place-Based Education Through connections to the natural world, David Orr suggests that learners are exposed to concrete reality and that these experiences in nature decrease experience deficit, cultivate mindfulness, strengthen our rationale to learn, promote field observations, and introduce students to the mysteries of nature (1994, p. 96). This type of teaching frames authentic real-world experiences that reflect experiential education and sustainability education. “Understanding how we live (culture) and its impact on where we live (ecology) is one of the key issues facing sustainability and sustainability education” (Ritchie 2013, p. 2), and in this sense students are connecting to place, a key concept in place-based education. Place-based education connects students to their real world and infuses experiential learning into teaching methodology. Teachers implement this model by helping the students connect to their “place,” usually in their own community. David Sobel defines this pedagogy: Place-based education is the process of using the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts in language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and other subjects across the curriculum. Emphasizing hands-on, real-world learning experiences, this approach to education increases academic achievement, helps students develop stronger ties to their community, enhances students’ appreciation for the natural world, and creates heightened commitment to serving as active, contributing citizens. (2013, p. 11)

Expeditionary Education In the 1930s, Kurt Hahn was a well-known proponent of experiential learning in the outdoors and supported expeditionary learning. Hahn established the principles of a model that focused on experiential education, a model originally focused on secondary students but has led to work that includes students of all ages, including those in higher education. In expeditionary

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development

learning, students are involved in hands-on learning through projects and are often given more student ownership in their own learning process (Spangler 2008, p. 46). One example in higher education involves learning about information systems (IS). In a study by Abrahams and Singh, IS students: Collect and compare information systems specimens from various subtopics within the defined IS area. These subtopics constitute the “chapters” of the expedition catalog. Adopting from the principles of active, experiential learning, students apply selected systems to a real problem: as in biology, the best insights are obtained from living specimens, so students are expected to create and review real, live implementations. Finally, students share their expedition results with other, external learners via a student-created expedition catalog. (2013, p. 48)

Expeditionary learning is also used in teacher education models. In the Alverno College Teacher Education model: The Alverno outcomes for professional education are embodied in a curriculum that builds strong content-area knowledge as well as effective pedagogical understanding. This curriculum is developmental and sequential, guided by a set of themes that spiral across courses and field experiences. These cross-disciplinary themes, introduced and then reinforced in multiple settings, include understanding the developmental needs of learners, diversity, the nature of professionalism (including inquiry/research), schools and society, media and technology, and content knowledge. (Diez et al. 2010, p. 21)

The Alverno College Teacher Education model is based on real-world, authentic experiences, exemplifies inquiry-based learning, and creates meaningful learning experiences. Experiential learning is embedded into learning through expeditionary learning as concepts and experiences are scaffolded throughout the curriculum versus just one semester of student teaching. This type of education reflects deeper learning in their experiences. In another study by Logan (2013), expeditionary learning provides education for sustainability (EfS) and “through research on real issues, integration of service-learning and the production of quality products for authentic audiences, students connect their learning to life outside of the classroom in a manner that allows for personal

669

connection and relevance” (p. 22). Logan focused on transformative learning reflective of expeditions in students that graduate from expeditionary environments. Her study results “suggest that whole school action-focused learning that connects learning with the real world can generate sustainability-supportive qualities in graduates” (p. 158). In such cases, expeditionary learning supports EfS through relevant learning experiences that foster systems thinking in learning connections and supporting both natural and social communities. Community-Based, Problem-Based, and Project-Based Education In community-based learning (CBL), communities and higher education are building stronger relationships for co-reciprocal benefit. According to the Talloires Declaration, one of their actions aims to “expand work with community and nongovernmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to environmental problems” (2005). Examples of the types of CBL experiences include internships, service-learning, field studies, or collaborative action learning. Service-learning meets the needs of a community in its present state, whereas collaborative action learning works to form partnerships in order to establish a plan of action (Dale 2005). Collaboration and working with the community supports Sustainable Development Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals in that “a successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society. These inclusive partnerships built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place people and the planet at the centre, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level” as well as supports Goal 11: “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” (UN 2015). By working with local communities, students may also work on solving problems in the community through project- and problembased experiences. To support EfS, problem- and project-based learning (PPBL) focuses on real-world, authentic problems reflective of the complexities found in current societal and ecological issues. PPBL

E

670

strategies are student-centered which empower learners and create more meaningful learning experiences. Problems facing school and the surrounding communities are often tackled in order to create change that improves the well-being of others and the environment. The TIME European Summer School (TESS), the Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM) degree of the University of Minho, and the Eco-House at Sheffield Hallam University are a few examples in which students employ PPBL strategies to solve issues related to sustainability (Filho et al. 2016). Another example found in higher education consists of a project focused on an eco-garden in order to promote EfS. This project “highlighted the importance of the educators motivating student self-directed learning on the basis of a life-long learning approach beyond the classroom and the curriculum” (Cheang et al. 2017, p. 254). Students in these cases have problems to solve their projects which supports learning in sustainability while also connecting to place. By choosing to find solutions to problems focused on place and connected to systems and sustainability issues, learners are supporting the overall well-being of person and planet.

Assessment of Experiential Learning Students make connections in their learning through processing their thoughts as they reflect upon their learning. As students reflect on their learning, it is also important to provide feedback and acknowledgment of their progress. Feedback from others, including their peers, can give valuable insight and perspectives on the learning experience. In addition to reflections, assessments are needed to provide students with authentic feedback. Due to the more subjective nature of experiential education, methods of assessment tend to be challenging. Authentic assessments are crucial in finding out how students are learning and what they have learned through reflection and making connections. As a teacher designs their assessment, they should ask themselves: What kinds of evidence do we need? What specific characteristics in student responses, products, or

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development

performances should we examine? Will the evidence unambiguously demonstrate learning (or lack thereof) (Wiggins and McTighe 1998)? Formative assessments allow teachers to assess the process throughout the experience, while summative assessment can provide insight into the overall outcome of the learning. As teachers check for understanding, it is important that assessments reflect the diversity of the learners and a variety of methods can accomplish this. Rubrics and criteria-focused assessments, authentic products and performance, and learning portfolios help teachers move away from more traditional assessment methods (Roberts 2015, p. 141).

Final Remarks Experiential teaching has potential to foster authentic learning experiences that build critical thinking skills which help learners comprehend complex issues in sustainability. By taking an experiential approach to teaching, Hensley reports how “engaging students in authentic inquiry in the classroom enables students to become better citizens and stronger problem solvers within the context of sustainability and beyond” (Hensley 2017). Critical thinking results when experiential teaching methods are scaffolded into curriculum with engagement that is appropriate to foster change agent outcomes (Heinrich et al. 2015; Sipos et al. 2008). These outcomes include action learning, systems thinking, stakeholder engagement, and foresighted thinking that can facilitate students’ development as sustainability agents for change within societies (Frisk and Larson 2011, p. 11). Having students become change agents, in some ways, is the “hidden curriculum” of experiential teaching. Seeking community engagement activities such as place-, problem-, community-, and project-based pedagogies can help build these hidden outcomes that are critical to sustainable development, such as understanding the consequences of our actions, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, and an understanding of problems and possible solutions (Wiek et al. 2011; Sipos et al. 2008; Frisk and Larson 2011). By fostering change agency skills and outcomes

Experiential Teaching and Sustainable Development

from experiential teaching, complex sustainability issues become alive, action-oriented, and engaging well beyond a course.

Cross-References ▶ Experiential Learning ▶ Research-Based Education

References Abrahams A, Singh T (2013) Expeditionary learning in information systems: definition, implementation, and assessment. J Innov Educ 1(11):47–75 Association for Experiential Education (AEE) (n.d.) What is EE. Retrieved 7 Mar 2018 from http://www.aee.org/ what-is-ee Baartman LKJ, Bastiaens TJ, Kirschner PA, van der Vleuten CPM (2007) Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: a qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educ Res Rev 2(2):114–129 Besong F, Holland C (2015) The Dispositions, Abilities and Behaviours (DAB) framework for profiling learners’ sustainability competencies in higher education. J Teach Educ Sustain 17(1):5–22 Cheang CC, So WW, Zhan Y, Tsoi KH (2017) Education for sustainability using a campus eco-garden as a learning environment. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(2):242–262 Dale C (2005) Community based learning. Humanit Soc 29(3–4):192–208 Delors J et al (1996) Learning: the treasure within (Highlights). Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved 20 Dec 2018 from http://www.unesco. org/education/pdf/DELORS_E.PDF Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. Simon & Schuster, New York Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. The Macmillan company, New York Diez M, Athanasiou N, Mace DP (2010) Expeditionary learning: the Alverno College teacher education model, change. Mag High Learn 42(6):18–24 Domask J (2007) Achieving goals in higher education: an experiential approach to sustainability studies. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(1):53–68 Filho WL, Shiel C, Paço A (2016) Implementing and operationalizing integrative approaches to sustainability in higher education: the role of project-oriented learning. J Clean Prod 133:126–135 Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Seabury Press, New York Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2(1):1–20

671 Gibbons J, Gray M (2004) Critical thinking as integral to social work practice. J Teach Soc Work 24(1/2):19–38 de Haan G (2006) The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development. Environ Educ Res 12(1):19–32 Heinrich WF, Habron GB, Johnson HL, Goralnik L (2015) Critical thinking assessment across four sustainabilityrelated experiential learning settings. J Exp Educ 38(4):373–393 Hensley N (2017) The future of sustainability in higher education. J Sustain Educ 13:1–12 Itin CM (1999) Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. J Exp Educ 22(2):91–98 Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Logan R (2013) Getting smart to do good: transformative learning experiences of expeditionary learning graduates. Dissertation, Prescott College McKeown R (2006) Education for sustainable development toolkit. Energy, environment and resource center. University of Tennessee, Knoxville National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) (2011) Eight principles of good practice for all experiential learning activities. Retrieved 7 Mar 2018 from http://www.nsee.org/8-principles Orr DW (1994) Earth in mind: on education, environment and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington, DC Ritchie M (2013) Sustainability education, experiential learning, and social justice: designing community based courses in the global south. J Sustain Educ 5:1–11 Roberts J (2015) Experiential education in the college context: what it is, how it works, and why it matters. Routledge, New York Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands, and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86 Sobel D (2013) Place-based education: connecting classrooms and communities, 2nd edn. Orion, Great Barrington Spady WG (1994) Outcome-based education: critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators, Arlington Spangler A (2008) Educational trailblazers: expeditionary learning guides students on a new path. Earth Island J 22(4):46 Talloires Declaration (2005) The Talloires network. Retrieved 2 Mar 2018 from http://ulsf.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/TD.pdf Trencher G, Vincent S, Bahr K, Kudo S, Markham K, Yamanaka Y (2018) Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master’s programs: an empirical analysis. J Clean Prod 181:829–841 United Nations (UN) (2015) Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved 2 Mar 2018 from http://www.un.org/sustainablede velopment/sustainable-development-goals/ Wiek A, Kay B (2015) Learning while transforming: solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, AZ. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:29–36

E

672 Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218 Wiggins GP, McTighe J (1998) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

Expressive Arts

Negative externalities affect the welfare of current and future generations and inhibit the prospect of sustainability. Neutralization of negative externalities and creation of positive externalities are necessary conditions for achieving weak sustainability, but strong sustainability requires to conserve resources for future generations through the preservation of environmental rights.

Expressive Arts ▶ Arts-Based Approaches for Sustainability

External Effect ▶ Externalities and Sustainability Processes

Externalities and Sustainability Processes Zita Tamašauskien_e1,3 and Skaidr_e Žičkien_e2,3 1 Department of Economics, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania 2 Department of Business and Public Management, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania 3 Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania

Introduction The importance of sustainable development has grown out of recognition that current economic activity may have important effects on future generations. Despite the importance of sustainability, a review of the literature on sustainable development reveals a lack of rigorous definitions of the concept. Although economists have been investigating positive and negative externalities for a long time, no universally accepted definition or classification of externality currently exists in scientific literature. First of all, the paper explains the concept of externalities. Attention is given to classification of externalities and explanation on how externalities cause divergence between social costs (benefits) and private costs (benefits) and why externalities cause market failure. This entry also focuses on the relationship of sustainability and externalities.

Externality and Sustainability Concepts Synonyms External effect; Social benefit; Social costs; Transaction spillover

Definition Externalities may be defined as positive or negative side (external) effects of actions of one economic agent that affect the welfare of others who are not involved in these actions. These external effects are outside of the market mechanism. An externality is a cost or benefit imposed on people other than those who sell or buy the product.

The concept of externality is central to environmental and resource economics, and it has a long and rich history. However, it has been linked with sustainability processes only since the 1960s, when environmental externalities received a lot of attention, both in terms of quantification and actions to internalize them. Sustainable development requires consideration of both positive and negative externalities generated by human activities. Therefore, externalities are very important in sustainability processes negative externalities need to be prevented or kept to a minimum, while positive externalities need to be created, promoted, and supported.

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

There are many definitions of sustainability, sustainable economic development, and sustainability processes. Sustainability as a multidimensional concept aims at improving today’s living standards, including ecological, social, and economic aspects, using resources wisely now and in the future. The most widely used definition of sustainable development is presented by the World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). The concept stresses the need to maintain the long-term productive capacity of the biosphere. Sustainability is becoming increasingly important in today’s world; however, it is not achieved by single actions but rather is an ongoing process, which focuses on achieving intergenerational equity by integrating economic, social, and environmental goals. Externalities were first mentioned in 1920 by the British economist Arthur Pigou. He explained the idea of externalities as a situation in which “one person A, in the course of rendering some service, for which payment is made, to a second person B, incidentally also renders services or disservices to other persons (not producers of like services) of such a sort that payment cannot be exacted from the benefited parties or compensation enforced on behalf of the injured parties” (Pigou 1920). Today, we can find a variety of concepts of externality. Some of them are very wide and include actions or choices of economic agents that have a noticeable impact on consumers’ utility, producers’ profit, or welfare of others who are not involved in these choices or actions; and others are rather narrow, denoting only the direct impacts caused by them. Laffont (2008), externalities are defined as “indirect effects of consumption or production activity, that is, effects on agents other than the originator of such activity which do not work through the price system.” Externalities are market failures that arise when there is a divergence between social costs and private costs. It is possible to define them as unintentional losses or gains in the welfare of an agent resulting from the activity of another agent.

673

Some of the presented definitions of externality are purely descriptive; others include substantial normative content. It should be noted that despite different definitions, it is stressed that externality arises and exists when the social or economic activities of one economic agent (person or firm) have an impact on the utility or profit of another economic agent in a way that is outside the market mechanism. The recipient of the externality is neither compensated for the cost imposed on him, nor does she/he pay for the received benefit. These costs and benefits are labelled “externalities” because the people who experience them are outside of or external to the transaction to buy and sell the goods or services.

Classification and Examples of Externalities In scientific literature externalities are classified into technical and pecuniary. Most externalities fall into the category of so-called technical externalities  the indirect effects that have an impact on the consumption and production opportunities of others. There are various classifications of technical externalities. The most common classification is categorized as positive externalities, when the third party receives a benefit (external economies), and negative externalities when the third party is burdened with costs (external diseconomies). This classification is based on the effect generated. Another classification of externalities is according to what sort of economic activity they impact on: production or consumption, whether it is caused by people consuming or firms producing goods, or by both processes. Production externalities can be further classified as output externalities and input externalities. Negative externalities are the costs associated with environmental damages that are not reflected in the market price of an economic commodity or service (Nguyena et al. 2016). Negative production externalities exist when a firm’s production reduces the well-being of others who are not compensated by the firm. Overwhelmingly, it is the negative externalities that are the focus of discussions of sustainability and its processes.

E

674

Sustainable development requires internalizing the negative externalities of pollution. There are numerous examples of negative production externalities. A classic example is dumping raw sewage into a lake, without payment by the polluter to those who are adversely affected. The harmful effects of pollution are impairments to good health and reductions in the value of business and personal property and resources. Another example of a negative externality is the dissatisfaction caused by the noise of low-flying aircraft as experienced by residents who are located near an airport or CO2 emissions contributing to global climate change, negatively impacting both human and natural systems. Pollution is a harmful externality which most usually originates in production activities. It can affect consumers or producers or both. Assessing, controlling, and reducing the effects of these negative externalities are crucial for sustainable development. Apart from the externality caused by emissions, the increase in the production of manufactured goods has been at the cost of unsustainable use of resources like land, water, fossil fuels, and minerals (Nguyena et al. 2016). Negative intertemporal externalities occur when exhaustible resources are depleted and when renewable resources are harvested at rates greater than the regeneration rates. Extracted critical resources, such as fresh water, lumber, minerals, fossil fuels, rock, and soils, diminish natural ecological systems (see, e.g., Beeks and Ziko (2018)). All negative externalities are a barrier in the transition to sustainability. Positive production externality is when a firm’s production increases the welfare of others but the firm is not compensated by those for whom the welfare is increased. A classic example of positive externality is the invention of new technologies which generate benefits for those whose lives are improved by using them. Research and development not only increase the private profits of a company but also have the added benefit of increasing the general level of knowledge within a society, which contributes to other discoveries and developments. A positive externality originating in production and impacting on production is the case where a honey producer’s bees pollinate a nearby fruit orchard.

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

Consumption externality occurs when consumption by some people creates costs or benefits for others, whereas production externality occurs due to production activities. An example of positive consumption externality is a homeowner who repaints his/her house and plants an attractive garden. All the neighbors benefit from this activity, yet the homeowner’s decision to repaint and design landscape did not take these benefits into account. Examples of negative consumption externalities are litter on streets and in public places, vandalism of public property, playing radio loudly in the park which inflicts suffering on others, pollution from cars and motorbikes, etc. In these cases, the external effect originates in consumption and affects other individuals. Real externalities are unpriced costs or benefits. They are the effects of market exchanges which are external to prices. There are also other types of externalities. Residential externalities arise when activities of one group’s residential affect the well-being of another group, e.g., when the members of one residential area may feel that their well-being is adversely affected by the members of another residential area. Network externalities occur when one user of goods or service changes the value of some products to others. Telephony is a classic example of a positive network externality – each new customer represents an additional potential connection, and thus an increase in value, to existing customers. Negative externalities often occur in networks susceptible to congestion, such as public roads – additional vehicles reduce the efficiency of the network for existing users. The abovementioned externalities fall into the category of so-called technical (or physical) externalities, that is, the indirect effects that have an impact on the consumption and production opportunities of others, but the price of the product does not take those externalities into account. Technical externalities have effect to sustainable development. There is also a category of pecuniary or price-effect externalities (pseudoexternalities) in which an individual’s activity level affects the financial circumstances of another. Pecuniary externalities are effects of increases or decreases in the price of goods on existing customers as a

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

result of changes in the demand or supply of goods. Pecuniary externalities result when individuals or firms purchase or sell large enough quantities of goods or services to affect price levels for people who are not directly involved in the original transactions. These pecuniary externalities help some groups and hurt others; they merely result in changes in real income of buyers or sellers. An example of pecuniary externalities which is recognized important by neoclassical and ecological economists is the intergenerational allocation of nonrenewable resources. Future generations cannot affect current decisions determining intergenerational allocation of scarce resources, but these decisions will affect welfare potentials of future generations. Bithas (2011) notes that competition among generations for nonrenewable resources establishes a peculiar externality, since the current generation makes the decisions that will affect welfare of future generations. He argues that this externality cannot be eliminated, only moderated through the recognition of some property rights for future generations. Even wellfunctioning market may fail to allocate nonrenewable resources suitably over time. There are also countless other anthropogenic externalities because it seems there is very little that humans do that does not lead to externalities of some form or another. Externalities are common in virtually every area of economic activity. They are a common problem associated with our interaction with the biosphere which has an effect on sustainable development. Most economic activities affect the environment, either through the use of natural resources as an input or by using the “clean” environment. Externalities are created at an alarming rate, some economic and some not. Trying to achieve sustainable development, it is important to internalize externalities.

Private and Social Costs of Externalities Negative externalities imposed upon the environment are important not only because of the damage to environment but also because they do not reflect the social (true) costs of production. When

675

entrepreneurs make decisions about production, they usually calculate the variable costs of labor, raw materials, energy, packaging, transport, fixed costs of capital, and so on. They calculate private costs of the firm which are revealed in the profitand-loss statement. In many production operations, there is another type of costs which are not revealed in firm’s profit-and-loss statement. They are called external costs, because they are external to firm, they are not paid by the company/industry that is responsible for them and thus are not passed to the consumers, and they are directed to society without making an impact on the economic results of their generating agent (Ding et al. 2014). An external cost results when the private costs of the producers or buyers of a good or service differ from the social costs. For example, business firms producing a product for sale in the marketplace neither pay for nor consider the damage the production or consumption of that product can do to the environment and individuals and harm to future generations. Another example of external costs comes from the problems caused by traffic congestion in towns, cities, and on major roads and motor ways. Pollution which is the negative externality of production can cause external costs for communities and environments at a great distance from the source at the production site. It can also impose external costs on future generations. The importance of taking into account external costs in formulating prices of a product, process, or service has been recognized by economists. External costs are responsible for the deterioration of environmental quality; they vary widely between countries, regions, and cities and are considered to be barriers to sustainable development. External costs sometimes are called third-party costs and should be monetized whenever possible for evaluation alongside private costs. Indeed, the greatest of these external costs is global warming and climate change, caused primarily by the excessive use of fossil fuels which does release carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. But measuring the value of external costs is extremely complex and almost always contradictory. Correcting elements that generate external costs is one of the conditions

E

676

for sustainable development. From a sustainable development perspective, external costs are the most significant and arguably account for the failure of individuals, communities, and nations to follow a sustainable path (Tietenberg and Lewis 2009, p. 607). When no externality is present (all costs and benefits are private), social marginal costs are the same as private marginal costs. They are associated and social marginal benefit is the same as private marginal benefit. Externalities pose a serious problem because they cause a divergence between the private marginal costs and social marginal costs. When negative production externalities exist, social (external) marginal costs are bigger (higher) than private marginal costs. Private marginal costs are the direct cost of producing an additional unit of goods. External marginal costs are any additional costs associated with the production of the goods accruing to outside parties, and producers do not pay for them. Social marginal costs are equal private marginal costs for producers plus external marginal costs. External marginal costs are not reflected in the price of the goods. In the case when private marginal and social marginal costs are different, there is a significant problem related to the fact that private markets will not normally produce quantities of output that are socially efficient. The producer creating the externality does not take the effects of external costs into their own calculations, and the true price of the product or service is not paid at the point of transaction. Market prices of commodity or service do not capture the externalities of an economic activity which inflicts costs to human health caused by pollution, depletes resources, or damages natural systems (natural capital) which are vital for sustainable development. Goods that generate the negative externalities are overproduced, and externalities are not fully reflected in the prices of goods; therefore, the effects spill over outside of the market. Cost savings of the enterprises which sell goods or services at market prices, which are lower than social marginal costs, create globally dangerous conditions for present and future generations. If “internalized,” external costs can help to move toward a more sustainable development.

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

Externalities are among the main reasons why governments intervene in the economic sphere and use taxes, subsidies, and restrictions on the provision of goods in order to remedy situation. The capture of these costs in the market would provide a powerful incentive to move toward sustainability. Similarly, when positive externalities exist, buyers and sellers of a product in the marketplace do not consider the fact that their production or consumption of the item brings benefit to the third parties. An external benefit is a benefit that accrues to somebody who is outside, or external to, the decision about consuming or using the goods or resources that cause the externality. It results when the private benefits to the producers or purchaser differ from the total social benefits. Positive externalities exist when the social marginal benefit of production or consumption exceeds the private marginal benefit, i.e., production or consumption generates external benefits that may be undervalued by the market. When positive externalities exist, the product may be under-consumed or under-provided since the free market may fail to take into account external benefit. In this case the social marginal benefit of consuming the product (which includes external benefit) is bigger than private marginal benefits.

Externalities and Market Failure Market failure lies in the fact that prices do not account for actual environmental external costs, i.e., costs associated with environmental damages on society or that create environmental degradation. Pigou (1920) argued that a market would fail if producers did not bear the full cost of production, including whatever pollution, sickness, or environmental damage they cause (cited in Hawken 2010, p. 92). Technological externalities (which are commonly simply termed “externalities”) cause market failure because when they are not included in prices, they distort the market by encouraging activities that are costly to society even if the private benefits are substantial. Incorporating such negative externalities in the prices of commodities is a major challenge to maintain business activities and move to sustainable development.

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

Markets alone ignore the existence of external costs and benefits since the prices of market commodities equal the marginal utility of households consuming these commodities on the one hand and the marginal production cost of producers on the other. The external costs of production in the form of pollution are borne by society as a whole, but no price is charged for them, as long as we live in a laissez-faire economy with no government intervention (Ahlheim 2018). Externalities indicate that price is not an accurate indicator of value. If these external costs were added to, some products may cost more, some may cost less, and some harmful products now subsidized by the government may cost more as subsidies are removed. Externalities destroy the ability of markets to provide optimal allocation of scarce resources and, as a rule, their presence implies wastage. The reason is that environmental resources are used free of charge by the generator of the externality. Thereby, rational agents do not appropriately take resource scarcity into account when deciding on the quantity and quality of their economic activities. Too many environmental resources are used compared to optimal if they are free goods. This overuse occurs because producers or consumers have little or no incentive to limit their exploitation of the natural resources. In a free market, quantity and price are such that private marginal benefit is equal to private marginal costs. Thus actions that are individually optimal are damaging society as a whole, because social optimum is such that social marginal benefit is equal to social marginal costs. This means that private market leads to an inefficient resource allocation and outcome. Externalities cause Pareto inefficiency because usually too much scarce resource is allocated to an activity which causes a negative externality and too little resource is allocated to an activity which causes a positive externality. Negative consumption externalities lead to overconsumption; positive consumption externalities lead to under-consumption. As cited by Dasgupta and Ehrlich (2013), “Pervasive externalities , are a cause of inefficiency in the allocation of resources across space, time, and contingencies; in many situations, externalities accentuate inequity as well.”

677

Eliminating negative production and consumption externalities requires collective action at local, regional, national, and international scales. Government’s intervention is needed to correct the effects of externalities. Trying to internalize externalities in the costs, the government can use taxes and charges, subsidies, and restrictions on the provision of the goods or take over the production of the goods in order to remedy the situation.

E The Relationship of Externalities with Sustainability Economic and social processes create externalities which are a fact of our life. In addition, externalities are related to our interactions with the biosphere and have an impact on both environment and people. Negative externalities increase pollution as well as deplete natural resources and this leads to environmental and social problems. On the other hand, sustainable development is a process of change and requires to consider externalities generated by human actions in order to decrease negative effects of economic activities and to maximize positive impact of economic and social activities on the environment and society. These positive externalities create benefits from economic activities and have a positive impact on an otherwise uninvolved party as well as for individuals everywhere on earth. Many socio-ecological and economic problems result from negative externalities. They prevent the implementation of Pareto efficient allocation of environmental resources, which is a necessary condition for sustainability. The presence of environmental market failures creates unsustainable production systems. Sustainable development requires to internalize (neutralize) environmental and intertemporal externalities. A sustainable production system should produce goods and services with few or no negative social and environmental externalities. A way of “correcting” an unsustainable production system to a sustainable one is via government policy intervention. An option would be to fully account for degradation of natural resource base in the prices of goods and services. A classic example of unsustainable production system is irrigated rice

678

systems where farmers overuse pesticides and refuse to invest in drainage, resulting in long-term resource degradation. However, if pesticide usage was reduced to acceptable levels and there was adequate investment in necessary drainage system, it could materially reduce the externality and turn the production system into a sustainable one. Private markets alone consider only the wellbeing of the present generation and, maybe, also of the next. Neglecting the interests of all following generations prevents a sustainable use of resources and realization of sustainable development goals. Thus, in order to reduce those problems, external costs have to be internalized, i.e., the firm has to pay for them. Internalization can be accomplished either via governmental action or via the market. Various command and control instruments are used in practice (taxes, emission standards, tradable permits, property rights to use resources, etc.). Although there is a consensus among researchers that the internalization of negative environmental externalities is an essential condition for sustainable development, there is disagreement about the compatibility of some positive (optimal) level of negative externalities with sustainable development. Is it possible to completely neutralize all negative externalities? According to van de Bergh (2010), certain positive level of environmental externalities which is within the capacity of biosphere to neutralize pollution is comparable with sustainability. But higher levels of externalities are associated with unsustainability, i.e., loss of nature, depletion of environmental resources, and the reduction of their capacity to absorb pollution. Bithas (2011) argues that externalities are dynamic and global and their internalization is inevitably incomplete because existing instruments used for assessing negative externalities cannot properly reflect the interests of future generations. There are two potential versions of sustainability: strong sustainability and weak sustainability (Stoneham et al. 2003). Weak sustainability essentially seeks to maintain at least a constant level of overall human welfare over time. According to weak sustainability, natural capital (such as the quality of soils, air, water, the amount of wildlife habitat) is largely substitutable with manufactured

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

(man-made, real) capital (such as machinery, equipment, factories, and roads) and human capital (such as knowledge, acquired abilities skills, and health). As long as the overall level of all capital forms is maintained over time, weak sustainability is achieved. Weak sustainability implies that all forms of capital are substitutes to some degree; manufactured capital is an adequate alternative to natural capital. The concept of weak sustainability allows the substitution between the different forms of capital stock, thereby allowing an overall economic system to be sustainable by trading in some forms of capital for others. Weak sustainability requires to internalize externalities and to correct economic efficiency deviations which are caused by externalities. Weak sustainability may be realized by substituting declining environmental resources with human capital, it requires only to maintain “total” capital stock. Weak sustainability may be ensured by internalizing the costs and benefits of externalities into prices of goods and services. According to strong sustainability, natural capital is not a substitute with other types of capital. The objective of strong sustainability is to maintain the whole level of natural capital over time. The main difference between these two versions of sustainability is the ability to make trade-offs between the various forms of capital (manufactured, natural, human, or within natural). In the case of strong sustainability, the stocks of natural capital must not be depreciated over time, i.e., the same stock of resources available to current generations will be available for future generations. Central to the issue of strong sustainability is the question of the rights of future generations. According to Bithas (2011), sustainable development requires to cover the interests of generations even far into the future. Moving toward strong sustainability requires to neutralize pecuniary externalities (intertemporal allocation of nonrenewable resources). But this externality can be only moderated through the recognition and inviolable preservation of environmental rights of future generations. Although there is some disagreement among the alternative researchers about the possibility of having truly sustainable development, there is consensus that future development must move

Externalities and Sustainability Processes

into areas beneficial to both society and the environment. For sustainable development, it is important not only to internalize the benefits of positive externalities but also to neutralize negative externalities of environmental degradation and to conserve resources for future generations. Sustainable development sets broad intergenerational objectives, and it is associated with the internalization of externalities and a set of policy instruments to do so in practice.

Conclusion and Final Considerations For sustainable development, it is important to assess, control, and reduce negative production, consumption, and pecuniary externalities and to stimulate and create positive externalities. Negative externalities such as atmospheric pollution lead to global climate change, have negative impact on human and natural systems, and are barriers for moving toward sustainable development. There are various classifications of externalities affecting sustainability processes. According to the generated effect, externalities may be positive or negative; according to the sort of economic activity, there are production and consumption externalities. Technical externalities are indirect effects having the impact on production and consumption possibilities of agents not directly involved in the activity. Pecuniary externalities arise when activity of one generation has impact on welfare of future generations and covers intertemporal externalities. The achievement of sustainable development requires to maintain constant stock of natural resources, to use resources efficiently, to internalize negative externalities, and to promote positive externalities. Negative externalities are not reflected in social (external) costs of production and are in charge of global warming, decrease in natural capital of ecosystems, climate change, and the environment quality. Externalities create unsustainable production systems and cause market failure and Pareto inefficiency, which hinders the achievement of sustainable development. When externalities are present, prices of goods do not account for all social environmental costs, do not reflect the true value of products and markets,

679

and do not optimally allocate scarce environmental resources across space, time, and contingencies. The elimination of negative pollution and resource depletion externalities and moving toward sustainable development require government intervention, because market mechanisms alone cannot correct for all externalities. There are various methods and means of internalizing the costs of externalities into prices of products. It is important to internalize negative production and consumption externalities and moderate pecuniary externalities through the recognition and preservation of environmental rights for future generations. There is consensus among researchers that internalization of external costs and benefits into prices of goods and services increases allocative efficiency, which is necessary condition for sustainable development. However, internalization of externalities cannot be the sufficient condition for ensuring strong sustainability. It requires not only to internalize externalities and maximize social welfare but also to leave future generations with stock of natural recourses, which will let them satisfy their needs at the same level as we enjoy today.

Cross-References ▶ Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Global Warming and Sustainable Development ▶ Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development ▶ Renewable Resources and Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainable Development ▶ Wellbeing and Sustainability

References Ahlheim M (2018) Environmental economics, the bioeconomy and the role of government. In: Lewandowski I (ed) Bioeconomy. Springer, Cham, pp 317–329 Beeks JC, Ziko A (2018) Internalizing economic externalities on the macroeconomic stage. Exploring and

E

680 expanding Paul Hawken’s the ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability for globalized solutions. Eur J Sustain Dev Res 2(1):03 Bithas K (2011) Sustainability and externalities: is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecol Econ 70:1703–1706 Dasgupta PS, Ehrlich PR (2013) Pervasive externalities at the population consumption, and environment. Science 340(6130):324–328 Ding H, He M, Deng C (2014) Lifecycle approach to assessing environmental friendly product project with internalizing environmental externality. J Clean Prod 66:128–138 Hawken P (2010) The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability, 3rd edn. Harper Collins Business, New York Laffont JJ (2008) Externalities. In: Palgrave Macmillan (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London Nguyena TLT, Laratte B, Guillaumeb B, Huab A (2016) Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:13–23

Extinction Pigou AC (1920) The economics of welfare, 4th edn. Macmillan, London Stoneham G, Eigenraam M, Ridley A, Barr N (2003) The application of sustainability concepts to Australian agriculture: an overview. Aust J Exp Agric 43:195–203 Tietenberg TH, Lewis L (2009) Environmental and natural resource economics Addison-Wesley series in economics. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston van den Bergh J (2010) Externality or sustainability economics? Ecol Econ 69:2047–2052 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York

Extinction ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

F

Faculty ▶ Curricular Innovation for Sustainability

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development Katarzyna Cichos Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Definition Charter of Fair Trade Principles (Charter 2009) defines fair trade as “trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalised producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair trade organisations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade”.

General Assembly 1987) that refers to a desired state of society where living conditions and resources use continue to meet human needs without damaging natural system. The concept is focused on economic development, social development, and environmental protection for future generations. The idea of sustainable development has been further developed and presented as the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are a central focus of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015) adopted by world leaders in September 2015. Fair trade is defined as a “trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade” (Charter 2009). This article examines the correlation between the sustainable development and “fair trade” and the contribution of “fair trade” to sustainable development. The article begins by discussing what “fair trade” means and then explains its roots and the development of the fair trade movement. In addition it presents the correlation between the sustainable development and “fair trade.” The final section concentrates on the connections of “fair trade” to SDGs.

Definition of Fair Trade Introduction Sustainable development is a concept (based on the 1987 Brundtland Report (United Nations

It difficult to define what “fair” trade means because “fairness” overlaps with many other normative principles, such as equity, law, justice, and even morality (Suranovic 2000). According to Boda, fairness in

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

682

trade means the justice of the distribution of traderelated benefits through the trading system (Boda 2001). However, “distributive equity” is mostly a subjective term as it is determined by a personal process of value distribution, which in turn explains why there is no consensus about the meaning of “fair trade” (Miller 2014). According to Granville and Dine (2013), fair trade is a “privileged contractual trade agreement whereby producers or labourers receive a degree of insulation from market forces and alleged market failures and which seeks greater equity in international trade.” Fisher’s (2009) definition refers to fair trade as an orientation that seeks greater equity in international trade by creating closer linkages between consumers and producers in the Geopolitical North and South. However, the most cited definition is the fair trade movement’s definition mentioned in the “Charter of Fair Trade Principles” (Charter 2009), which defines fair trade as a “trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalised producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair trade organisations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade” (Charter 2009). In addition, there are other similar terms, such as sustainable trade or ethical trade. However, these terms have different purposes. For instance, sustainable trade additionally includes organic products, and it is focused on ensuring that working conditions in global value chains meet minimum international standards, mainly referring to the adoption of codes in the context of corporate social responsibility (Smith and Barrientos 2005). Ethical trade refers to practices of companies or organizations that follow codes of conduct to ensure that labor rights of workers are respected. However, fair trade means more than just meeting labor standards and following codes of practice. Fair trade organizations seek to work in partnership with marginalized and disadvantaged groups to try to help them overcome the barriers they face in creating

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

sustainable livelihoods and finding markets (Smith and Barrientos 2005). It means that while a “fair trade business” must be ethical, an ethical business is not necessarily fair trade (WFTO FAQ).

Development of Fair Trade Movement Marike de Peña – Board Chair of Fairtrade International – has pointed out that “fair trade was born from a grassroots movement for trade justice (FLO 2016a).” It emerged in response to poverty and market forces that tend to marginalize and exclude the most vulnerable. As it is underlined in the Charter (2009), this raison d’être underlies all fair trade initiatives, and it is expressed in a diverse range of practical activities and programs. Fair trade started in the USA where Ten Thousand Villages (formerly Self Help Crafts) began buying needlework from Puerto Rico in 1946. The first formal “fair trade” shop was opened in 1958 in the USA (Boto and La Peccerella 2008). The modern fair trade movement was shaped in Europe, where in 1964 the first fair trade organization was created. At that time, it was mostly a political gesture and a radical student movement. Parallel to this students’ movement, developing countries started influencing international political organizations like the UN to focus its attention on trade relations. The main message, “Trade not Aid,” was officially recognized in 1968 when it was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which put the emphasis on the establishment of fair trade relations with the developing world (WFTO 2015). The growth of fair trade since the late 1960s has been associated with development aid and often as a response to poverty and disaster in the South. From the very beginning, it was concentrated on handicraft producers (mainly because of their contacts with missionaries who connected local producers from developing countries with customers from its place of origin, usually developed countries), giving employment opportunities to women, who were recognized as the group that provides supplementary income to families (WFTO 2015). At the same time, the first fair trade agricultural

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

products like coffee and tea (followed by dried fruits, cocoa, sugar, fruit juices, rice, spices, and nuts) were marketed. Coffee became the main product of fair trade and today from 25% to 50% of the total alternative trading organization came from coffee sales (WFTO 2015). Global sales reached €5.9 billion in 2014 (FLO 2015a). In 2015 there were 1.6 million fair trade farmers and workers across 75 countries (FLO 2017a), benefiting from an estimated €138 million in Fairtrade Premium (FLO 2016a), an additional profit which goes into a communal fund for workers and farmers to use – as they see appropriate – to improve their social, economic, and environmental conditions (FLO and WFTO 2011). During the mid-1970s, fair trade organizations worldwide began increasingly formalized. Today, there are two international Fair Trade standard setters that certify fair trade organizations across the world: the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations (FLO) and the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) (previously the International Fair Trade Association, IFTA). The WFTO is the largest organization and gathers over 370 member organizations and 40 individual associates from more than 70 countries spread across five continents (WFTOa) and which developed an independent third party certification system – the sustainable fair trade management system. The Fairtrade Labelling Organizations (FLO) is a multistakeholder association which gathers 23 member organizations, traders, and external experts. The organization develops and reviews Fairtrade standards and provides support to Fairtrade certified producers by assisting them in gaining and maintaining Fairtrade certifications and capitalizing on market opportunities (FLOb). FLO sets the standards and through a separate international certification company – FLO-CERT – regularly certifies producers and audits the flow of goods between producers and importers (FLOCERT). In 2009, these two standard-bearers adopted the “Charter of Fair Trade Principles” (Charter 2009) – an international reference point for fair trade that provides explanations of fair trade principles and a common vision and definition of fair trade and its core principles. The WFTO adopts these values through the 10 Principles of Fair

683

Trade and prescribes these principles to the member organizations (WFTOb).

Fair Trade in International Cooperation for Sustainable Development In 1987, the Bruntland Commission published its report, “Our Common Future,” to link the issues of economic development and environmental stability. The report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations General Assembly 1987, p. 43). This concept of conserving resources for future generations is one of the major features that distinguishes sustainable development policy from traditional environmental policy. The overall goal of SD is the long-term stability of the economy and environment through the integration and acknowledgment of economic, environmental, and social concerns within the decision-making processes (Dernbach 2003; Stoddart 2011). According to the vision of fair trade presented in the Charter (2009), the movement “shares a vision of a world in which justice and sustainable development are at the heart of trade structures and practices so that everyone, through their work, can maintain a decent and dignified livelihood and develop their full human potential.” To achieve SD principles, FLO provide fair trade standards with core requirements for producers who (in order to be certified) must continuously improve the prosperity of their organizations and condition of their workers. In addition, for labelled products, FLO specifies two sets of producer standards, one for small farmers and one for workers on plantations and in factories (Boto and La Peccerella 2008). The required standards closely correspond with social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. As underlined by FLO, the social development part of the policy stipulates that all members of the organization need to have access to democratic decision-making processes and, as far as possible, participate in the activities of the organization.

F

684

The organization needs to be set up in a transparent way for its members and must not discriminate any member or social group (FLO 2011). Another aspect that corresponds with social development is the labor standards that are required to be implemented by the fair trade company. The core elements include training opportunities, nondiscriminatory employment practices, no child labor, no forced labor, access to collective bargaining processes and freedom of association of the workforce, condition of employment exceeding legal minimum requirements, adequate occupational health and safety conditions, and sufficient facilities for the workforce to manage the Fairtrade Premium. Workers have the right to join an independent union to collectively negotiate their working conditions, which should be equitable for all workers. Salaries must be equal to or higher than the regional average or the minimum wage (FLO 2014). Economic development is reflected in the practice that provides the requirement to pay a Fairtrade Minimum Price and/or a Fairtrade Premium to the producers for all purchased products. The Fairtrade Minimum Price aims to help producers cover the costs of sustainable production. The Fairtrade Premium is an extra payment for the producers or for the workers on a plantation which gives them the possibility to make investments to improve the standard of living of workers, farmers, and local community members. The farmers or workers decide on the most important priorities for themselves and manage the use of the Fairtrade Premium. The Fairtrade Premium Committee, which gathers workers, is responsible for the management of the Fairtrade Premium in accordance with Fairtrade standards (FLOa). Fairtrade has also developed a climate change strategy to secure the sustainable livelihoods of producers by developing projects that enhance their resilience to climate change. As written in the FLO document, as part of the climate change strategy, Fairtrade International developed the Fairtrade Climate Standard to support smallholders and rural communities in becoming more resilient to the effects of climate change. The focus areas are minimized and safe use of agrochemicals, proper and safe management of

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

waste, maintenance of soil fertility and water resources, and no use of genetically modified organisms (FLO 2015b).

Fair Trade Standards and SDG On 1 January 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015) adopted by world leaders in September 2015 officially came into force. Based on the Agenda, countries will mobilize efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequality, and tackle climate change to ensure that no one is left behind. The global indicator framework was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEGSDGs) and adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 (UN 2017). The list includes 232 indicators on which general agreement has been reached (UN 2017). The WFTO prescribes 10 Principles (WFTO 2013) that fair trade organizations must follow in their daily work and carries out monitoring to ensure these principles are being executed. In many aspects, these ten principles correspond with SDG, including Goal 1, end poverty in all its forms everywhere; Goal 2, end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture; Goal 5, achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; Goal 8, promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all; Goal 12, ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; Goal 13, take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; Goal 16, promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels; and Goal 17, strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Goals 1 and 2 In the introduction to the Charter (2009), we can find that “fair trade is, fundamentally, a response to the failure of conventional trade to deliver

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

sustainable livelihoods and development opportunities to people in the poorest countries of the world; this is evidenced by the two billion of our fellow citizens who, despite working extremely hard, survive on less than $2 per day.” According to the WFTO’s first principle, “Creating Opportunities for Economically Disadvantaged Producers,” poverty reduction through trade forms is a key part of the organization’s aims. The organization supports “marginalised small producers, whether these are independent family businesses, or grouped in associations or co-operatives.” It also seeks to enable them to “move from income insecurity and poverty to economic selfsufficiency and ownership” (WFTO 2013), which closely correspond with Goal 1. The second goal is to end hunger and ensure all people, particularly the poor and people in vulnerable situations, have access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food by 2030. The 2.3 indicator says that there should be double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists, and fishermen, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets, and opportunities for value addition and nonfarm employment, by 2030. It corresponds with the action that is taken by the fair trade organizations which work with small producer organizations to ensure food security by minimalizing the effect of price volatility and ensuring a stable income (FLO 2017b) and to enable people to secure investments in their farms and businesses and ensure longterm food security for their families as foreseen in Goal 2 (FLO 2016b). Goal 5 The aim of the Goal 5 is to end all forms of discrimination against women and girls everywhere. Research shows 60–80% of global food is produced by women (FLO 2016b). According to Principle Six, “Commitment to Non Discrimination, Gender Equity and Women’s Economic Empowerment, and Freedom of Association,” the fair trade organization must not discriminate in hiring, remuneration, access to training, promotion,

685

termination, or retirement. Each organization has a clear policy and plan to promote gender equality that ensures that women as well as men can gain access to the resources that they need to be productive and the ability to influence the wider policy, regulatory, and institutional environment that shapes their livelihoods and lives. Organizational constitutions allow and enable women to become active members of the organization (where it is a membership-based organization) and to take up leadership positions in the governance structure regardless of women’s status in relation to ownership of assets such as land and property. If women are employed within the organization, even if it is an informal employment situation, they receive equal pay for equal work (WFTO 2013). According to FLO (2016b), fair trade has lifted 350,000 women farmer and workers out of poverty. Goal 8 Goal 8 concentrates on the promotion of sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. It directly corresponds with Principles Five, Six (that was mentioned above), and Seven that are specified in the Fair Trade Standard for Hired Labour (FLO 2014). Indicator 8.7 focuses on taking effective measures to eradicate forced labor, end modern slavery and human trafficking, and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labor by 2025. Principle Five, “Ensuring no Child Labour and Forced Labour,” refers, for instance, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and says that the organization ensures that there is no forced labor in its workforce and/or members or homeworkers. There are also requirements for organizations who buy fair trade products which obligate them to ensure that no forced labor is used in production. In addition, according to Principle Seven, “Ensuring Good Working Conditions,” the fair trade organization must provide a safe and healthy working environment for employees and/or members, and working hours and conditions for employees (and any homeworkers) should comply with conditions established by national and local laws and ILO conventions (WFTO 2013 and FLO 2014).

F

686

Goals 12 and 13 According to Principle Ten, “Respect for the Environment Organisations,” which is elaborated on in Fairtrade Climate Standards (FLO 2015a), fair trade products maximize the use of raw materials from sustainably managed sources in their ranges. They use production technologies that seek to reduce energy consumption and where possible use renewable energy technologies that minimize greenhouse gas emissions. They seek to minimize the impact of their waste stream on the environment. Buyers and importers of fair trade products buy products made from raw materials that originate from sustainably managed sources and have the least overall impact on the environment. All organizations use recycled or easily biodegradable materials for packing to the greatest possible extent, and goods are dispatched by sea wherever possible which links with Goal 13 (WFTO 2013 and FLO 2015a). Fair trade organizations work also with societies, organize public campaigns to disseminate information about more sustainable production and consumption in trade (Goal 12), and provide a clear proposition to empower consumers to choose sustainable products. Today there are, for example, over 1700 Fair Trade Towns – communities that work to promote fair trade in their area – in 27 countries (FLO 2016b). Goals 16 and 17 Fair trade organizations also work to improve international trading partnerships and to have those partnerships based on dialogue, transparency, and greater equity (which are parallel to goals 16 and 17). According to Principle Nine, “Promoting Fair Trade,” the organization raises awareness of the aim of fair trade and of the need for greater justice in world trade. It advocates for the objectives and activities of fair trade according to the scope of the organization. Additionally, honest advertising and marketing techniques are always used (WFTO 2013). Very important in this context seems to be Principle Three, “Fair Trading Practices,” which ensures that the organization trades with concern for the social, economic, and environmental well-being of marginalized small producers and does not

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

maximize profit at their expense. Suppliers respect contracts and deliver products on time and to the desired quality and specifications. The local fair trade organization works cooperatively with the other fair trade organizations in the country to avoid unfair competition. It all helps to build and maintain long-term relationships based on solidarity, trust, and mutual respect that contribute to the promotion and growth of fair trade. Fair trade initiatives also recognize, promote, and protect the cultural identity of traditional skills of small producers, which are reflected in their craft designs, food products, and other related services (WFTO 2013). In the context of Goal 17, fair trade directly or indirectly supports research and advocacy to ensure policy coherence that is pro-poor, strengthen farmer and worker organization, and empower them to become full participants in the SDG Agenda (FLO 2016b). By catalyzing actors in the supply chain, fair trade initiatives provide changes across communities and sectors and at policy level. As underlined by FLO (2016b) during the most recent reporting period, producer organizations have recorded €944 million in Fairtrade sales, and Fairtrade buyers have invested an additional €95 million in Premiums which are being invested in their farmers businesses, workplaces, and communities.

Conclusion In conclusion, fair trade organizations support SDG by protecting the environment, raising living standards to ensure Fairtrade farmers and workers are less vulnerable to price volatility, reducing risk, and improving income and food security. It also improves productivity and quality and reinforces businesses by promoting democracy, strengthening of leadership and relationships, and building different markets. By using the Fairtrade Premium, fair trade positively affects the standard of living of the communities – by funding education and healthcare projects, access to water, road building, and other local

Fair Trade and Sustainable Development

investments. All of the examples show that there are huge correlations between fair trade and sustainable development, and it can play an important role in the implementation of SDGs. The only weakness of fair trade is that its influence on global trade and the living conditions of poor communities remains limited.

References Boda Z (2001) Conflicting principles of fair trade, vol 3. Business Ethics Center, Budapest University of Economic Sciences, Budapest Boto I, La Peccerella C (2008) Does fair trade contribute to sustainable development? Resources on fair trade, Brussels rural development briefings a series of meetings on ACP-EU development issues. https://brusselsbriefings. files.wordpress.com/2012/10/br-5-reader-br-5-fair-tradeeng.pdf Charter (2009) A charter of fair trade principles. FLO, WFTO. https://www.wfto.com/sites/default/files/Charterof-Fair-Trade-Principles-Final%20(EN).PDF Dernbach JC (2003) Achieving sustainable development: the centrality and multiple facets of integrated decisionmaking. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud:247–285 Fisher E (2009) Introduction: the policy trajectory of fair trade. J Int Dev 21(7) FLO (2011) Fairtrade standard for small producer organizations. Fairtrade International, 01.05.2011_v1.4. https:// www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/ standards/documents/generic-standards/SPO_EN.pdf FLO (2014) Fairtrade Standard for Hired Labour. Fairtrade International, 15.01.2014_v1.3. https://www.fairtrade. net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/doc uments/HL_EN.pdf FLO (2015a) Annual report 2014–2016, global change, local leadership. Fairtrade International. https:// annualreport14-15.fairtrade.net/en/ FLO (2015b) Fairtrade climate standard. Fairtrade International, 01.10. 2015 v1.0. https://www.fairtrade.net/ fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/docume nts/Climate_Standard_EN.pdf FLO (2016a) Annual report 2015–2016, driving sales, deepening impact. Fairtrade International. https:// annualreport15-16.fairtrade.net/en/ FLO (2016b) Sustainable development goals and Fairtrade: the case for partnership, Report. Fairtrade International. https://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/ 2009/resources/15-10_Sustainable_Development_Repor t.pdf FLO (2017a) Annual report 2016–2017, creating innovations, scaling up impact. Fairtrade International. https:// annualreport16-17.fairtrade.net/en/ FLO (2017b) Fairtrade minimum price and fairtrade premium table. Fairtrade International. https://www.

687 fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/stan dards/documents/Fairtrade_Minimum_Price_and_Pre mium_Table_EN_PUBLIC.pdf FLO and WFTO (2011) Fair trade glossary, a joint publication of the world fair trade organization. Fairtrade International and FLO-CERT. https://www.fairtrade.net/ fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/about_fairtrade/ 2011-06-28_fair-trade-glossary_WFTO-FLO-FLOC ERT.pdf FLOa. Aims of fairtrade standards. Fairtrade International. https://www.fairtrade.net/standards/aims-of-fairtrade-stan dards.html FLOb. Certificating fairtrade. Fairtrade International. https://www.fairtrade.net/about-fairtrade/certifyingfairtrade.html FLOCERT. https://www.flocert.net/about-flocert/ Granville B, Dine J (2013) The processes and practices of fair trade: trust. Ethics and Governance, London/New York Miller D (2014) Symposium on fair trade: introduction. Moral Philos Politics 1(2):171–175 Smith S, Barrientos S (2005) Fair trade and ethical trade: are there moves towards convergence? Sustain Dev 13(3):190–198 Stoddart H (2011) A pocket guide to sustainable development governance. Commonwealth Secretariat: Stakeholder Forum Suranovic S (2000) A positive analysis of fairness with applications to international trade. World Econ 23(3):283–308 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 Nov 1989 United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. United Nations General Assembly, Development and International Co-operation: Environment, Oslo United Nations General Assembly (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, A/RES/70/1 United Nations General Assembly (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, work of the statistical commission pertaining to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, A/RES/71/313 WFTO (2013) 10 principles of fair trade. World Fair Trade Organization. https://www.wfto.com/sites/default/files/ 10-FAIR-TRADE-PRINCIPLES-2013-(Rio-AGM-andEGM-2013-approved-modifications).pdf WFTO (2015) 60 years of fair trade: a brief history of the fair trade movement. World Fair Trade Organization. https:// wfto.com/about-us/history-wfto/history-fair-trade WFTO (FAQ). World Fair Trade Organization. https:// www.wfto.com/faq WFTOa. Who we are. World Fair Trade Organization. https://www.wfto.com/about-us/who-we-are WFTOb. Charter of fair trade principles. World Fair Trade Organization. https://wfto.com/fair-trade/charter-fairtrade-principles

F

688

Feedback Procedures

Feedback Procedures ▶ Feedback Development

Procedures

on

Sustainable

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development Daniella Suger Bedorin Researcher at the Institute of Sustainable Development, Galileo University, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Synonyms Feedback procedures; Sustainable development

Definitions Feedback procedures: methodologies for evaluating the output of something. Sustainable development: development that promotes economic and social development with environmental wellbeing. Feedback procedures on sustainable development: methods of measuring, evaluating and monitoring strategies, actions, methodologies, practices, processess, etc. implemented for sustainable development.

Introduction Feedback can be associated to many different types of disciplines and areas of life; it can be found in human behavior and in nature. All feedback procedures, disregarding their origin, consist on ways to measure or determine how things are in order to improve them or to compare them to how they should be and on that basis activate an immediate response or course of action. Sustainable development is a concept developed mainly since the end of the 1980s, which promotes the

integration of the economic, social and environmental aspects of human life. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development defines 17 goals, each with specific targets, with the objective of guiding countries towards national sustainable development and the ensuing global sustainable development. Feedback plays a crucial role in sustainable development; a concept that due to its human and natural components which are under constant change is not a fixed state but rather an evolutionary process that requires constant improvement. Feedback procedures for sustainable development are important in order to evaluate the current situation, analyze the causes or impacts and based on that, devise a course of action. All society sectors and stakeholder play a crucial role in achieving sustainable development and higher education institutions are one of them. Universities can provide, through research and other academic activities, information and assessments needed to evaluate the status of sustainable development and thus contribute to the feedback procedures for sustainable development.

The Feedback Concept, Introduction and Implications Feedback is the information return related to an output or performance (Murrell 1973). There are many different types of feedback associated to many different types of disciplines and areas of life. In terms of human behavior, feedback is used to help maintain or improve a performance. This is why it has been widely used as a management strategy in organizational and industrial settings (Ford 1980). In education, feedback applies to both students and teachers; when it is provided by the teacher to the student it helps the student fortify and better focus efforts made towards learning, vice versa, when the student provides feedback to the teacher it helps the teacher discover and implement new methods of teaching that will aid the student during the learning process (Burksaitiene 2011). Within the field of biology, feedback plays a key role in regulating body functions; in the

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development

concept of feedback inhibition, when levels of a variable that is monitored have a positive change, a response is triggered that counteracts this change. In the body, for example, this type of process helps control blood pressure; when blood pressure increases the signal to decrease heart rate and to begin vasodilation is sent, while if blood pressure decreases, the signal that is sent indicates the body to increase heart rate and begin vasoconstriction action. There is also the concept of positive feedback, where a change in the variable triggers a response that causes the variable to move in the same direction (Caprette 1996). Feedback processes are also found in the natural environment, one example of this are climate feedbacks; which are “processes in the climate system that can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an external perturbation” (Bony, y otros 2006). According to Hoagland and Dodson (1995): Feedback is a central feature of life processes. All organisms share this ability to sense how they’re doing and make changes when necessary. The process of feedback governs how we grow, respond to stress and challenge, and regulate factors such as body temperature, blood pressure and cholesterol level. The mechanisms operate at every level – from the interaction of proteins in cells to the interaction of organisms in complex ecologies. (pág. 209)

The concept of feedback, as previously displayed, has appeared in psychology, education and science, however it can also be found in engineering, specifically in information systems. Dynamical systems are those whose behavior changes over time, most often as a response to external stimulation or forcing. In this sense, feedback refers to a situation where two or more systems are connected in such a way that they influence each other and their dynamics are strongly linked. The way the systems interact with one another will determine whether they are open or closed loop systems. Systems are said to be part of a closed loop system if they are interconnected in a cycle. On the contrary the systems are said to be in an open loop system, when they influence the other without the cycle closing itself (Aström and Murray 2009).

689

Classification of Feedback As can be observed thus far, there are different concepts of feedback; nevertheless, upon further contemplation they all possess similar elements. They all have a way to measure or determine how things are in order to improve them or to compare them to how they should be and on that basis issue an immediate response or course of action. The different types of feedback described above may be classified into two general categories: one where humans consciously give or receive feedback and choose to act or not to act according to the information received and the other where feedback is created as the result of a change and the response to this information is natural. According to Ford (1980), the former may be classified into the following categories based on the type of feedback procedures: – Individual Feedback – Group Feedback: Feedback is defined as a return of information concerning behavior. This can range from feedback delivered to a single person regarding an independent performance; to feedback on a collective output of a large group of people. – Private Feedback – Public Feedback: This concerns the degree of availability of feedback to others. Feedback regarding a performance of an individual or a group may be private, provided only to a person or selected group of people or it can be publicly available. – Personal Feedback – Mechanical Feedback: The boundaries of this dimension depend on whether feedback is provided by a person, by a device or by a combination of both. – Immediate Feedback – Delayed Feedback: This category depends on when the feedback is provided; it may be provided immediately after a performance or it may be delayed for a specific amount of time. – Schedule of Feedback: This dimension refers to when feedback is to be delivered and may vary from less than a minute to over a year. Feedback and feedback procedures are essential to life as we know it, whether they may have natural or social origins. The natural ones we have

F

690

little control over, however human or social feedback procedures we can understand, control and employ towards creating a better social planetary dynamic. Feedback plays an especially important role in sustainable development, because it concerns both humans and nature and their interaction. Before exploring the role of feedback procedures on sustainable development, it is first necessary to review some of the concepts of the latter.

Overview of Key Sustainable Development Concepts At the beginning of the appearance of this new concept, and for many years, the definition of sustainable development that was most frequently quoted was that expressed by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), known more commonly as the Brundtland Commission on honor of the Chair of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland. This Commission develops – in their report titled Our Common Future – the following definition of sustainable development (Sachs 2015):“Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN WCED 1987); although in this report analysis of economic development linked to environmental sustainability is carried out, it is most commonly known for the intergenerational nature of its approach. This “intergenerational” concept of development was widely accepted, even at the 1992 Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro. However, over time the definition of sustainable development has evolved to be known more as a more practical approach, where the emphasis was less on the intergenerational needs and more on the holistic approach linking economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. The implementation plan of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg had the goal of “promoting the integration of the three components of sustainable development – economic development, social development and

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development

environmental protection – as independent and mutually reinforcing pillars” (United Nations 2002). The concept of intergenerational justice still remains, however it now places second after that which emphasizes a holistic approach and includes economic, social and environmental objectives (Sachs 2015). This tripartite definition of sustainable development was again emphasized on the twentieth anniversary of the Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro. In the final document of the Rio + 20 Summit (The future we want), the goal of sustainable development was described as follows (General Assembly of the United Nations 2012): We recognize that poverty eradication, changing unsustainable and promoting sustainable patterns of consumption and production and protection and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are the overarching objectives of and essential requirements for sustainable development. We also reaffirm the need to achieve sustainable development by promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting the integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports, inter alia, economic, social and human development while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration and restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges. (pág. 1)

On September 2015, at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, over 150 world leaders gathered in New York to adopt a new and ambitious sustainable development agenda, the 2030 Agenda. This new agenda includes the new 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be fulfilled by the year 2030. These substitute the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expired in 2015. Besides listing the SDGs, the agenda explains the means of implementation, the indicators to measure progress and the revision mechanisms as well. The SDGs cover a wide range of important political matters, from the eradication of poverty to healthcare and education policies, environmental protection as well as the maintenance of peace (Abshagen 2016). The holistic approach described earlier can be observed in the Agenda; “the Agenda is an action

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development

plan in favor of the people, the planet and prosperity” (United Nations 2015). The agenda seeks to take care of people through the eradication of poverty and hunger, and ensure that humans can reach their potential with dignity and equality in a healthy environment. It seeks to protect the planet from degradation and take urgent measures to face climate change. The Agenda establishes that ensuring that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and full lives, and that economic, social and technological progress happens in harmony with nature must be prioritized. The Agenda seeks to promote peaceful, just and violence-free societies. In order to fulfill what the agenda proposes, partnerships for Sustainable Development are encouraged (United Nations 2015). The SDGs are contained within the Agenda 2030. According to its text, “the SDGs and targets are integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally applicable, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities” (United Nations 2015, pág. 13). Although the goals are global in nature, each government sets its own national goals taking into consideration the circumstances of their country. They shall be responsible for seeking the manner in which said aspirations and global goals apply to national planning, policy and strategy processes. The agenda makes a call for the collection of reference data regarding the different goals and targets that are proposed. The SDGs and targets offer a guide for achieving sustainable development since they cover most, if not all, the various economic, social and environmental aspects that are key for this type of development. Therefore, they shall be considered as the main orientation when feedback procedures on sustainable development are analyzed.

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development The current global scene presents a highly globalized and interconnected world where various political, economic, social, cultural and technological aspects are shared; a wide variety of highly

691

complex and interconnected problems can also be included within this category of commonalities. Sustainable development as a planetary goal can be a useful tool to achieving feasible and sustainable solutions to these problems. World sustainable development can be considered as the whole, where each one of the countries comprises one part of that whole; therefore, it is important that each part achieve it in order to reach the universal goal. Assessing it is necessary at a national level, as this allows each country to offer the feedback necessary to determine the status of the collective goal and respond accordingly based on the information. Strategies, based on national and international policies and instruments are put in place. Then they go through an evaluation phase in order to gather the necessary feedback to determine their effectiveness. Once the information is gathered and they are analyzed, the strategies are revised in order to identify improvement opportunities and then the cycle begins again. This process is highly complex because there are many systems that interact with one another, influencing each other. It is important to note that sustainable development is not static . . . it is based on a cycle of continual improvement. Analysis, evaluation and knowledge generation are all key aspects of sustainable development as they offer feedback on the strategies that are implemented for the achievement of this ultimate goal; they can therefore be considered feedback procedures on sustainable development. A more profound examination of these procedures is necessary in order to further comprehend the role they play in the sustainable development cycle. Analysis is important as it includes not only identifying and applying relevant existing knowledge to the challenges of sustainable development but also identifying the gaps in knowledge and fill them through research. Analysis is used to move transformational efforts towards sustainable development. It is important to fully understand the local context from the different perspectives: economic, social and environmental, and also the way they are interconnected and interact with one another. Owing to this it is evident that a large number of interacting factors need to be

F

692

considered and done so in a manner that involves various groups so as to obtain multiple perspectives. It is important to combine methods that consist of the assessment of the status of various sustainability issues with those that offer the necessary feedback to anticipate change and assess optional scenarios. Some of the types of outputs that are to be expected are data, findings (correlation of key factors), conclusions (identification of causal links), recommendations, and design (DalalClayton and Bass 2002). Information is vital in determining the status of sustainable development, identifying the main strengths and weaknesses of society and the priority issues that need to be addressed. It equips decision-makers with a wide overview of the national situation allowing them to focus priorities without losing sight of other important components. Information is also the basis for evaluation, follow-up and review procedures which are elemental in the achievement of sustainability. The three main approaches to measuring and analyzing sustainability are accounts, narrative assessments and indicator-based assessments (DalalClayton and Bass 2002): – Accounts: constructions of raw data that are converted to a common unit. They cover important aspects of sustainability that are often small. “The most comprehensive accounts sum many aspects of the economy, society and the environment in a single statement” (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002, pág. 133). Some of the limitations to the type of feedback produced by this approach are: costbenefit analysis have no real market value; extrapolations may distort results; assumptions, judgements and omissions are difficult to detect; and it is highly technical and leaves little room for stakeholder engagement (DalalClayton and Bass 2002). – Narrative assessments: combine text, maps, graphics and tabular data; not organized around indicators but sometimes use them, however these can change over time. They have good potential for participation due to capacity to be tailored. Some of the limitations of this type of feedback procedure is that

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development

there is unsystematic choice of topics, and the way they are covered may change between periods. This does not allow for the identification of tendencies (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002). – Indicator-based assessments: are organized around indicators which are chosen systemically, they may include text, maps, graphics and tabular data. These assessments are comprehensive, yet selective. These are more transparent and more consistent from one time period to the next than the two feedback procedures described above. Enable priority matters regarding performance to be identified clearly, thus they are useful for decision-making (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002). As can be observed in the descriptions above, they differ in their potential for: transparency, participation (the more technical, the less participation), consistency over time and usefulness in decision-making and offer different types of feedback (raw data, texts, maps, graphics). Finding a single indicator for sustainable development is elusive, this problem has been overcome with the creation of indices which combine different indicators. Assessments that do not generate indices are very hard to interpret. Indices provide a better overview of the entire system and reveal relationships between subsystems and their different components. This aids in the process of analysis and systematizes the feedback generated assuring that no information is lost because the indicators that make up the indices are there to be referenced when necessary (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002). It is important that stakeholders are considered as an important part of feedback processes. The SDGs have an inclusive nature, therefore all stakeholders: public sector, international and regional organizations, civil society, academy and private sector must play a role, one of which involves creating or participating in the feedback procedures that will enable the country to produce the outputs necessary for the evaluation and follow-up of national sustainable development which is a crucial part for the

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development

achievement of this goal (Kindomay and Twigg 2015). Making stakeholders part of all feedback procedures is also key because this ensures that the knowledge collected is representative and inclusive of the population; sustainable development cannot be achieved if only one sector of society incorporates sustainability, it must be done as a whole. In order to ensure the success of any endeavor towards sustainable development, it is important to consider all relevant stakeholders, their roles and interests, so as to take them into consideration into any strategy that be implemented based on the feedback obtained. The concept of feedback, as considered previously, stated that all feedback procedures consisted of two parts: first determining the state of affairs as they are and on that basis issue a response. Assessments of sustainable development provide the feedback necessary to engage in the succeeding stage of the feedback process for sustainable development, which would be evaluation. “A core element of evaluations is the assessment of adequacy and progress relative to a set of objectives or criteria” (Langer and Schön 2002, pág. 4). The information generated must be compared to the “ideal” or to the goal that is to be achieved. The SDGs and their targets play a crucial role in this regard, they provide countries with a general framework of reference – adapted nationally based on local policies, instruments and conditions – for the comparison of the “real” data with the “theoretical” one. If there are negative discrepancies among these values it is necessary to determine the causes and then to take corrective action; if the outcome of the comparison is positive, it is important to determine what caused this performance in order to reinforce it. Feedback procedures are cycles, they are part of a continuous approach to sustainable development. Monitoring and evaluation play a key role in decision-making processes: they provide the initial feedback for the ensuing evaluation, after a course of action is determined and implemented, monitoring allows to determine whether the actions undertaken have been effective and the cycle begins again.

693

Feedback Procedures on Sustainable Development and Higher Education The different sectors of society or stakeholders – as well as the ways they interact with one another – have an important role in sustainable development. Universities play a crucial role in society as they provide many goods and services. They offer educational programs that are designed to prepare the professionals of the future. Nonetheless, their functions go beyond education; universities carry out research that analyzes different social, economic and environmental aspects of our world and how they are interconnected. The concept of social responsibility is most commonly associated with large corporations, however in recent years this concept has been expanded in order to include universities as well in what is known as Academic Social Responsibility. This requires universities to go beyond their classic duties of education and research, and focus on the role they can and should play in society. Higher education institutions, has or can have a great impact on sustainable development. They can offer integral education programs that help prepare professionals to be able to work, from their different fields, towards sustainable development. Through having sustainable campuses they can reduce the negative environmental impact and increase positive social and economic impacts that university operations can have; and universities can contribute valuable information on sustainable development through research. Information and measuring sustainable development progress is a key part of feedback procedures to achieve this type of global growth. Universities, through research or other types of programs – including working in partnership with other society sectors – can develop the assessments necessary to determine the status of sustainable development.

Feedback Procedures in Higher Education Sustainability Strategies Many higher education institutions have developed sustainability plans, policies and/or strategies in order to transition towards a sustainable campus. This practice is highly helpful not only to

F

694

Financial Management for Sustainability in Higher Education

the internal university community, but also to a broader audience. These plans, policies and strategies that are being implemented in campuses around the world, generate a large amount of information, knowledge and experience that can later be scaled up in order to be applied at a local or even national level. It is important that these plans take into consideration feedback procedures as they will be key in measuring and determining the progress made by the actions established in the plan. These procedures will allow those who are implementing the strategy to determine whether the current course of action has been fruitful or whether it will be necessary to take corrective action in order to achieve the desired result. It is important to take into consideration feedback procedures when designing the campus sustainability instrument (plan, policy and/or strategy). Having these procedures thought out before the implementation phase is useful as they will help in process of monitoring these actions. At Galileo University, we designed an environmental policy and its strategic plan in order to address key environmental aspects within campus. The plan was designed in such a way that it includes indicators and means of verification, which serve as feedback procedures that aid in measuring and monitoring made in the actions that are set out by the plan.

References Abshagen M-L (2016) The plan for a better world: the G20 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from Henrich Böll Stiftung. https://www. boell.de/en/2016/11/30/plan-better-world-g20-and-2030agenda-sustainable-development Aström KJ, Murray R (2009) Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Princeton University Press, Princeton Bony S, Colman R, Kattscov V, Allan R, Bretherton C, Dufresne J-L et al (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes. J Clim 19:3445–3482 Burksaitiene N (2011) Promoting student learning through feedback in higher education. In: Societal studies, University of Wroclaw, pp 33–46 Caprette, D (1996) Feedback Inhibition. Retrieved from Experimental Biosciences: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/ ~bioslabs/studies/invertebrates/feedback.html

Dalal-Clayton B, Bass S (2002) Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. Paris and United Nations Development Programme, New York Ford JE (1980) Classification System for Feedback Procedures. J Organ Behav Manag 2:181–191 General Assembly of the United Nations (2012) Outcome document of the United Nations conference on sustainable development. In: The future we want. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro Hoagland M, Dodson B (1995) The way life works. Random House, New York Kindomay S, Twigg S (2015) ODI. Retrieved from establishing a workable follow-up and review process for the sustainable development goals: https://www. odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-op inion-files/9588.pdf Langer M, Schön A (2002) evaluation of sustainable development: an integrated referntial framework for sustainable development. WU-Jahrestagung, Vienna, pp 5–7 Murrell S (1973) Community psychology and social system. Behavioral Publications, New York Sachs JD (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press, New York UN WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development. In: Our common future. United Nations, New York United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Jogannesburg, 26 Aug–4 Sept 2002. United Nations, New York United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. In: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Naciones Unidas, Nueva York

Financial Management for Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Budgeting for Sustainability in Higher Education

Folklore ▶ Storytelling for Sustainable Development

Frameworks ▶ Dimensions Education

of

Sustainability

in

Higher

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development Phyllis Margaret Araneo Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

Definition Future trends in sustainable development can be defined as the trajectory of student and stakeholder initiative and involvement as related to drivers.

695

“Key Drivers and Barriers of Future Trends” focus shifts to discussion of key HE and societal drivers and present possible futures trends. Section “Conclusions for SD Futures” is the final section. Wordle™ is used to create word clouds that help the reader “see” repeating trends. However, repetition of the “trans” prefix is not represented proportionately in the word clouds. The powerful prefix appears in each section, establishing a common characteristic of SD future trends – which is – extending across, through, and beyond current boundaries and contexts.

SD Stakeholders Introduction: SD in HE Since Rachel Carson’s seminal publication, Silent Spring, there has been mounting interest and debate surrounding humanity’s role as conservator/steward of the natural environment. Escalating scientific evidence, rising negative personal environmental experiences, progressive increase in citizen consumer environmental consciousness, and international political attention to environmental issues have resulted in worldwide concern. Hence, SD/ESD have gained acceptance, import, and momentum in HEI. Many factors affect this morphing field, including the multi-intercross-pluri and transdisciplinary nature of ESD, skills sets of stakeholders, stakeholders’ internal/external motivational domains, ability of curricula and pedagogy to instill positive futures possibilities, curricula content, pedagogic approach, as well as administration, political, and community cooperation, commitment, and involvement. Factors can become challenges that make or break opportunities for successful SD, the outcome of which inevitably involves environmentally responsible behavior (ERB). Within this chapter, section “SD Stakeholders” is first discussed, followed by current trends grounded in the here and now. Trends are sectioned as Curriculum, sections “Curricula,” “Pedagogy,” and “PD”. Section

From the contrast of what is wanted and unwanted, desire grows. This is true as the field of SD stakeholders expands through time and the desire for ERB grows. Bearing witness to landscape descension toward ecological degradation, stakeholders find their sense of self as custodian of nature ascending. A hopeful approach is the belief that Sustainable Futures (SF) follow the intention to produce them. SD stakeholders include the United Nations (UN), university learners, teachers, curriculum designers, administrators, management, maintenance and facilities personnel, as well as the wider community, including policymakers and the entire transactional business world. Leal Filho (2015) acknowledges SD needs to involve a range of stakeholders at different levels across all UN regions (Fig. 1). Scholars note HEI have a uniquely positioned role and responsibility toward ESD (Sedlacek 2013; Karatzoglou 2013; Thomas 2004). Jucker cites three fundamental reasons: 1. Universities produce a minority of people who create/maintain power structures over the majority. 2. Academics serve as role models, creating/ maintaining standards for society’s political, economic, and social institutions that in theory underpin and drive technological direction,

F

696

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Word cloud created by the author using stakeholder text

media, capitalist economy, education, and research. 3. Universities are afforded a privileged status by society (2002). Universities provide opportunities for ESD through incorporating a cross-curricular, multidisciplinary approach to education. As institutions on the forefront of social change, many are embedding ESD in existing degree program curricula, developing centralized sustainability science programs and/or offering ESD as individual courses or subjects (Barlett and Eisen 2002; Chase and Rowland 2004; Wiek et al. 2011; Elmhurst and Grady 2017). Action models of SD are represented at universities through green campus initiatives (Ribeiro et al. 2017) involving all members of university communities. Leal Filho et al. (2018: 88) asserts the trend of “campus greening has become mainstream.” Ensuring SD goals are met regarding a multistakeholder initiative (MSI), Fowler and Biekart highlight the importance of an SD interlocutor who combines “skills and practices associated with facilitation, convening, communications and brokering” (2017: 82) SD goals. Interlocutors aim to “reach a relational condition where multiple stakeholders are prepared to accept suboptimal solutions for themselves when set against optimising collective action for addressing a shared social dilemma” (2017: 85). They name

an MSI to address complex Science, Technology and Society (STS) issues seeking sustainable solutions trending forward, as more complex operating systems can exist. Elmhurst and Grady agree with the idea of an interlocutor, explaining “future sustainability professionals will need to. . .navigate across disciplines, engage and communicate with various types of stakeholders, and contextualize their work within various constraints” (2017: 71). Like an interlocutor, they call for sustainability experts who will provide leadership and guidance in weaving environmental concepts into existing curricula. Similarly, Kumar (2017) suggests SD ombudspersons to ensure future generational equity. SD stakeholders extend beyond campus boundaries as well. Small businesses, large multinational corporations, and publicly traded companies realize they need to incorporate ESD into their business model to remain relevant to modern consumers (Baumgartner and Winter 2014). López-Pérez et al. (2017) agree with Doh and Tashman (2014) asserting, “firms of all shapes and sizes have come to realize that society is increasingly demanding, and seek to legitimize their activities through transparency and promoting sustainability and social responsibility. . .HEI. . .cannot afford to remain aloof to this fact” (2017: 436). Beyond campus and business, the influence of ESD stakeholders extends further yet into religion, where Gangmei argues for an ecological theology or ecotheology:

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

“a form of constructive theology that focuses on the interrelationships of religion and nature, particularly in the light of environmental concerns” (López-Pérez et al. 2017: 73). Gangmei proclaims, as “Christian Stewards. . .the change that is most needed is of sensitivity and intention” (2017: 74). Moving forward, environmental education (EE) has taken a back seat to ESD as policymakers also recognize the triple bottom line (TBL), meaning to protect the environment, the conversation and action must also include society and economics (Leal Filho 2015). Indeed, looking to the future SD and ERB inevitably involve all citizens as stakeholders. The following section outlines ESD trends in HEI with subsections of curriculum, pedagogy, PD, and key drivers and barriers.

ESD Trends ESD presents a vision of education seeking to empower people to assume responsibility for creating SF regardless of their chosen field of study (UNESCO 2002). Due to ESD’s multidisciplinary

697

nature, terms representing specific courses and/or programs vary based on discipline. For instance, environmental management, corporate governance, business ethics (Matten and Moon 2004), and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Wood 1991) stem from business, whereas Scientific and Technical Literacy (STL) (Tan 2004) originates in the hard sciences. Because this chapter aims to identify future trends in SD, mapping the momentum of ESD’s history aids in establishing a trajectory toward futures. A variety of terms and labels used to describe ESD throughout the past decades are found in Table 1. Leal Filho (2015) notes the morphing titles signify the widening scope of the field. ESD is often defined as merging three strands of education: environment, society, and economics (Darner 2009). This is reflected in TBL, the first of five guiding ESD principles (UNESCO 2005) which kicked off the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), when many HE ESD courses were initiated. The principles, along with the more recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aid incorporation of SD into all HEI dimensions (Sylvestre et al. 2013).

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Table 1 Overview of ESD-related terms/acronyms presented in somewhat chronological order. The author does not claim this to be all-inclusive EL CSR EL EE STS STL STEL STS(E) EfSD or ESD EfS ESES SE TSL HESD ESD SHE ESE SE

Ecological literacy (Orr 1989, 1992; Balgopal and Wallace 2009) Corporate social responsibility (Wood 1991) Environmental literacy (Roth 1992; Moody et al. 2005) Environmental education (O’Donoghue and McNaught 1991; Lee and Williams 2001; Moore and Huber 2001; Secord and Greengrove 2002; Heimlich et al. 2004) Science, Technology and Society (Dori and Tal 2000; Aikenhead 2003; Tabak and Weinstock 2005; Vazquez-Alonso et al. 2005; Mack et al. 2008) Scientific and Technical Literacy (Tan 2004) Scientific, Technical and Environmental Literacy (Tan 2004) Science, Technology, Society (Ethics) (Blades 2006) Education for sustainable development (UNESCO 2005) Education for Sustainability (Sherren 2006, 2008) Earth Systems, Environment, and Society (Wuebbles et al. 2006) Sustainability education (Sherren 2007, 2008; Stevenson et al. 2017) Transformative sustainability learning (Sipos et al. 2007) Higher Education for Sustainable Development (Sherren 2008; Müller-Christ et al. 2014) Education for sustainable development (Ferreira et al. 2007; de la Harpe and Thomas 2009; Darner 2009) Sustainability in/and Higher Education (Waas et al. 2010; Sylvestre et al. 2013) Environment and sustainability education (Sund and Lysgaard 2013) Sustainability education

F

698

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Word cloud created by the author using curricula text

Curricula The literature identifies two commonly desired learning outcomes (LOs) of ESD curricula: 1. Intention or alignment to promote and enable critical thinking toward SF 2. Desired outcome of ERB realized in student cohort (Fig. 2) Enabling these outcomes in the ESD cohort is not an empirical science. Leal Filho states, “moves towards creating a SF require people to fully understand the complexity of the world we live, and appreciate the need for more sustainable ways of living” (2015: 11). Although much ESD curricula have roots in the hard sciences, content varies. Elmhurst and Grady acknowledge, “there is a consensus that Problem-and-Project-Based-Learning (PPBL) should play an integral part in sustainability curriculum” (2017: 69). Wiek et al. (2011, p. 213) outline core competencies of PPBL: • Systems thinking • Interpersonal skills: conflict resolution, leadership, communication • Strategic competencies: planning, organizational change management, decision making • Anticipatory competencies: ability to project consequences • Normative competencies: mission-focus, accountability Further to core competencies, López-Pérez et al. link ESD closely with CSR when developing

curricula competencies in business schools and universities. They feel it is necessary to focus on values/ethics and consider students’ personal evolution a key sustainability competency. López-Pérez et al. proclaim “the educational environment still has a long way to go” (2017: 443) and advocate for sustainability content in all curricula as a priority. A European project “Competencies for A Sustainable Socio-Economic development” (CASE), a participatory, inter- and transdisciplinary master’s program on sustainability-driven entrepreneurship, reports similar results (Cincera et al. 2018). The CASE team discovered not only students but leaders, teachers, researchers, practitioners, and curriculum designers must acquire ESD competencies, including diversity, openness, and democratic participation. Caniglia et al. report on a collaborative global classroom project utilizing a “glocal” (2018: 368) curriculum. The transnational teaching/learning environment involving Arizona State University and Leuphana University of Lüneburg claims to “empower students to contribute to social change across cultural and geographical contexts” (2018: 371). The project’s undergraduate curriculum focuses on urban sustainability with weekly collaboration and virtual meetings to design activities. Sustainability competencies of engaging, knowing, acting, and being were sought through subject learning (sustainability science; epistemological/historical), research learning (methodologies; inter-/transdisciplinary), collaborative learning (challenges/opportunities of teamwork), professional learning (practical

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

skills in real/virtual/intercultural environments), and personal learning (being the desired change through self-reflection and feedback). In their systemic literature review of 28 publications, Stevenson et al. (2017) investigate how and the extent sustainability education (SE) is embedded into teacher education curricula. A taxonomy of four approaches to embedding SE into curricula emerged: “(1) embedding SE widely across curriculum areas/courses/institution; (2) through a dedicated core/compulsory subject; (3) through a component of a core/compulsory subject; and (4) through a dedicated elective subject” (2017: 405). The research suggests this “is still an emerging area of curricular activity driven by individual academics” that enact “change within their own spheres of influence” (2017: 413). They note the earlier student teachers are made aware of SE, the better, multiple, and varied SE curricula across disciplines and year of study are valuable. Also working in teacher education, Shumba and Kampamba (2017) call for curricula that dynamically infuse socio-scientific issues with scientific principles and practice. Labeled “learning as connection” (2017: 191), research indicates their “science in context” (2017: 191) curricula are desirable among students. The authors sought to mainstream ESD perspectives; however, note “there was an evident preference to adhere strictly to the nomenclature of ‘pure’ science built on the belief in the delivery of purely technical sciences unadulterated by social issues and concerns” (2017: 193). Indeed, universities are criticized regarding discipline knowledge fragmentation and for promoting careers that work in silos (Vargas 2000; Owens 2001; Sherren 2008; Benyus 2007). Sherren acknowledges “silos are effective structures for hastening progress in the ‘raw materials’ on which applied and paradigmatically diffuse fields like environmental studies often depend” (Sherren 2008: 243). Sherren argues EE is instructive to the experience of interdisciplinarity in universities and notes challenges of integration begin with language. Further highlighting the division, Rinia et al. (2001) state environmental or social science papers often

699

reference the hard sciences; however, the source disciplines rarely reference the soft sciences in return. Lozano et al. (2013) claim industrialization overspecialization and disciplinary isolation have led to highly individualistic, greedy, and selfinterested behavior, citing this trend as responsible for our current sustainability issues. However, Shumba and Kampamba point out, “the mainstreaming of ESD does not necessarily need to involve diluting of subject matter. The notion of ‘pure’ science held in the teacher education setting was a real barrier to ESD learning as it represents strong framing” (2017: 14). Meanwhile, Benyus points out, biomimicry is a successful example of the call for disciplines to unite against unsustainable practice (2007). Similarly, Elmhurst and Grady (2017: 71) practice curriculum infusion. This is accomplished by meeting students where they are at, weaving important environmental concepts into existing coursework through targeted projects and experiential learning opportunities. Because ESD content can be challenging to incorporate into HEI curricula without guidelines, GarcíaGonzález et al. (2017) developed HAMS, a Spanish acronym for a methodological analysis tool designed to aid teacher self-reflection and analysis of the extent to which curricula include sustainability. Their system of categories gains complexity over time monitoring a gradual and thorough implementation of sustainability principles and practices. Evans et al. (2016) also recommend hands-on and experiential 1st year SD courses with small tutorials to increase ESD self-efficacy beliefs in preservice teachers. Their cohort reports an acceptance of sustainability issues when their awareness of the underlying science was understood. Noted topics include “contemporary sustainability issues related to human population growth and urbanization; water resource management; renewable/non-renewable energy resources; sustaining biodiversity; food security/sustainable agriculture; ozone depletion/global warming” (2016: 246). Experiential ESD is infiltrating fashion courses as researchers understand “millennials learn best when they are able to connect abstract

F

700

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Word cloud created by the author using pedagogy text

concepts with concrete examples, using experiential learning techniques” (Reef-Stout and Medvedev 2017: 83). Their students were exposed to a TBL Fashion and Sustainability educational exhibit, focused on the manufacturing stage (one of seven fashion life cycle stages). Reef-Stout and Medvedev (2017) report students’ understanding of socioenviro-issues in fashion manufacturing profoundly increased, including, for instance, the meaning of sweatshop. The researchers recommend similar experiential work with all fashion life cycle stages. It is clear that many scholars agree successful ESD curricula are at the nexus of the hard and soft sciences and are key to promoting ERB through an abundance of valuable and substantial sustainability competencies and LOs. Leal Filho (2015: 4) sums it up discussing the need for “holistic sustainability thinking” employing “education systems to better respond to socio-economic. . .challenges at the local, regional and global level.” Bussey recognizes a neohumanistic approach embodying holistic aspirations including lived practice of teachers and a spiritual component. Bussey states, “only when we. . .see everything as an expression of divinity do we begin to act and think globally” (2007: 36). The next section discusses trends regarding how ESD is transmitted. Pedagogy At the heart of the international DESD are pedagogical principles of learning-based approaches

that aim to transcend the tokenistic coverage of SD in pre-DESD curricula (Fig. 3). It seems pre-DESD curricula were geared toward education of/about SD and tended to be recollective, transmissive (teacher-centered), and summative, while those designed/delivered during the DESD were more cognitive, transactional (learnercentered), and interactive, with focus on critical thinking toward SD in present time (Brown 2004–2005; Sterling 2005; Wals and Corcoran 2006; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008). The trajectory of SD pedagogies post-DESD appears to be what Biggs and Tang call a metacognitive, transformative approach (2007). Transformative learning (TL) is a loop-oriented, critical pedagogy delivering information from past to present and into the future while encouraging deep understanding of course material, student engagement, and behavior transformation toward ERB. Figure 4, below, illustrates these three pedagogies as connected to types of assessment. Mezirow, who coined the phrase TL in 1978, states, “this is not an easy task as transformation is complex, often involving unlearning and ‘fostering learners’ awareness of the need to change’ and grow” (2000: 231). Habermas (1981) identifies TL as having a foundation in communicative learning that involves assessing intent, qualifications, truthfulness, and authenticity of the person doing the communicating to arrive at best judgment. Mezirow states, “TL

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Illustration depicting three ESD pedagogies. (Courtesy of the author): Pre-DESD – recollective and transmissive – education OF – teacher-centered/ summative. During-DESD – cognitive and transactional – education FOR – learner-centered/interactive. PostDESD – metacognitive and transformative – education AS – behavioral change. (Courtesy of the author)

theory. . .is a metacognitive epistemology of evidential (instrumental) and dialogical (communicative) reasoning. . .involving the validation and reformulation of meaning structures” (2009: 94). Because of its potential and capacity to deconstruct and hence reconstruct information to initiate change and affect behavior, TL is an effective pedagogy for ESD, which decrees an evidencebased transformation (Laurie et al. 2016). Svanström et al. agree, stating “there is a recognition that the teaching methodologies have to move beyond content to also help construct the self-concept of the student as a lifelong learner and agent of change for SD” (2008: 349). They define a critical ESD pedagogy emphasizing active learning, involved with real-world issues and learning approaches that focus on engaging sustainable solutions, while employing learning communities, self-reflection, and transformation. Additionally, Cincera et al. (2018) sum up ESD pedagogy as learner-centered, collaborative, inter- and transdisciplinary, and real-world, as well,

701

value-based teaching/learning is recommended, which facilitates the development of sustainability competencies. Bussey calls for a “prophetic yet pragmatic strategic pedagogy of hope” (2007: 25). Bussey’s perspective suggests employment of the relational aspects of playing music that exist between creator and receiver toward a global pedagogy. Bussey’s approach applies an “interactive quality from music. . .to social contexts in which the layered and multiple are grounded in a pedagogical ethic of the other” (2007: 27). This pedagogy of hope allows stakeholders to transcend their preconceptions and begin to teach/learn in effectively global ways. Bussey’s pedagogy calls for ethical collaboration and like Lozano et al. (2013) feels “it is through such actions that we push our consciousnesses beyond self-interest and the trap of alienated individuality” (Bussey 2007: 36). Like Habermas (1981), Palmer (2007) believes effective teaching for societal transformation begins with educators nurturing and “knowing thyself.” Palmer stresses the importance for teachers to follow their passion and asks “who is the self that teaches?” and suggests exploring “the inner landscape of the teaching self” (2007: 10–13). With a focus on intellect, emotion, and spirit, Palmer, in agreeance with Sterling (2001) and Mezirow (2009), believes teachers who exhibit passion for teaching ignite passion in learners. He believes this perspective provides a platform for TL and therefore serves as a solid pedagogic basis for ESD. While Palmer promotes passionate pedagogy for ESD, Tabone (2006) employs a critical pedagogy of introducing controversial sustainability issues grounded in science to stimulate cognitive dissonance. Through this approach, Tabone hopes to provide a pathway to higher-level reflective thinking, ultimately leading to increased uptake of ERB. Trending forward, Tillmanns and Holland (2017) also utilized cognitive dissonance. They employ visual cues as disruptive pedagogical interventions. Their study was “designed to provoke participants to think more critically about human centric world-views and the interconnectedness, multiplicity and heterogeneity of sustainability” (2017: 297). The researchers found

F

702

“visual cues have the potential to stimulate emotional and cognitive reactions that are deeply embedded in frames of references, and which activate and signal a disequilibrium/disjuncture/ disorienting dilemma, triggering the search for new meanings” (2017: 310). Further literature within this realm identifies the pedagogical process as “Theory of Disruptive Learning” and emphasizes “visual cues must disrupt rather than disturb; must represent (have impressions of) real life contexts, scenarios, practices or events; must provoke controversy; must contain a visual stimulation; and can have a critical question” (Tillmanns et al. 2017: 6). Working with preservice teachers, Kalsoom and Khanam’s (2017) research findings suggest a TL pedagogic tool of inquiry-based learning can be used to enhance sustainability consciousness (SC). They explain SC as combined cognitive and affective learning. Cognitive aspects involve knowledge of TBL issues and their interrelationships. Affective learning involves activating deeper levels of awareness and concern that lead to ERB. Prior to Kalsoom and Khanam’s work, Dossey discussed a green consciousness (GC), which he described as a fundamental psychospiritual connection we share with nature (2001). Interestingly, along the same lines, Inayatullah (2005) adds a fourth bottom line of spirituality to TBL, making it a quadruple bottom line. All are reminiscent of Arne Næss,’ (1973) deep ecology (Fox 1990). In agreeance, Stevenson et al. state future trends in ESD pedagogy transcend beyond “patches of green” (2017: 413). The authors call “for deeper evaluation of the effectiveness of the pedagogies that are currently in play,” stating “a lack of reflexivity and critique limits the transferability of many of these efforts and the development of an in-depth understanding of SE practices in initial teacher education” (2017: 414) is needed. Annan-Diab and Molinari (2017) enlist a practical pedagogy of role play and interdisciplinarity in a joint MBA program (Moscow and London). To prepare future leaders to deal with SD issues, the team embed sustainability, business ethics, and CSR into all MBA modules. In addition to the UN’s SDGs, the program instills and

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

promotes the six Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) involving purpose, values, method, research, partnership, and dialogue, through teamwork activities, real-life examples, and student input. As well, a specific subject was developed “to provide a critical understanding of CSR” (2017: 79). Trending forward, Deshmukh stresses the importance of pedagogies that manifest “empathy, adaptive motivation, ability to tackle alternative perspectives, behavioural flexibility, and personcentred communication” (2017: 7). Deshmukh decrees world citizenship is required and like Bussey (2007), Clark and Button (2011), Paul (2017), and Haines (2017) recommends SD syllabi include painting, literature, music of different countries, as well as contributions of great leaders. Deshmukh (2017) also notes the importance of HE that develops physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually sound human beings. Picking up where Wiek et al. (2011) leave off with core competencies of PPBL in curricula, Bussey sees an anticipatory aesthetic curricula/pedagogy that combines the five traditionally recognized senses with “interpretive futures senses of memory, foresight, voice, optimism and yearning” (2017: 50). Together these cultural senses connect us to each other and the environment through a relational logic, thus providing anticipatory power providing ability to rethink economics, politics, science, art, and life toward SF (Bussey 2007). Clearly, ESD pedagogies are shifting from transmissive, transactional, and transformative toward engaging as many senses as possible to stir deep feelings and emotions that inspire intentional futures rich in SD solutions. Perhaps SD pedagogic futures involve a new TL: Transcendent Learning – learning that transcends geographic, mental, emotional, and spiritual boundaries. PD This chapter has emphasized the current trend of developing SC in ESD stakeholders. Many scholars agree with Lozano-Garcia et al. that “capacity building. . .is the cornerstone of transforming universities to become effective in empowering. . .change agents for sustainability”

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

703

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 Word cloud created by the author using PD text

F

(2008: 6). Mulà et al. (2017) site lessons learned from ESD PD initiatives as needing to be more than just embedding content about sustainability. As in ESD curricula and pedagogy, ESD PD must have transformative capabilities, transdisciplinary/ systemic thinking, and a whole-institution approach (Fig. 5). Callejas Restrepo et al. (2017) note the importance of UNESCO’s Global Action Programme (GAP) (2015) in strengthening the capacity of HEI educators to be learning facilitators of ESD (2017: 649). The authors identify three approaches in educators’ PD: holistic, envisioning change, and achieving transformation. Like Palmer (2007) they highlight PD “must be comprehensively derived from one’s personal and professional identity over time” (2017: 656). A list of competencies is compiled for each approach based on four categories: learning to know, to do, to live together, and to be. The competencies are in line with those named in sections “Curricula” and “Pedagogy.” The scholars declare, “future research is needed to evaluate the implementation of ESD professional education curricula that meets the demands and challenges of modern education” (Callejas Restrepo et al. 2017: 662). Also, reminiscent of Palmer’s perspective to PD, Pfeiffer et al. propose a “learning and applying

what we teach” approach to ESD, recommending “skill development for meaningful stakeholder engagement; normative and value-based aspects of sustainability education; and necessary organizational capacities and professional skills of educational providers” (2017: 31). The importance of teachers’ full comprehension of ESD’s scope is stressed, to build a shared understanding of sustainability, prepare for “messy” workplace realities, and identify core values, including identifying as change agents, acting with integrity, and ambition to learn from failures (2017: 42). In other words, SD curricula and pedagogies need to support students’ and education professionals’ identity formation based on SD topics they care about. Key Drivers and Barriers of Future Trends Like all trends, ESD trends derive from drivers. Drivers weave trends into the present. What is done with them or how they are handled aids in shaping futures. In other words, the future is an active part of present (Inayatullah 2013). Organizations, institutions, and communities with focus and intent of vision can deliberately shape futures in the current, malleable, galloping, or plastic time (Inayatullah 2018). Drivers and their resultant trends can be barriers to or aid in the progression of SF depending on many factors discussed in this chapter.

704

Like all systems, HE has endogenous drivers; however, HE also exists within wider systems of operation, interaction, and communication. These broader sociocultural-environmental systems have drivers as well. Sometimes called megatrends (Naisbitt 1982) and/or movements, these drivers of trends are also considered here as influencers of HE and more specifically, ESD. Vrscaj defines megatrends as “large-scale social, economic, political, environmental or technological changes that are slow to form but which, once they have taken root, exercise a profound and lasting influence on. . .human activities, processes and perceptions” (2016: 4). While, Glasberg and Deric (2011) define a movement as “organizational structures and strategies that may empower oppressed populations to mount effective challenges and resist the more powerful and advantaged elites” (2011: 150). The next two subsections list key endogenous drivers as well as exogenous drivers of ESD. The final subsection investigates futures scenarios capacitated by a sampling of drivers. Endogenous Drivers

• • • • • • •

Neoliberal economic agenda Online learning systems Wholistic integrated learning systems Lowering academic standards Student expectation Staff knowledge Emergent discourses around regenerative economics • Resacralization • Range of P2P and B1G1 movements • Political inertia Exogenous Drivers

• Water, energy, and food security • Climate change • Shift of global power from Western centric to multicentric • Automation including driverless cars • Additive manufacturing • The Internet of Things • Nanotechnology • Artificial intelligence • Transhumanism • Geoengineering

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

• • • • • • •

Biotechnology Massification; increased social mobility Globalization/internationalization Me Too movement Slow food movement Minimalist movement Grassroots environmental movements

Futures Scenarios

Four futures scenarios are presented below in Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9. They are generated based on four arbitrarily selected drivers above: two endogenous and two exogenous. Futures are investigated using a four-quadrant plotting of possible narratives. The scenario narratives are based on foundational futures concepts of used, disowned, preferred, intended or aligned, and alternative or wild card (Inayatullah 2008; Hiltunen 2006). Inayatullah explains reflective and adaptable, “scenarios are the tool par excellence of futures studies...they open up the present, contour the range of uncertainty, offer alternatives, and even better, predict” (2008). The futures concepts explained: Used: Unconsciously following the pack, not honoring traditions. Used futures lead to the same outcomes over and over. Think about the definition of insanity. Disowned: This is the “future pushed away, that comes back to haunt us” (Inayatullah 2008: 5). If the disowned is not integrated, a used future outcome is possible. Aligned: Like constructive alignment of curricula, LOs, and assessment, the concept of aligned futures links day-to-day activities with the preferred and intended vision of the future (Inayatullah 2008). Wild card: These futures involve a surprising and widely impacting event that was difficult to anticipate. Note: weak signals, also known as emerging issues, are more gradual than wild cards; they are current clues that sneak up and can be used to anticipate wild card scenarios (Hiltunen 2006). Each of the four futures concepts described is represented as quadrants in Figs. 6, 7, 8,

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

705

F

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Scenario of four ESD futures narratives based on the HE structural endogenous driver, neoliberal economic agenda

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 7 Scenario of four ESD futures narratives based on the endogenous HE driver, online learning systems

and 9. Each quadrant contains a futures narrative scenario based on a driver. Generation of each scenario involves projecting ESD stakeholders’ initiative and involvement through the lens of the driver toward the futures concepts.

As seen in Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9, drivers of trends can be drivers of barriers to change depending on stakeholder initiative and involvement. This includes not integrating trends based on misunderstanding, lack of communication, lack of trust, threat to job status, and security. As well,

706

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 8 Scenario of four ESD futures narratives based on the structural exogenous driver, the Me Too movement

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 9 Scenario of four ESD futures narratives based on the exogenous driver, artificial intelligence

throughout this chapter, barriers specific to SD have been discussed. To recap, these include but are not limited to lack of interdisciplinarity, stakeholder knowledge, stakeholder training, institutional action, and funds. Dewaele et al. (2018) maintain barriers also include lack of policymakers initiating change. They recommend

several methodologies aimed at dissolving barriers to ERB. These methodologies are aimed at promoting deep understanding in both cognitive and emotive domains. Like many other ESD scholars (stakeholders), the authors ask, “can mindfulness facilitate. . .acceptance, and what about spirituality?” (2017: 922–23). Other

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

707

F

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 10 Word cloud created by the author using conclusions text

scholars respond with action, such as BlancoPortela et al. (2017) who have developed a process, Organizational Change Management for Sustainability (2017), to promote smooth integration of SD in HEIs.

Conclusions for SD Futures Clark and Button (2011) developed the sustainability transdisciplinary education model (yes – another STEM acronym) integrating sciences, arts, and teacher education with authentic SD issues embedded into assessment. Because the work involves sciences and arts, a broader platform for thinking/learning led to metacognition and enabled “deeper spiritual awareness and understanding of eco-justice for the promotion of a sustainable society” (2011: 11). Like Bussey (2007), Clark and Button assert spiritual awareness is heightened through multisensory activities involving storytelling, sustainability science facts, art, music, and nature/animal sounds (Fig. 10). Furthering the notion of adding spirituality to a quadruple bottom line of SD (Inayatullah 2005) is value orientation in HE. Paul states “values are the auto-regulators of human behaviour” (2017: 31) and specifies spiritual values are the ethical foundation of a meaningful life. Paul defines spirituality as “the art and science of divine remembrance”

(2017: 32) and calls for an urgent revamping of HE to include moral and ethical values, noting values represent what we are, not what we have. Thus, Paul like Bussey (2007) calls for movement from a transactional-based system toward relational, interactive futures, where equity, justice, hope, compassion, connection, and mercy reign supreme replacing the transactional, controlling, power over, and hierarchal systems. As well, there is a push toward eco-stewardship through a “spiritually oriented humanistic approach. . .to advance tourism in HE” (Barkathunnisha et al. 2018: 6). Barkathunnisha et al. note the spiritual turn “presents an alternative to teaching and learning in tourism. . .facilitating the development of future practitioners to become moral architects in their occupational domains” (Belhassen and Caton 2011, p. 1394 in Barkathunnisha et al. 2018: 2). The conceptual article discusses elements of the trend toward spirituality in ESD discussed throughout this chapter. For instance, Barkathunnisha et al.’s elements include: Looking beyond self and for meaningful existence Incorporating an ethical path to personal fulfilment Experiencing oneness with nature and beauty Sense of connectedness, concern and commitment w/self/others/a higher power/larger reality Transcendence of former frames of reference Moving beyond egocentricity towards inclusivity/ unity (2018: 4)

708

According to Jirásek et al., ESD trends toward the spiritual can emerge through a “four arrows” model of tracking students’ personal growth in experiential EE (2017). The model involves attention: upward to achieve full potential, outward to contact/encounter others, inward to increase awareness, and downward to connect to earth. Jirásek et al. argue “SD can only be achieved through spirituality” (2017: 1). They maintain, “many participants [of their research] referred to their experiences of spirituality evoked by the course as experiences that had the power to make them reflect on their lives from a new perspective and thus find deeper meaning” (2017: 18). From a scientific standpoint, Haines (2017) argues SD coursework focusing on body, spirit, and the arts can increase leverage on left hemisphere weaknesses and exercise right hemisphere functions. This research into dominant thinking is based on the split-brain work of psychologist/psychiatrist McGilchrist (2009). Expanding the enquiry, Haines asks the following questions: “Can HEI implement a biomimicry lesson from the structure of the human brain? Can academia organize itself so that left hemisphere material is released into a peer process that operates as a surrogate right hemisphere? Can degrees and programs be paired or grouped so that those inherently different in their brain processes work together to exercise both hemispheres of students’ thinking?” (Haines 2017: 148). Awareness of binary thinking in HEI and SD is not new. Gough and Whitehouse (2018) and Rizzo (2018) point out its ongoing persistence within the realm of ecofeminism. Dealing with practicalities of leveraging sustainability through all dimensions of HEI, Kapitulčinová et al. (2018) report on usage of tools, methods, frameworks/models, and approaches (TMFAs) to “minimize the time between the first introduction of the SD idea and the institutionalization of the idea” (2018: 4731). Dimensions include educational, research, engagement/outreach, campus operations, reporting, and assessment. Kapitulčinová et al. note “the role of the individual change agent and the human dimension” (2018: 4367) are on the rise and that a wide range of TMFAs are being

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

used to measure actual “sustainability integration” (2018: 4367). The researchers claim to provide empirical evidence regarding successful measurement of sustainability integration across individual HEI. Also involved in the trend of collecting empirical data relating to ESD/SC/ERB/ is Fischer et al.’s (2017) systemic literature review of 1137 publications. Their research also reflects the trend of recognizing spirituality’s potential for motivating SF as the authors investigate connection of mindfulness and sustainable consumption. They conclude, the “most comprehensively researched potential role of mindfulness is its capacity to reduce materialistic values and promote wellbeing” (2017: 557), both valued ESD competencies. Changing Times Trending Forward In 2017 Stella McCartney received the first ever Special Recognition Award for Innovation at the British Fashion Council’s Fashion Awards for SC work in her field. Since 2001 McCartney has upheld her no skins, fur, or feathers decree in the luxury goods industry. She states “the fashion industry is killing our planet. . .something has to change” (Huckbody 2018: 222) and requests the award be given again next year, signifying the changing times. Changes that include awareness of our connection to each other, other creatures, our planet and its natural cycles, of which we are a part. Kryder (1994) argues direct connection with nature is a sacred process that produces a sacred outcome. Kryder refers to this process as awakening the imaginal or subconscious and that the absence or loss of this connection is a desacralization with the natural world at the root of our present environmental crisis. Burkhart expands on the disconnect stating, “this disconnect is not merely from the natural world. . .the inner world is often neglected as well” (2017: 73) and calls for more research on the connection of EE and emotions to induce “soulful action in the world” (2017: 72). Kumar (2017) maintains “a world where we respect the dignity of all living beings and the sacredness of the natural world...is an achievable dream” (2017: 132) (Fig. 11).

Future Trends in Sustainable Development

709

F

Future Trends in Sustainable Development, Fig. 11 Word cloud created by the author using section “Changing Times Trending Forward” text

As this chapter traversed through SD trends in HE, recurring themes emerged as indicated in the accompanying word clouds. Over time substantial stakeholder expansion has occurred in both numerical quantity and commitment quality. Momentum toward collaboration, cooperation, connection, and commitment is clearly apparent. While specific movement is noted: • In curricula – from purely science based to encompassing the humanities and business realms • Pedagogically – from the transmissive, transactive, and transformative to the transcendent • In PD – from the nonexistent to conscious awakening of the sensory, holistic, spiritual, and visionary understanding and remembering of humanity’s relation to the natural world Current trends are propelled by the momentum of recognizing uncomfortable emotional responses to unwanted/unsustainable aspects of modern life. Futures are created by stakeholder knowledge, understanding, and imaginal facilities. Stakeholder involvement is transcending boundaries and contexts, inspired by knowing the relational far outweighs the transactional in the long run, which many believe is the point of SD and the narrative for SF.

Appendix: List of Acronyms AI Artificial intelligence CASE Competencies for a sustainable socioeconomic development CSR Corporate social responsibility DESD Decade of Education for Sustainable Development EE Environmental education ERB Environmentally responsible behavior ESD Education for sustainable development GC Green consciousness HE Higher education HEI Higher education institutions LO Learning outcomes MSI Multi-stakeholder initiative OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OLS Online learning systems PD Professional development PPBL Problem- and Project- Based Learning PRME Principles of responsible management education SC Sustainability consciousness SD Sustainable development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SE Sustainability education SF Sustainable futures

710

STEM Sustainability transdisciplinary education model STL Scientific and technical literacy STS Science, Technology and Society TBL Triple bottom line TL Transformative learning TMFAs Tools, methods, frameworks/models and approaches UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

References Aikenhead GS (2003) STS education; a rose by any other name. In: Cross R (ed) A vision for science education: responding to the work of Peter J Fensham. Routledge Press, New York Annan-Diab F, Molinari C (2017) Interdisciplinarity: practical approach to advancing education for sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals. Int J Manag Educ 15(2):73–83 Balgopal M, Wallace A (2009) Decisions and dilemmas: using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy. J Environ Educ 403:13–26 Barkathunnisha AB, Diane L, Price A Wilson E (2018) Towards a spirituality-based platform in tourism higher education. Curr Issue Tour 1–17 Barlett P, Eisen A (2002) The Piedmont project at Emory University. Teach Sustain Univ Environ Educ Commun Sustain 11:61–77 Baumgartner RJ, Winter T (2014) The sustainability manager: a tool for education and training on sustainability management. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(3):167–174 Belhassen Y, Caton K (2011) On the need for critical pedagogy in tourism education. Tour Manag 32(6):1389–1396 Benyus J (2007) 12 sustainable design ideas from nature. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=n77BfxnVlyc. Viewed 12 May 2012 Biggs J, Tang C (2007) Aligning assessment tasks with intended learning outcomes: Principles. Society for Research into Higher Education (ed.), Teaching for quality learning at university, Open University Press, Berkshire, 163–194 Blades DW (2006) Levinas and an ethics for science education. Educ Philos Theory 385:648–666 Blanco-Portela N, Benayas J, Pertierra LR, Lozano R (2017) Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: a review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. J Clean Prod 166:563–578

Future Trends in Sustainable Development Brown S (2004–5) Assessment for learning. Learn Teach High Educ (1):81–89 Burkhart J (2017) Singing the spaces: artful approaches to navigating the emotional landscape in environmental education. Can J Environ Educ (CJEE) 21:72–88 Bussey M (2007) Global education from a neohumanist perspective: a musical exposition. J Futur Stud 12(1):25–40 Bussey M (2017) Anticipatory aesthetics: new identities and future senses. In: The aesthetics of development. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 49–70 Callejas Restrepo MM, Blanco-Portela N, Ladino-OspinaY, Tuay Sigua RN, Vargas KO (2017) Professional development of university educators in ESD: a study from pedagogical styles. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(5):648–665 Caniglia G, John B, Bellina L, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Cohmer S, Laubichler MD (2018) The glocal curriculum: a model for transnational collaboration in higher education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 171:368–376 Chase GW, Rowland P (2004) The ponderosa project: infusing sustainability in the curriculum. In: Bartlett PF, Chase GW (eds) Sustainability on campus: stories and strategies for change. MIT Press, Cambridge and London, pp 91–106 Cincera J, Biberhofer P, Binka B, Boman J, Mindt L, Rieckmann M (2018) Designing a sustainability-driven entrepreneurship curriculum as a social learning process: a case study from an international knowledge alliance project. J Clean Prod 172:4357–4366 Clark B, Button C (2011) Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: interface of arts, science, and community (STEM). Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):41–54 Darner R (2009) Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. J Environ Educ 402:39–49 de la Harpe B, Thomas I (2009) Curriculum change in universities: conditions that facilitate education for sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 31:75–85 Deshmukh V (2017) Achieving resiliency through sustainable literacy. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 3–13 Dewaele K, Fischer D, Van Damme P, Verhaeghe P (2018) (Inhibiting) factors for (un) sustainable behaviour in relation to the effects of education for sustainable development: the role of psychological constructs, neurotransmitters and ideological impact on consumer behaviour. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of sustainability science and research. Springer, Cham, pp 915–924 Doh JP, Tashman P (2014) Half a world away: the integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(3):131–142 Dori YJ, Tal RT (2000) Formal and informal collaborative projects: engaging in industry with environmental

Future Trends in Sustainable Development awareness. In: Dierking LD, Falk JH (eds) Informal science. Wiley Dossey L (2001) Being green: on the relationship between people and plants. Altern Ther Health Med 7(3):12 14 pps Elmhurst KS, Grady K (2017) Fauna protection in a sustainable university campus: bird-window collision mitigation strategies at Temple University. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 69–82 Evans N, Tomas L, Woods C (2016) Impact of sustainability pedagogies on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. J Educ Sustain Dev 10(2):243–261 Ferreira J, Ryan L, Tilbury D (2007) Mainstreaming education for sustainable development in initial teacher education in Australia: a review of existing professional development models. J Educ Teach 332:225–239 Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CI, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A, Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M (2008) An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):295–316 Fischer D, Stanszus L, Geiger S, Grossman P, Schrader U (2017) Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: a systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. J Clean Prod 162:544–558 Fowler A, Biekart K (2017) Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable development goals: the importance of interlocutors. Public Adm Dev 37(2):81–93 Fox W (1990) Toward a transpersonal ecology, developing new foundations for environmentalism. Shambhala Publications, Boston Gangmei A (2017) Relevence of the church to environmental education. Int Educ Res J 3(6):73–75 García-González E, Jiménez-Fontana R, Goded PA, Cardeñoso JM (2017) Inclusion of sustainability in university classrooms through methodology. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 3–19 Glasberg DS, Deric S (2011) Political sociology: oppression, resistance, and the state. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks Gough A, Whitehouse H (2018) New vintages and new bottles: the “Nature” of environmental education from new material feminist and ecofeminist viewpoints. J Environ Educ 1–14 Habermas J (1981) The theory of communicative action, vol 1 (trans: McCarthy T). Beacon Press, Boston Haines CA (2017) Rethinking thinking about sustainable development curriculum. In: Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 141–152 Heimlich JE, McKeown-Ice R, Braus J, Barringer-Smith L, Olivolo B (2004) Environmental education and preservice teacher preparation: a national study. J Environ Educ 352:17–21

711 Hiltunen E (2006) Was it a wild card or just our blindness to gradual change. J Futur Stud 11(2):61–74 Huckbody J (2018) Warrior princess with responsible fashion today’s hot topic, we salute the pioneer of sustainable chic. Harper’s Bazaar (Australia). 12 Feb 2018 Inayatullah S (2005) Spirituality as the fourth bottom line? Futures 37(6):573–579 Inayatullah S (2008) Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10(1):4–21 Inayatullah S (2013) Causal layered analysis: Sohail Inayatullah at TEDxNoosa. Retrieved from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImWDmFPfifI. Viewed 6/6/2018 Inayatullah S (2018) DBTV exclusive – future with Sohail Inayatullah – episode 09 – 27 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUb9XvWIw&feature=youtu.be. Viewed 6 June 2018 Jirásek I, Veselský P, Poslt J (2017) Winter outdoor trekking: spiritual aspects of environmental education. Environ Educ Res 23(1):1–22 Jucker R (2002) Our common illiteracy: education as if the earth and people mattered, vol 10. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Kalsoom Q, Khanam A (2017) Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: a pedagogy to enhance sustainability consciousness. J Clean Prod 164:1301–1311 Kapitulčinová D, AtKisson A, Perdue J, Will M (2018) Towards integrated sustainability in higher education – mapping the use of the accelerator toolset in all dimensions of university practice. J Clean Prod 172:4367–4382 Karatzoglou B (2013) An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 49:44–53 Kryder RP (1994) Sacred ground to sacred space. Bear and Company Publishing, Santa Fe Kumar S (2017) Spirituality and sustainable development: a paradigm shift. J Econ Soc Dev 13(1):123–134 Laurie R, Nonoyama-Tarumi Y, Mckeown R, Hopkins C (2016) Contributions of education for sustainable development (ESD) to quality education: a synthesis of research. J Educ Sustain Dev 10(2):226–242 Leal Filho W (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. Springer, Cham, pp 3–12 Leal Filho W, Brandli LL, Becker D, Skanavis C, Kounani A, Sardi C, Papaioannidou D, Paço A, Azeiteiro U, de Sousa LO, Raath S (2018) Sustainable development policies as indicators and pre-conditions for sustainability efforts at universities: fact or fiction? Int J Sustain High Educ 19(1):85–113 Lee JCW, Williams M (2001) Researching environmental education in the school curriculum: an introduction for students and teacher researchers. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 103:218–244 López-Pérez M, Melero I, Javier Sesé F (2017) Does specific CSR training for managers impact shareholder

F

712 value? Implications for education in sustainable development. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 24(5): 435–448 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19 Lozano-García FJ, Gandara G, Orietta P, Mario M, Dora Elia H, Donald H (2008) Capacity building: a course on sustainable development to educate the educators. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):257–281 Mack PE, Campbell T, Abd-Hamid NH (2008) Issues in survey assessments of STS courses. Bull Sci Technol Soc 285:408–413 Matten D, Moon J (2004) Corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 54(4):323–337 Moody G, Alkaff H, Garrison D, Golley F (2005) Assessing the environmental literacy requirement at the University of Georgia. J Environ Educ 364:3–9 Moore CJ, Huber RA (2001) Support for EE from the national science education standards and the internet. J Environ Educ 323:21–25 McGilchrist I (2009) The master and his emissary: the divided brain and the making of the Western world. Yale University Press, New Haven Mezirow J (2000) Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory. In: Illeris K, (ed) Progress the Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. JosseyBass Publishers, San Francisco Mezirow J (2009) Chapter 6, An overview on transformative learning. In: Illeris K (ed) Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists in their own works. Routledge, New York Mulà I, Tilbury D, Ryan A, Mader M, Dlouhá J, Mader C, Benayas J, Dlouhý J, Alba D (2017) Catalysing change in higher education for sustainable development: a review of professional development initiatives for university educators. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(5):798–820 Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Rieckmann M (2014) The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable development – a conference report. J Clean Prod 62:134–137 Næss A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry 16:95–100 Naisbitt J (1982) Megatrends: ten new directions transforming our lives, No. 04; HN59. 2, N3. Warner Books, New York O’Donoghue RB, McNaught C (1991) Environmental education: the development of a curriculum through ‘grassroots’ reconstructive action. Int J Sci Educ 134:391–404 Orr DW (1989) Environmental education and ecological literacy. Holist Educ Rev II:48–53 Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press, Albany Owens D (2001) Composition and sustainability: teaching for a threatened generation. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana

Future Trends in Sustainable Development Palmer P (2007) The courage to teach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Paul S (2017) Value orientation in higher education: problems and prospects from sustainable development perspectives. Int J Soc Sci 6(1):31 Pfeiffer E, Wehn U, Charli-Joseph L, Lerner AM, Irvine K (2017) Training sustainability change agents: lessons from international water education. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 31–48 Reef-Stout BE, Medvedev K (2017) Multimedia exhibition teaches undergraduate students about sustainable fashion. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 83–101 Ribeiro JMP, Barbosa SB, Casagrande JL, Sehnem S, Berchin II, da Silva CG, da Silveira ACM, Zimmer GAA, Faraco RÁ, de Andrade JBSO (2017) Promotion of sustainable development at universities: the adoption of green campus strategies at the University of Southern Santa Catarina, Brazil. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 471–486 Rinia EJ, van Leeuwen TN, Bruins HG, van Vuren HG, van Raan AFJ (2001) Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics 511:293–309 Rizzo T (2018) Ecofeminist community-engaged learning in Southern Appalachia: an introduction to strategic essentialism in the first year of college. J Environ Educ 49(4):297–308 Roth CE (1992) Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution and direction in the 1990s. Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education ERIC, Columbus Secord DL, Greengrove CL (2002) Environmental science as a vehicle for building natural sciences and EE into a new interdisciplinary urban public university. J Environ Educ 341:32–37 Sedlacek S (2013) The role of universities in fostering sustainable development at the regional level. J Clean Prod 48:74–84 Sherren K (2006) Core issues reflections on sustainability in Australian University coursework programs. Int J Sustain High Educ 74:400–413 Sherren K (2007) Is there a sustainability canon? An exploration and aggregation of expert opinions. Environmentalist 27:341–347 Sherren K (2008) The entropy of sustainability: observed tensions in Canadian tertiary innovation. Can J High Educ 382:1–23 Shumba O, Kampamba R (2017) Learning as connection: pedagogical innovations to support ESD learning processes in science teacher education settings. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Schooling for sustainable development in Africa. Springer, Cham, pp 189–203 Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2007) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands, and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 91:68–86

Future Trends in Sustainable Development Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education re-visioning learning and change Schumacher briefings number 6. Green Books, Devon Sterling S (2005) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Blaze Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise and practice. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht Stevenson RB, Lasen M, Ferreira JA, Davis J (2017) Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: a synthesis of the literature. Teach Teach Educ 63:405–417 Sund P, Lysgaard JG (2013) Reclaim “education” in environmental and sustainability education research. Sustainability 54:1598–1616 Svanström M, Lozano-García FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 93:339–351 Sylvestre P, McNeil R, Wright T (2013) From Talloires to Turin: a critical discourse analysis of declarations for sustainability in higher education. Sustainability 54: 1356–1371 Tabak I, Weinstock MP (2005) Knowledge is knowledge is knowledge? The relationship between personal and scientific epistemologies. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ 53:307–328 Tabone CP (2006) A descriptive study of students’ perspectives on controversial issues embedded in a college environmental science course. PhD dissertation, University of South Florida Tan M (2004) Nurturing scientific and technical literacy through environmental education. J Int Cooperation Educ 71:115–131 Thomas I (2004) Sustainability in tertiary curricula: what is stopping it happening? Int J Sustain High Educ 5(1): 33–47 Tillmanns T, Holland C (2017) Crafting pedagogical pathways that disrupt and transform anthropocentric mindsets of higher education students. In: Leal Filho W, (ed) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 297–312 Tillmanns T, Holland C, Salomão Filho A (2017) Design criteria for visual cues used in disruptive learning

713 interventions within sustainability education. Discourse Commun Sustain Educ 8(2):5–16 UNESCO (2002) Education for sustainability—from Rio to Johannesburg: lessons learnt from a decade of commitment, pp 2–5. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0012/001271/127100e.pdf. Last accessed 24 Jan 2016 UNESCO (2005) United Nations decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014, International Implementation Scheme. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2015) Roadmap for implementing the global action programme on education for Sustainable development. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0023/002305/230514e.pdf. Retrieved 16 July 2016 Vargas CM (2000) Sustainable development education: averting or mitigating cultural collision. Int J Educ Dev 20:377–396 Vazquez-Alonso A, Manassero-Mas MA, Acevedo-Diaz J (2005) An analysis of complex multiple-choice science-technology-society items: methodological development and preliminary results. In: Bloom JM (ed) Issues and trends. Wiley Periodicals. Published online 6 April 2006, in Wiley Inter Science. http://www. interscience.wiley.com Vrscaj D (2016) An OECD horizon scan of megatrends and technology trends in the context of future research policy Waas T, Verbruggen A, Wright T (2010) University research for sustainable development: definition and characteristics explored. J Clean Prod 187:629–636 Wals AEJ, Corcoran BP (2006) Sustainability as an outcome of transformative learning. In: Holmberg J, Samuelsson B (eds) Drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable development in higher education. UNESCO, Paris Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability—a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2): 203–218 Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718 Wuebbles DJ, Asplen L, Brewer J (2006) Earth systems, environment and society: a new interdisciplinary undergraduate major at the University of Illinois. J Geosci Educ 543:230–239

F

G

Games for Change

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

▶ Serious Games and Sustainability

Cristiano Galrão Corrêa Conde1, Julio Cesar Marques2 and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha2 1 Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura - NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Gamification ▶ Digital Learning and Sustainable Development

Definition

Generation ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Generic Skills ▶ Soft Skills and Sustainable Development

The present world has its attention focused on the energy problem, whose effects are severe within the dynamic coexistence of conflicts of interest and complexity of the energetic matrices involved. The approach of this work will be based on the National Energy Plan - 2030, elaborated by the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, where the strategies of expansion of energy supply will be approached taking into account the energy efficiency and technological innovation involved, both in the generation as in energy consumption, within the perspective of Energy Geopolitics and sustainability

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

716

Introduction The main objective of this article is to present how energy generation and conflicts of interest are expressed, approaching the geopolitics of energy and indicating how energy and sustainability committee operates in a developing country and the need for a clear and strategic plan for objectives agreed with global committees. In Brazil, this is presented directly through the National Energy Plan (PNE-2030), prepared by the Ministry of Mines and Energy. Similarly, this paper argues that all these energy concepts must be consolidated and treated as a program to be achieved in schools and universities, which should seek an efficient system in energy management and sustainability. In general, higher education institutions (HEI) can and should be treated as green buildings and mini-cities, but this presents itself as a difficulty, mainly in Brazil due basically to organizational and financial barriers. The data presented in this study are results of research carried out at UNIFAAT, HEI, located in the city of Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil, by students of the Undergraduate Courses in Civil Engineering through the Center for Studies and Research (CEPE) with the objective of fomenting the processes of formation and generation of knowledge in the area of energy and sustainability that is part of UNIFAAT sustainability educational policies.

Geopolitics of Energy Geopolitics of energy includes relations between countries on energy, economics, and politics, and its study and understanding is important for making decisions between governments, companies, and society. In today’s increasingly globalized and competitive world, the way each country produces, supplies, and consumes energy directly affects safety, socioeconomic development, and the environment globally. Numerous facts that have occurred in the recent past have led countries to change their energy policy. The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan; the so-called Arab Spring, which convulsed parts of

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

Middle East and North Africa; and European Union (EU) sanctions against Iran, with possible repercussions on Iranian oil trade to European countries, are facts of great relevance. Within this context, planners should consider all facts and factors such as global geoeconomics, global energy demand behavior, global oil and gas market reactions, prospects of the nuclear industry, development of renewable energy, and efforts and treaties for the global reduction of carbon emissions when assessing the need for changes in strategic plans to mitigate the risk of energy shortages in their countries or companies. The correct analysis of variables influencing the energy industry, with global nuances, tends to focus on events involving two large blocks of countries: United States/European Union and the emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa which, although not representing a cohesive economic bloc or that participate mostly in global governance, have a total GDP of over 22% of the world total, according to the World Bank. Named in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill with the acronym BRIC to designate the economies that were most likely to grow in the future, he warned that emerging economies would grow at rates faster than the world’s largest economies. Brazil, Russia, India, and China then gained prominence in the discussions about the global market and came to represent the growth of emerging countries. South Africa only joined the group in 2011, when the acronym was adapted to the current BRICS. Considering the above points and observing the oscillations in financial markets of the United States and Europe, which border recession, and repercussions that this situation brings to the markets of the whole world, it seems that the world energy demand continues in an upward curve, mainly due to the energy needs of emerging economies of Asia and Latin America. The latest publication of the World Energy Outlook (November 14, 2017, International Energy Agency) predicts major changes in the world energy market. Over the next 25 years, a 30% increase in demand is expected, which should be supplied mainly by renewable energy and natural gas. China should boost this market with

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

cleaner and more diversified energy. The shale oil and gas revolution in the United States will make it the world’s largest LNG exporter and a net oil exporter by the end of that decade. Wind energy should boost the European energy market. Brazil meets domestic demand with about 42% of energy based on renewable sources and plans to double the use of sustainable energy, double energy efficiency targets, and universalize access to energy by 2030. Energy Policy Energy policy reflects the guidelines established by the government of a country aimed at managing and exploiting energy resources, in order to feed the industrial park, commerce, and population in general. Energy resources can be available by exploiting existing sources or by importing them. Restructuring the energy sector is one of the key issues for securing investments in the industry, accumulating enough to meet the everincreasing need for fuel and electricity. At the same time, it is important that government actions be carried out from a sustainable perspective, ensuring availability of resources to future generations. This can be done by taking into account coherent implementation strategies, avoiding waste, and considering financial, human, technological, and natural resources. Therefore, as energy policy is of vital importance for the economic sustainability of the nations, we will describe and further compare the energy policies of Brazil, the USA, China, European Community, and Russia. (a) Brazilian Energy Policy: Brazilian energy policy is based on Law 9478/1997, which highlights the importance of sustainability of recommended solutions, use of renewable energies, efficient use of energy, diversification of the energy matrix, and environment preservation. As a UN member, Brazil has been making efforts to restructure its energy matrix in order to increase the share of renewable energy, in accordance with the provisions set out in Agenda 2030 (document assumed at the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development in 2015).

717

(b) US Energy Policy: In March, 2017 President Trump issued an executive order (President Trump’s Energy Independence Policy) with criticism of the Obama administration, which had created a clean energy agenda centered on the climate change agenda. With this order, the United States cancels any measure that makes energy more expensive, seeking energy self-sufficiency. This way it resumes the projects of massive exploitation of shale gas and the construction of gas and oil pipelines, and that will cover federal lands and indigenous territories. It also resumes the possibility of mining coal in these territories. American energy independence, then, becomes the main energy policy. (c) China’s Energy Policy: As described by Fuser (2013) in “Energy and International Relations,” the Chinese government has adopted three strategic priorities: 1. Diversify external energy suppliers; 2. To use petroleum and natural gas transported by land (oil and gas pipelines) rather than seafarers, in order to reduce their vulnerability before a naval blockade or to sanctions. 3. Launch state or semi-state oil companies aiming to obtain control of hydrocarbon reserves around the world. (d) European Community Energy Policy: As described in European Union website in the section “EU energy targets, 2018,” the European Union’s energy policy has three main objectives: security of supply, competitiveness, and sustainability. The EU has laid the foundations for energy that guarantees EU citizens and businesses a secure, affordable, and environmentally friendly energy supply, setting objectives: Objectives for 2020: 20% reduction of at least greenhouse gas emissions as compared to 1990 levels 20% of energy from renewable sources 20% improvement in energy efficiency Objectives for 2030: 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions At least 27% of energy from renewable sources

G

718

27–30% increase in energy efficiency 15% of electricity interconnection (i.e., 15% of electricity produced in the EU can be transferred to other EU countries) Objectives for 2050: An 80–95% cut in greenhouse gases compared with 1990 levels (e) Russia’s Energy Policy: As described by Fuser (2013) in “Energy and International Relations,” Russia seeks to consolidate the position as an energy supplier because of its enormous potential. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia hopes to review its status as a major power, using a policy of insertion with the supply of energy to the EU. Much of Russia’s hydrocarbon reserves are in eastern Siberia, thus facilitating exports to the Asian market. The accelerated economic growth of China, India, and other Asian countries should, in medium term, consolidate the goals of Russia’s foreign policy of providing energy supplies. Comparison of Energy Policies By comparing the energy policies of Brazil, the USA, China, European Union, and Russia, it can be noticed that three factors can be highlighted: natural resources, technology, and organization of industries and markets. Natural Resources: They are of decisive importance in quantity, quality, and location. The dispute between holders of large reserves and their consumers arises economic and political pressure, leading to a search for and discovery of new reserves outside traditional regions, such as of oil and gas. New sources of energy continue to be studied, thus reducing dependence on “unreliable” countries and, finally, having as a premise effective action in view of problems related to global climate change. Technology: This is linked directly to natural resources factor. Technological advancement makes it possible to search for and access new or unconventional sources of energy. In case of oil and gas, two issues stand out: (1) the technological advance that allows exploration in deep and ultra-deep waters and (2) the technological challenge in the area of unconventional

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

resources, such as bituminous sands, ultra-heavy oil, and synthetic fuels and shale gas. In both cases, technology is essential for maintenance of the oil/gas chain, incorporating new resources. Still in the field of gas, it is important to emphasize its transformation into liquefied natural gas (LNG), allowing distribution in a logistics more similar to petroleum. Technological efforts are also aimed at reducing the energy dependence of the traditional fossil fuel matrix, with three main fronts: (1) improving the efficiency of traditional energy generation; (2) development of energy generation by renewable fuels, wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass; and (3) improving the energy efficiency of consumer goods that use electricity. Organization of Industries and Market: In the oil sector, expansion of non-OPEC oil supply is not enough to meet demand growth. There is also the issue of refining capacity, as lower-quality resources and greater environmental requirements, coupled with the need to produce lighter derivatives, create another bottleneck and demand modernization of refining plants in order to reduce pressure on market prices. In case of natural gas, we see a market with a high concentration of mergers and acquisitions of gas and electricity companies, together with a vertical integration of the production chain, its transportation, and distribution. In the biofuels sector, Brazil’s role in case of ethanol is evident, and it can become a major exporter depending on the absorption of technologies and opportunities for market diversification. Regarding biodiesel, competitive raw materials are also under study to enable the tripod: technology, production scale, and business model.

National Energy Plan 2030 (PNE 2030) The first study of energy resources integrated planning, within the scope of the Brazilian government, came to cover the need of a strategy to supply the growth of demand. This study covers all types of energy, from oil to nuclear, from wind to thermoelectric, and from natural gas to biomass, among others. Together with another

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

719

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 1 Integrated energy planning cycle

document, called National Energy Matrix 2030, PNE 2030, it is the main planning tool available to public and private sector managers; therefore, we understand energy planning as a cycle with four stages that are continuously completing themselves, as shown in Fig. 1.

Energy Resources and Reserves Energy resources are the reserves or flows of energy available in nature, which can be used to meet human needs and are classified as fossil resources or renewable resources. Fossil fuels have been generated by partial decomposition of organic matter, millions of years ago: coal, petroleum, natural gas, peat, and bituminous shale. In addition, we still have fissile material, such as uranium and thorium. Renewable resources are developed by natural streams such as solar, hydro, wind, sea waves, and biomass. The energy resources referred to in this item will be presented in a comparative way, showing a global perspective in relation to Brazil. According to Fig. 2, we can see world consumption per energy source from 1990 up to a forecast in 2040. Hydroelectric Among the renewable matrixes, the hydroelectric plant represents a significant part of world production, with about 19% of the world’s electricity supply. The 2007 edition of the US International Energy Outlook reports that hydroelectric generation and other renewable sources will grow by 56% by 2030 and that 33% of the technically viable potential has already been explored, with Europe and North America already having developed their potential

and about 70% in South America has to be developed. Asia and Africa also have potential to be explored, and within this scenario, China and Brazil stand out. Figure 3, reproduced from the Brazilian Electric Energy Atlas (ANEEL 2002), shows the historical evolution of the use of Brazilian hydroelectric potential. Parallel to the hydroelectric potential, there are pressures on a global scale against the emergence of new plants due to socio-environmental issues. In Brazil, these issues have been arising difficulties for the expansion of the hydroelectric sector, requiring more elaborate impact studies aimed at the well-being of affected communities and environmental impact. According to data from the Brazilian Energy Matrix 2030, as shown in Fig. 4, there is a great potential to be explored around the world. In Brazil, electricity production is generated mostly by hydroelectric plants, corresponding to 75% of installed capacity in the country which generated, in 2005, 93% of the electricity required in the National Interconnected System – SIN. The Brazilian hydroelectric potential is estimated at 261.4 GW (Plan 2105), with only 30% being exploited. Of this total, 32% correspond to a little known estimated potential, and 43% are located inthe North region. The hydroelectric potential and its use by region are illustrated in Fig. 5. In Fig. 6 we see a comparison between the main hydroelectric plants in Brazil and in the world. Petroleum According to data from the International Energy Agency, oil accounted for 45% of the world’s primary energy supply in 1973. Environmental impacts, price shock in the 1970s, and

G

Liquid fuels

Coal

Natural gas

Renewables

Nuclear

History 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Projection 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 2 Total world energy consumption per energy source, 1990–2040 (quadrillion Btu). (Source: Data collection and direct translation from INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2017 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

720 Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

721

G Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 3 Territorial evolution of the use of the Brazilian hydroelectric potential. (Source: Atlas of Brazilian Electric Energy 2002)

Hydroelectric Potential in the World - TWh/ano

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

a

a

bi om ol

C

go

ad

an C

a

ru

on C

Pe

In

do

ne

si

a

a

di In

il

si

az

us R

SA U

Br

na

Theoretical

C

hi

us R

C

a Br az an il ad C a on go In di a In US do A ne si a P C eru ol om bi a

Technically Serviceable

si

1920 529 1488 1670 660 402 260 774 951 200

hi

5920 4485 3040 2800 2638 2147 1578 1397 1289 1000

8000 6000 4000 2000 0

na

China USA Brazil Russia India Indonesia Peru Congo Canada Colombia

Technically serviceable

C

Theoretical

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 4 Hydroelectric potential in the world: theoretically and technically useful (TWh/year). (Source: Brazilian Energy Matrix 2030)

technological advances that allowed changes in the energy matrix reduced participation to 34% in 2004. Still, it should account for 35% of the world’s primary energy demand by 2030. Consumption for the transportation sector is expected to remain around 58% of oil production, with the main demand for medium and light derivatives (gasoline, diesel, and aviation kerosene). Fig. 7 shows the main flows of oil in the world and defined routes. In energy generation it

has been gradually replaced by natural gas. Although maintaining a leadership position among the sources, in 2030, petroleum and its derivatives will account for about 30% of the Brazilian energy matrix, losing 8.9% in relation to 2005, accentuating the trend observed in recent years. Global use of oil and other liquid fuels grows from 95 million barrels per day in 2015 to 104 million barrels per day by 2030. In 2016, Brazil produced 3.24 million barrels per

722

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

Hydroelectric Utilization of Brazil by Region in % 70

%

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Midwest

South

Southeast

Northeast

North

Operation / Construction / Concession

31

53

53

65

9

Unreclaimed / Stocktaking

23

35

36

26

44

Unreclaimed / Estimated

46

12

11

6

47

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 5 Utilization of the hydroelectric potential of Brazil, by region, in %. (Source: Brazilian Energy Matrix 2030)

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 6 Main hydroelectric plants in Brazil and the world (base year 2016). (Source 1: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_usinas_

hidrel%C3%A9tricas_do_Brasil and Source 2: https:// top10mais.org/top-10-maiores-hidreletricas-mundo/)

day of oil and other liquids. The increase in domestic oil production has been a long-term objective of the Brazilian government, and the discoveries of large offshore and pre-salt oil

deposits have made Brazil one of the ten largest producers of liquid fuels, as shown in Fig. 8. It is interesting to notice that in 2006, the International Energy Outlook (IEO), in a

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

723

G

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 7 Main flows of oil in the world. (Source: National Energy Plan 2030 (BP 2006))

scenario of reference prices, projected Brazilian oil production as going from 2.7 million barrels per day in 2010 to 4.5 million barrels per day in 2030, therefore, with an even greater production in the last year of the scenario than the one projected in PNE 2030, demonstrated in Fig. 9. Pre-Salt Layer

In 2005, Petrobras drilled exploratory wells and discovered hydrocarbons below the salt layer. In 2007 it discovered an estimated 5.8 billion barrels of oil. Pilot projects began production in 2009 and 2010. The average production of Brazilian pre-salt oil in 2016 was a record 1.02 million barrels/day of oil. The National Energy Plan 2030 does not mention the pre-salt. However, it should be pointed out, as described in the text by Schutte (2012) “Pre-Salt Panorama: Challenges and Opportunities” that increasing potential reserves represent a new perspective for Brazil, as it allows the overcoming of what has already been one of the country’s most important external vulnerabilities – the need to import oil – and opens the prospect of a

significant potential exporter. We can note this estimated growth according to EPE data presented in Figs. 10 and 11. Natural Gas Natural gas in generation of electric energy has advanced worldwide in the last decades, as shown in Fig. 12, replacing part of the market dominated by oil and coal with natural gas having an environmental advantage, a reduction in CO2 emissions – about 20%–25% less than fuel oil and 40%–50% less than coal. In Brazil, national reserves of natural gas were not considered sufficient to meet the market, especially considering the use in electricity generation. Recent announcements of additional discoveries of natural gas in the pre-salt layer of Brazil have generated enthusiasm for the new production of natural gas. It is estimated that the pre-salt areas contain large reserves of natural gas, considering that this exploration grew 36% from 2015 to 2016, according to the ANP, as demonstrated in Figs. 13 and 14.

724

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

a

CHINA 12% JAPÄO 4,7%

ESTADOS UNIDOS 20,7%

ÍNDIA 4,2% RÜSSIA 3,5% CONSUMO MUNDIAL DE PETRÖLEO

92,086 MILHÖES BARRIS/DIA

ARÄBIA SAUDITA 3,5% BRASIL 3,5% COREIA DO SUL 2,7% CANADÄ 2,5% ALEMANHA 2,5%

OUTROS 35,9%

IRÄ 2,2% MËXICO 2,1%

Reservas em 1995

b

Bilhões de barris petróleo 2005 2014

66,3

80,0

300,0

4,5x

6,3

9,0

30,0

4,8x

US

29,8

29,9

55,0

1,8x

Angola

3,1

9,0

12,7

4,1x

Brasil

6,2

11,8

80,0

12,9x

Iraque

100,0

115,0

143,1

1,4x

China

16,4

15,6

18,5

1,1x

29,5

41,5

48,4

1,6x

93,7

137,5

157,8

1,7x

Venezuela Cazaquistão

Libia Iran Fonte: BP (2016)

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 8 Part A- World oil consumption in 2014 – main countries. (Source: https:// fernandonogueiracosta.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/consu mo-mundial-de-petroleo/; BP Statistical Review of World

Energy 2015 (Table 1.3), Part B- Evolution of hydrocarbon reserves from 1995 to 2014 Source: http://brasildebate.com. br/o-brasil-no-jogo-de-tabuleiro-mundial-do-petroleo/; (BP 2016)

The generation of electric energy is an important part of the use of gas; however there are other uses, as demonstrated in Fig. 15. Associated natural gas projects in the pre-salt oil fields will account for most of the growth

of future production, but the gap does not close between supply and demand in Brazil, as shown in Fig. 16. However, the reduction in demand for natural gas and the continued growth of domestic production have helped Brazil to

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

725

G

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 9 Production and consumption of petroleum in Brazil (million barrels/day). (Source: PNE 2030)

2011

2016

2020

DR - Out Pre Salt

2,022

2,774

2,387

DR - Pre Salt

0,303

1,283

3,08

0

0,201

0,215

0

0,023

0,074

2,325

4,281

5,756

RND - Out Pre Salt RND - Pre Salt Total

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 10 Estimated oil production in Brazil – new reserves and existing reserves in the areas already granted (2011, 2016, and 2020) in million b/d. DR Discovery reserve, RND Reserve not discovery. (Source: EPE 2011)

reduce dependence on LNG imports in 2016. Foreign dependence is a risk to the country’s energy security, but LNG arises as an important energy source. Brazil will have an increase in use according to projections of the International Energy Outlook 2016, as shown in Fig. 17. Mineral Coal Mineral coal is classified according to carbon content: peat, low carboniferous content; lignite, with a carbon content between 60% and 75%;

bituminous (coal), having a content between 75% and 85%; and anthracite, with a carbon content higher than 90%. In spite of being a potentially polluting fuel, its availability and distribution around the world make it continue to play an important role as a source of energy. It has a low cost of extraction and transport. India, China, and Australia are the countries that will most contribute to the growth of world production by 2040, with China decreasing its contribution from 48% to 44% by 2040. Most consumer countries have significant reserves and resulting in a small volume of world trade, accounting for about 15% of the coal consumed worldwide. In Brazil reserves are concentrated in Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. Mineral coal accounts for a little more than 5% in the Brazilian energy matrix and only 1.3% in the electric matrix. The main use of coal occurs in the steel industry and for electricity generation. The Brazilian mineral coal is considered of low quality; therefore, more than 98% of the product is imported.

726

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

Country

1999

2009

2010

Russia

6,20

10,00

10,27

Saudi Arabia

8,90

9,70

10,00

EUA

7,70

7,20

7,50

Iran

3,60

4,20

4,25

China

3,20

3,80

4,00

Brazil

1,10

2,00

2,14

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 11 Oil production in 1999, 2009, and 2010 and forecast for 2017 and 2020 (in millions of b/d). (Source: BP Statistics, for the numbers

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 12 Natural gas consumption in the world (million tep). (Source: PNE 2030 International Energy Agency 2005)

2017

2020

3,82

6,09

of other countries; EPE/Ministry of Mines and Energy of Brazil, for the numbers and forecasts for Brazil)

Natural Gas Consumption in the World (Million tep) D per year%

1973

2003

Total Supply (Primary Energy)

979,10

2244,10

2,80

Electric Power Generation Cogeneration Heat Generation Other Uses Final Use

160,00

468,60

3,70

50,90

275,40

5,80

0,70

87,70

17,50

96,10

220,50

2,80

671,40

1191,90

1,90

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 13 Evolution of natural gas reserves in Brazil in billions of m3. (Source: ANP – 2006)

Biomass Biomass comprises the plant matter generated by photosynthesis and its various products and by-products, such as forests, crops and agricultural residues, animal waste, and organic matter

contained in industrial and urban waste. This material contains chemical energy accumulated through the energetic transformation of solar radiation and can be directly released by combustion or converted into energy products

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

727

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 14 Estimate of resources total undiscovered natural gas in Brazil (billions of m3). (Source: US Geological Survey 2001)

Consumption

Probability Basin River Mouth Amazonas Sergipe - Alagoas Espirito Santo Campos Santos Pelotas Total

2005

2030

Other Uses Oil Derivates Production

6,1 14,1

6,9 15,8

Energy Sector Electrical Generation Transportation Industrial

16 19,8 8,4 35,6

17 24,7 7,2 28,4

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 15 Structure of natural gas consumption in Brazil (%). (Source: PNE 2030)

of a distinct nature, such as charcoal, ethanol, combustible and synthetic gases, combustible vegetable oils, and others. Brazil has a leading position in the world due to the natural and geographical conditions. Africa and Australia theoretically also have good climatic conditions; however they have large desert regions. Brazil presents a great development in the technology of tropical agriculture, with international recognition of the alcohol agroindustry. According to data from the Bioenergy Worldwide Association (WBA 2014, 2015), electrical and biomass energy generation between 2000 and 2012 has grown 140% in the world, reaching 4391 Wh. The Brazilian sugar and alcohol sectors present a biomass production with huge potential for use, both for electric energy and for other forms of energy production derived from cellulosic biomass. Today, all the bagasse produced is used in the generation of electric energy and process heat. Since 2013, the sugar and energy sector has been generating a surplus of 60% of energy for the grid, and PDE 2014 points out that bioelectricity has the technical potential to grow

95% 216,00 38,70 105,10 106,00 498,40 0,00 964,20

50% 786,80 198,30 775,30 467,30 2107,20 556,20 4891,10

5% 1644,60 563,80 2508,30 1321,50 4634,20 1579,90 12252,30

about six times the amount offered in 2015, with a generation of 165TWh/year up to 2024. If the country fully exploits this potential, according to the EPE, only sugar cane can represent 24% of the national consumption of the power grid by 2024. Solar Energy We currently have two distinct technologies: photovoltaic, which converts light into electricity, and heliotherm, which is a form of thermoelectric generation, producing heat vapor. Given the need for a balance between supply and demand, heliotherm is less susceptible to variations in insolation, as it is a thermoelectric plant connected to the grid, while photovoltaic has non-generation periods that influence the distribution of the grid. However, investments to reduce value and technology have been concentrating on photovoltaic energy, which grew by 47% per year between 2004 and 2014, according to REN21-2015, mainly due to subsidies from European countries. Different business models allowed the growth of photovoltaic generation: (a) premium rate, purchase of energy generated by fixed value with long term; (b) direct subsidies, grant of direct benefit or tax reduction; (c) auctions, used for large projects with long-term energy purchase; (d) net metering, consists of the deduction of the invoice of the energy consumed by the energy distributed to the grid; and (e) share, instrument that requires distributors to purchase a certain level of energy from renewable sources. Brazil will be within the 20 major solar energy producers by 2018. Photovoltaic generation will reach 7.000 MW in Brazil by 2024, not including the distributed generation.

G

728

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 16 Projectionsupply and demand-natural gas in Brazil (million m3/ day). (Source PNE 2030)

2005

2010

Produciton

48,5

Importation

24,6

Loss and Reinjection

15,7

Total Consumption

History

2020

2030

94,2

169

251,7

47

45,9

71,9

25,9

40,1

56,6

115,3

174,8

267

Projections

Average annual percent change, 2012-40

2011

2012

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

30.8 24.5

31.8 25.5

32.8 26.1

34.3 26.9

36.5 28.1

38.2 28.8

40.1 29.7

0.8 0.5

3.7 2.6 18.6

3.7 2.6 17.8

3.9 2.8 19.2

4.2 3.2 20.6

4.7 3.6 22.3

5.2 4.2 23.7

5.6 4.8 25.3

1.5 2.2 1.3

7.6

7.9

8.9

9.8

10.4

11.3

12.2

1.6

4.5 1.6 1.4 56.9

4.7 1.8

5.1 2.1

5.6 2.2

5.7 2.4

5.9 2.7

6.0 3.0

1.5 57.5

1.7 60.9

2.0 64.7

2.3 69.2

2.7 73.2

3.2 77.6

0.9 1.9 2.9 1.1

22.8

23.0

22.5

23.9

25.0

26.0

26.0

0.4

China

15.3 7.5 14.6 4.6

15.7 7.3 15.1 5.1

15.3 7.2 20.8 9.1

15.8 8.1 27.2 13.5

16.2 8.9 34.0 17.6

16.5 9.5 42.5 22.7

16.0 10.0 50.8 27.5

0.1 1.1 4.4 6.2

India

2.3

2.1

2.3

2.9

3.8

4.9

6.0

3.9

Other

7.7

7.9

9.4

10.8

12.7

14.9

17.2

2.8

13.9 3.9 5.0 0.9 4.1

14.7 4.5 5.1 1.1 4.0

17.7 5.5 5.8 1.4 4.4

20.5 6.2 6.5 1.5 5.0

23.5 7.7 7.2 1.7 5.5

26.1 9.4 8.0 1.9 6.2

28.9 11.1 8.9 2.2 6.8

2.5 3.3 2.0 2.6 1.9

60.3 117.1

62.3 119.8

72.3 133.2

84.4 149.1

97.5 166.6

112.0 185.2

125.7 203.3

2.5 1.9

Region OECD OECD Americas United States* Canada Mexico and Chile OECD Europe OECD Asia Japan South Korea Australia and New Zealand Total OECD Non-OECD Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia Russia Other Non-OECD Asia

Middle East Africa Non-OECD Americas Brazil Other Total Non-OECD Total World

*Includes the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil, Fig. 17 World natural gas consumption by region 2011–2040 (trillion cubic feet). (Source: US Energy Information Administration|International Energy Outlook 2016)

Wind Energy The oil crisis of 1973 boosted studies for other energy sources, especially wind power. Between 1981 and 1990, the USA generated 1.8 GW due to government incentives. Europe concentrates market and technology, for environmental reasons and to reduce energy dependence. Since 2000 the technology has diversified around the world, with the emergence of facilities and manufacturers

mainly in Asia. Wind power generation has grown exponentially in the world, in recent years, with a still small contribution in the world energy matrix, with the exception of some countries like Denmark, where the wind supplied 39% of the electricity demand in 2014. The PDE2024, of the MME, forecasts that installed Brazilian wind generation reaches 24GW in 2024, accounting for 11.4% of the total. The Northeast Region (NE)

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil

is expected to be 90%. Wind energy, added to solar, will make the NE an exporting region of electricity by 2024.

Impediment of Adoption of Breen Buildings in Higher Education Institutions Government incentives boosted the Brazilian construction sector in 2013, responsible for significantly collaborating with the gross domestic product (GDP). On the other hand, we have that the sector is responsible for a large generation of solid waste and high energy consumption for extraction, handling, and use of raw material. In addition, buildings account for one-sixth of the world’s freshwater consumption, a quarter of the wood harvest, and two-fifths of the energy consumed in the world (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). We have a concept that has been disseminated in the last 30 years of sustainable development, which is defined as meeting current needs without compromising capacity for future generations (Wilkinson et al. 2001). If there is a possibility of success for this concept, this necessarily involves the civil construction sector. However, there is much difficulty in implementing this concept due to the scarcity of literature on the subject, lack of specialized training, lack of training on new technologies, and financial and organizational barriers. The construction of greener buildings tends to bring several advantages, including property valuation, reduction of water consumption, reduction of energy consumption, and reduction of waste generation, in addition to an average resale price. In general, the adoption of sustainable constructions faces technical and economic challenges; however if the HEI presented themselves not only as a vector of direct dissemination theories of sustainable constructions and management of energy but also as a manager of sustainable practices, the knowledge generated could positively influence society as a whole.

729

The adoption of green buildings by universities, as well as the positive impact of the IES image, also serves as a focus for further studies, contributing to research projects, generating knowledge, and also representing a further step toward the sustainable development of university and society. Another important point is that we can consider some HEIs as small cities, so the impact on direct power generation economy is no longer just informative and is gaining significant proportions (Kasai and Jabbour 2014).

G Conclusion The PDE2030, object of this study, is a long-term planning. Changes are made in the Ten-Year Energy Expansion Plan (PDE2024) which shows an average growth of renewable energies of 4.5% per year and oil and derivatives a 3% reduction by 2024. With the difference between supply and demand of primary energy decreasing, Brazil will register a surplus of 20% of total production, reaching self-sufficiency. In relation to natural gas, imports are expected to decline and domestic supply and demand to grow. Analyzing the energy matrix, despite the decline, oil continues to play a fundamental role, and the status of self-sufficiency in the pre-salt extraction is an achievement that must be supported by investments for internal industrial growth. As the oil market is sensitive to global political and economic changes, and even the exploitation of shale in the USA may lead to a drop in the price of a barrel of oil, consequently making it unfeasible to exploit the pre-salt. This would certainly lead Brazil to import oil and consequently natural gas, since it has been exploited associated with oil. Hydroelectricity is responsible for 68.4% of the electricity supply, but the implementation of new plants has run into environmental issues and requires investment for distribution, since the potential to be harnessed today is in the Northern Region of the country. It is also important to point out the

730

energy matrix for renewable energy, such as biofuels, wind, solar, and biomass. These sources should be encouraged in view of the challenges for energy independence and economic growth, with sustainability and environmental responsibility. Brazil must reshape its energy matrix in order to achieve climate goals, based on the objectives of Agenda 2030. This way, more incentives will be needed. Brazil has one of the largest and most successful biofuel programs in the world, including cogeneration of electric energy from biomass. The increase in the share of renewable energy sources in the Brazilian energy matrix will certainly pass through this important energy source. In order to consolidate these forecasts, it is necessary to work jointly between society and HEI, seeking to consolidate sustainability in the various sectors of society, working on the construction of green buildings, and increasing energy efficiency in these establishments through educational policies, programs, and standards, which must be developed through R&D in HEIs. The strategies of UNIFAAT to implement these proposals include the insertion of sustainability proposals in the curriculum of its different courses and areas of research. However, the resizing of an energy matrix, for a totally green matrix, does not occur immediately; it will only be possible through R&D, along with normative agents in partnership with HEIs and society.

Cross-References ▶ Bio-Construction Potential for Sustainability in São Paulo, Brazil ▶ Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Energy Management Tools for Sustainability ▶ Importance of Sustainability Indicators

References Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability:

Geopolitics of Energy in Brazil assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16:1777–1785 ANP – Agencia Nacional do Petróleo, Gás e Biocombustiveis. http://www.anp.gov.br/ Bicalho R. A din^amica Energética mundial: de como recursos naturais, tecnologia, mercados e instituições que determinam hoje a energia de amanhã. https:// infopetro.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/a-dinamicaenergetica-mundial-de-como-recursos-naturais-tecnologiamercados-e-instituicoes-determinam-hoje-a-energiade-amanha/ Clara Y. O mercado de GNL do futuro: risco ou oportunidade para o Brasil?. https://infopetro. wordpress.com/2015/09/21/o-mercado-de-gnl-do-futurorisco-ou-oportunidade-para-o-brasil/ EIA – U.S Energy Information Administration. https:// www.eia.gov/ Energia: 8,8% de toda a geração no Brasil vêm da Biomassa. http://www.fupef.ufpr.br/energia-88-detoda-a-geracao-no-brasil-vem-da-biomassa/ European Union. Website. https://europa.eu/europeanunion/topics/energy_en Fuser I (2013) Energia e Relações Internacionais. Editora Saraiva, São Paulo Kasai N, Jabbour C (2014) Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian Engineering Schools. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3:87–95 Lista de Usinas Hidrelétricas do Brasil. https://pt. wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_usinas_hidrelétricas_do_ Brasil Lucas A. Top 10 maiores hidroelétricas do mundo. https:// top10mais.org/top-10-maiores-hidreletricas-mundo/ Ministério de Minas e Energia. http://www.mme.gov.br/ web/guest/conselhos-e-comites/cnpe Nogueira F. Consumo Mundial de Petróleo. https:// fernandonogueiracosta.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/ consumo-mundial-de-petroleo/ Pinto M. O Brasil no jogo de tabuleiro mundial do petróleo. http://brasildebate.com.br/o-brasil-no-jogo-de-tabuleiromundial-do-petroleo/ Queiroz R. Incertezas críticas globais em tempos turbulentos. Observatório de geopolítica da energia. Blog Infopetro. https://infopetro.wordpress.com/2011/ 12/12/observatorio-de-geopolitica-da-energia-i-incerte zas-criticas-globais-em-tempos-turbulentos/ Schutte G. Panorama do Pré Sal: Desafios e Oportunidades. Texto para Discussão – IPEA (November, 2012) http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 16418 The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingsstatements/president-trumps-energy-independencepolicy/ The World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2017/03/worlds-biggest-economies-in-2017/ União Europeia. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ energy-strategy/2030-energy-strategy Wilkinson A, Hill M, Gollan P (2001) The sustainability debate. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:1492–1502

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

GHGs ▶ Greenhouse Development

Gases

and

Sustainable

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development Petra Molthan-Hill1, Lina Erlandsson2, Tabani Ndlovu2, Iain Patton3 and Fiona Goodwin3 1 NTU Green Academy, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK 2 Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK 3 EAUC, Cheltenham, UK

Synonyms HESI; International networks of HEIs; SDG Accord; Student networks

Introduction Global Alliance-Definition Launched in 2015, the Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Student Sustainability Networks consists of 37 higher education networks, all working toward embedding sustainability in the center of higher education. The informal alliance is the world’s largest alliance of both international and national networks, engaging partnerships on six continents (EAUC 2019a). The main aim of the Global Alliance is to bring together higher education institutions around a common theme and work as a joint voice to make the collective impact which they cannot make alone. By focusing on international collaboration, the Alliance brings together partnerships from across the globe, enabling member networks to contribute with their own unique knowledge and experience to share good practice and efficiently address sustainability challenges.

731

This Global Alliance works in line with several international initiatives, including the Paris Climate Agreement through an Open Letter to COP21 signed by 70 HE networks, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through the SDG Accord, as well as other UN initiatives such as the UN Environment’s Global Universities Partnership on Environment and Sustainability and the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) (EAUC 2019a) which is currently reforming as the UN Environment Youth and Education Alliance. History and Background Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) could be major contributors to changes in society toward sustainable development (Cortese 2003); however HEIs have been slow in taking up the new paradigms associated with sustainable development (Fien 2002). In 2011, for example, only 15 out of 14,000 HEIs had published sustainability reports (Lozano 2011). Nevertheless, some universities as well as individuals and groups had started very early to highlight the necessity that the HEI sector should address environmental problems. The Talloires Declaration signed in 1990 by 20 vice-chancellors, presidents, and university rectors across the world was the first of many declarations where universities tried to work together and commit themselves to achieve certain goals in curricula, research, operations, and outreach (Lozano et al. 2011). Since then national and international networks were initiated, many will be portrayed in this entry as they later formed the Global Alliance. At the beginning of this century, more and more actors in the different networks realized that taking a strategic approach would benefit the integration of sustainability in the higher education sector and subsequently in society. Utilizing the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, Dyer and Dyer (2017, p. 112) demonstrated how such an approach would support planning in complex systems and moving the whole sector toward sustainability encompassing five levels, if applied to the Global Alliance by the authors:

G

732

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

1. Understanding the functioning of the systems – “human society within the biosphere” 2. Basic principles, for example, the focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals 3. Strategy – a focus in the SDG Accord on leadership, education, research, operations, administrations, and engagement activities 4. Action – concrete steps, which are outlined in the reporting structure of the SDG Accord 5. Tools – sharing the tools which demonstrate best practice within the signatories of the SDG Accord

The following figure puts the formation of the Global Alliance and the development of the SDG Accord in a historical and strategic context; the aim of the Global Alliance is the contribution of the HEIs to achieving the UN SDGs by 2030 (Fig. 1).

Key Organizations Contributing to the Global Alliance The Global Alliance is supported by a range of very diverse networks. Figure 2 gives a first overview of the different networks they reach (national or international) and the topics they choose to address. As can be seen in Fig. 2, most of the international and national networks focus on social and environmental issues, and many have chosen to support the UN SDGs in their entirety; however Fig. 2 is only a first attempt in illustrating the positioning of the different networks and will need further dialogue with all networks involved. On the following pages, each of the networks as part of the Global Alliance is shortly introduced, their main aims and projects summarized, and information on the size of their memberships provided. Contact information can be obtained

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Timeline of the Global Alliance. (Copyright: EAUC)

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

733

G

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Suggested categorization of Global Alliance members. (Copyright: EAUC)

from the websites provided, and HEIs who want to engage in one or more networks are encouraged to get in contact with the network of their choice. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Launched in 2005, AASHE is the first North American association working for campus sustainability by providing support for higher education institutions across the United States, Canada, and beyond (AASHE 2019a). AASHE aims to lead the advancement of sustainability themes within the further and higher education sector and enable academics, professional staff, and students to contribute to a more sustainable future (AASHE 2019b). The association offers online resources, webinars, and workshops, as well as an annual conference, to enable their over 900 members from 20 countries to champion the sustainability agenda (AASHE 2019c). AASHE leads the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), a framework that allows universities and colleges to selfreport on their sustainability performance.

Participating institutions can receive a STARS Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum rating on the STARS Reporter designation to show their commitment to sustainability. The framework allows higher education institutions to give an understanding of sustainability for both students and staff, set goals, and create a long-term contingency plan to improve sustainability on campus (STARS 2019). Australasian Campuses Toward Sustainability (ACTS) ACTS work to enable further and higher education institutions in the Australasia region (Australia, New Zealand, the island of New Guinea, and neighboring Pacific Islands) to work in collaboration to create sustainable institutions and practices (ACTS 2019a). The organization promotes best practice sharing and opportunities for collaboration for stakeholders in universities and colleges (ACTS 2019a). Members include higher education institutions in the Australasia region. Other organizations, such as businesses, NGOs, and government departments, can join through corporate or affiliate membership.

734

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

Members have access to online learning resources and events, as well as eligibility for scholarships and Green Gown Awards Australasia (ACTS 2019c). The organization is committed to the SDGs and provides resources for universities to engage with and embed the SDGs across the institution (ACTS 2019b). ACTS also deliver the Green Impact scheme, the Learning in Future Environments (LiFE) Index, as well as the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) in Australasia and arrange the International ACTS Conference (ACTS 2019a). Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE) The Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education was launched in 2001 by the Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education. The tool can be used to audit higher education institutions to see how well sustainability has been embedded throughout the university’s curriculum (Roorda 2001). The aim of the assessment tool is to enable universities and colleges to assess their own sustainability performance. AISHE 2 assesses institutions through six indicators in five different modules: Identity, Education, Research, Operations, and Societal Outreach. Participating institutions can then be awarded Certificate of Sustainable Higher Education with a star rating between one and four (EAUC 2019b). Alianza de Redes Iberoamericanas de Universidades por la Sustentabilidad y el Ambiente (ARIUSA) ARIUSA brings together networks of higher education institutions working to enhance environmental sustainability in universities and colleges in Latin America, in the Caribbean, and in IberoAmerica. Twenty-five environmental networks are members of ARIUSA, representing 431 higher education institutions from 19 different countries (Sáenz 2018). The main aim of the alliance is to promote sustainability in higher education and to provide a platform for different environmental networks to come together over a common cause. The network is also committed to the SDGs and works to create synergy and

collaboration toward the fulfillment of the goals (Sáenz 2018). Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC) APSCC is an Indian-based organization, seeking to promote sustainability particularly in educational institutions and industry by providing a forum for information exchange, sharing of ideas and collaborations as a way to help foster partnerships between educational institutions, local communities, and other stakeholders to engender sustainable practices. The APSCC facilitates in the clarification and implementation of policies to help schools, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions to identify and implement sustainability-related initiatives that resonate with their local contexts. The primary aim of APSCC is to promote “Environmental Sustainability in the Educational Institutions, Industries and upgrading the Quality of life for Marginalized & Coastal Communities” (APSCC 2019). This will be achieved through promoting sustainable practices in waste management, fresh water, energy, biodiversity, conservation, and healthy foods, as well as transportation. Ultimately, the APSCC seeks to help protect and pass on to future generations a sustainable world. The organization seeks to embed “social, economical, ecological and environmental aspects of sustainability into the practices of the next generation of leaders” ensuring that such practices become second nature. Achievement of this aim will help toward achieving SDGs and deliver global prosperity for all. Membership of the APSCC is open to “educationalists, business leaders, scientists and professionals across many disciplines, economists and various others” (APSCC 2019) who are interested in collaborating on sustainability-related issues. Membership categories range from green councils, student members, individual members, as well as corporate members. Canadian College and University Environmental Network (CCUEN) CCUEN works to develop and enhance environmental education in further and higher education

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

across Canada. The organization connects environmental educators and stakeholders to promote quality education within the field of environmental sustainability. 27 universities were full members of the network in 2018 (CCUEN 2019c) and have access to online resources as well as the annual CCUEN Conference (CCUEN 2019a). The organization’s main mission is “To facilitate communication, information sharing and collaborative action among post-secondary environmental educators” (CCUEN 2019b). Campus Sustainability Network in Japan (CAS-Net Japan) CAS-Net Japan is a Japanese sustainability network that was set up in March 2014, primarily to coordinate sustainability initiatives between Japanese universities and promote cooperation on sustainability-related issues in tandem with similar initiatives around the world. The network was set up primarily to act as a platform for universities and other institutions involved in sustainability initiatives to share experiences and collaborate. By promoting cooperation within Japan, CASNet Japan ultimately seeks to build alliances with other global networks to further spearhead sustainability initiatives and create sustainable campuses. China Green University Network (CGUN) This is a network made up of higher education institutions that seek to promote sustainability and low carbon economies by combating climate change and embedding sustainable development practices into their curricula. The main aim of the network is to build capacity and equip higher education institutions in embedding the Green Universities Toolkit and transform their campuses into green campuses while reaching out and collaborating with different stakeholders in their localities and beyond. Conference des Grandes Ecoles (CGE), France The CGE is a French-based not-for-profit organization which was established in 1973 and seeks to equip higher education institutions in France and globally by offering a platform to facilitate accreditation, joint programs, and dissemination of information. The CGE seeks to act as a

735

collaborative platform that brings together higher education institutions in France plus those abroad to collaborate on sustainability-related issues, working with partners drawn from companies as well as the not-for-profit sector. The CGE membership comprises mainly of specialized management, engineering, and other specialized institutions seeking opportunities from collaborations nationally and/or abroad. The network also works closely with companies and the not-for-profit sector to widen participation (Grandes Ecoles 2019). The COPERNICUS Alliance This is a network of universities and colleges established in 1993 ahead of the publication of the COPERNICUS Charter which saw 326 universities signing up and committing to promoting principles on sustainable development. It is registered as a non-for-profit organization in Germany. The network was relaunched in 2011 and renamed the COPERNICUS Alliance, and a new Charter was developed. Membership comprises mainly of individual and institutional members, the latter being universities and other higher education institutions (Copernicus 2019). The Alliance seeks to facilitate the exchange of good practice among universities and colleges while building knowledge on sustainability and Education for Sustainable Development in higher education. It also seeks to inform and influence policy-making in relation to higher education in Europe and globally through development of tools and frameworks meant to help embed sustainability in higher education. EAUC: The Alliance for Sustainability Leadership in Education EAUC is the alliance for sustainability leadership in education, a not-for-profit, member-based charity, run by members for members. EAUC has over 200 university, college, and learning and skills organizations as members. Membership is for the whole institution – staff and students – to ensure a holistic approach is taken to sustainability. EAUC also provides membership for companies. The alliance helps leaders, academics, and other professionals to drive sustainability to the heart of their institutions.

G

736

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

The alliance was formed as a volunteer organization in 1996 and has grown to represent over 2 million students and over 400,000 members of staff (EAUC 2019c). The aim of the association is to embed sustainability in all further and higher education institutions across the United Kingdom and Ireland. The EAUC offers a range of initiatives, such as the knowledge sharing platform Sustainability Exchange, an annual conference, and the Green Gown Awards (https://www. greengownawards.org), celebrating innovative sustainability initiatives in the college and university sector, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. The EAUC also leads on international initiatives such as the SDG Accord and the Global Alliance (Fig. 3). Ecocampus Belgium Ecocampus Belgium was initiated by the Flemish Government with the purpose of conscientizing the Flemish higher education sector toward

sustainability. The initiative is divided into discipline-specific networks of educators who collaborate both in their disciplines as well as in multidisciplinary exchange forums facilitating knowledge sharing with different stakeholders. Ecocampus Belgium aims to incorporate sustainable development principles and values into the higher education curricula, focusing on education content, process, and vision. Five universities and 15 university colleges in Flanders are engaging with the initiative (Ecocampus 2019). Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) and International Journal of Cleaner Production EMSU use their international conference platform to bring together universities and other society stakeholders willing to tackle environmental challenges, to explore the role universities can play in developing solutions to address the sustainabilityrelated challenges faced by society. EMSU seek to

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Timeline of the EAUC. (Copyright: EAUC)

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

promote a two-way dialogue between universities and society using their international conference to bring together key universities and other key stakeholders to collaboratively develop solutions for global environmental pressures. Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) FEE was founded in 1981 in the Netherlands to “foster awareness, knowledge, participation, commitment, skills, actions and creativity on the environment and on sustainable development, sharing the core values behind the set of SDGs” (FEE 2019). The Foundation acts as facilitator for cultivating responsible consciousness through education. It runs educational programs such as EcoSchools, LEAF, as well as Young Reporters for the Environment, all aimed at conscientizing young people to proactively work toward creating a sustainable world. For organizations, the FEE runs Green Key and Blue Flag which both promote sustainable business practices. The foundation focuses on eight educational principles to act as pillars of their work in engendering a sustainability culture (FEE 2019, np). As stated on its website, the FEE seeks to “engage and empower people through education in collaboration with our members and partners worldwide” (FEE 2019). Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI) The GRLI acts as a catalyst for the development of new innovative responsible leadership thinking worldwide. It fosters collaboration on ethics, responsibility, and sustainability between business schools and society by creating awareness of and the need to develop and promote responsible practices. They describe themselves as a “think-and-act enabler” as opposed to a think tank, emphasizing their “hands-on” approach. The main aim of the initiative is, through advocacy, to bring together diverse groups of people and facilitate the search toward solutions to address responsibility challenges facing the world and contribute toward SDGs. The GRLI is not a membership-based organization but rather a partnership of networks incorporating companies and learning institutions (GRLI 2019).

737

Graines de Changement/Utopies Utopies is a French think tank established in 1993 with the aim to encourage and support organizations to develop and embed responsible practices into their strategies. The organization has since expanded its portfolio to offer consulting services and works in partnership with many blue-chip brands globally. The aim is to bring together organizations with an interest in sustainability-related issues and promote the development and deployment of sustainability thinking. The Campus Responsables “initiative” was created in 2006 to encourage and assist integration of sustainable development into educational institutions programs and the management of their infrastructure. Campus Responsables is the first network of universities and colleges focusing on sustainable development, with 40 member initiative institutions throughout France and Belgium. The French speaking Green Gown Awards – Les Trophées des campus responsables – are delivered by Campus Responsables. Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) HESI was formed in 2012 ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). It is a partnership between UNESCO, UNEP, PRME, the UN-Habitat, and UN-DESA aimed at creating a collaborative link between higher education institutions (HEIs), science, and policy-making as a way to usher in a more sustainable world through education. From inception, HESI garnered commitments from over 300 universities drawn from different parts of the globe. This represented more than a third of all sustainability commitments made and launched at the RIO+20 summit in 2012. HESI hosts various events where different stakeholders come together to share ideas, showcase their achievements of sustainability initiatives, as well as review progress toward such objectives as the 2030 sustainability objectives. HESI aims to equip future generations with skills and knowledge to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It seeks to achieve this objective by providing an effective and platform fostering collaboration between higher

G

738

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

education institutions (HEIs), science, and policymaking. HESI also provides one of the most comprehensive and concrete opportunities to connect young people to the 2030 Agenda with over 300 higher education institutions drawn from around the globe committing to actively contribute toward HESI’s sustainability agenda (HESI 2017). By working with several high-profile UN agencies, HESI puts the work of its different partners in the global limelight and helps to draw attention to sustainability challenges and how different initiatives are inching toward achievement of the SDGs. The HESI platform allows for different partners to gauge interest and commitment and understand the challenges faced by HEIs in their attempts to engender a sustainable culture among young people. This was manifested through the 2017 online survey that was commissioned by DESA-DSD to “better understand the interests, needs, and contributions of HEIs” (HESI 2017, p. 2). Thirty-six HEIs from around the world completed the survey with resounding support for the HESI platform and called for more support for HEIs in terms of sharing knowledge and fostering closer collaborations. At the UN High Level Political Forum in July 2018, HESI UN Members recognised the Global Alliance as its link with the world’s university and student sustainability networks and endorsed the SDG Accord and the Sulitest as its primary tools of engagement and support. International Association of Universities (IAU) The IAU was formed in 1950 under UNESCO and remains an official partner of UNESCO. It is based in Paris, France, and has a worldwide membership base of over 650 higher education institutions, affiliates, and organizations drawn from over 130 countries worldwide (IAU 2019). The association was formed to foster collaboration among higher education institutions from around the world. International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) The ISCN is a forum that offers a global platform to facilitate exchange of information and best practice among universities, colleges, and

corporates from around the world, driving the search for sustainability solutions and fostering the integration of sustainability into research and teaching. ISCN boasts of over 80 university members from over 30 countries worldwide. Most of the members of the World Economic Forum’s Global University Leader Forum are also members of ISCN. All members must sign the ISCN charter and commit to produce their own charter that they will transparently deliver on and report results thereof as well as pay their annual membership fee (ISCN 2019). Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative (KAGCI) KAGCI works to enhance sustainable education, research, and campuses by creating practical, collaborative opportunities between educational institutions and local communities (KAGCI 2010a). The aim of the association is to make long-term commitments to sustainable campuses, reduction of energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and green leadership in the higher education sector (KAGCI 2010b). KAGCI also aims to support universities by providing them with training and resources to put in place adequate measures to create environmentally responsible campuses and green curriculums. The association connects 39 Korean institutions (KAGCI 2010c) interested in creating green campuses and enables both national and international collaboration toward sustainable development (KAGCI 2010b). Each member university has a committee working with the aims and goals of KAGCI and is responsible for spreading information and organizing projects’ and events in line with the values of the association (KAGCI 2010b). Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in Africa (MESA) The MESA Partnership is an initiative from the United Nations Environment, supported by UNESCO, United Nations University (UNU), and the Association of African Universities (AAU). Eighty-five universities in 32 different African countries are members, and the Partnership runs and contributes to a wide range of sustainability initiatives, including online resources

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

to support embedding Education for Sustainable Development in universities and platforms to share good practice relating to sustainability education, research, and engagement (MESA 2019). The main aim of MESA is to embed themes of sustainable development into all aspects of university life. Focus is also on providing African higher education institutions with a framework to mainstream Education for Sustainable Development in their practices and continue to engage students with sustainability. National Institute of Technology, Fukushima College Fukushima College is the organizer of the Regional Conference on Campus Sustainability, focusing on creating campuses and communities enhancing sustainability and green spaces. In 2019, the main theme of the conference is “Renewable Energy and Campus Sustainability.” Nordic Sustainable Campus Network (NSCN) NSCN was launched in 2012 to further enhance sustainability initiatives in Nordic colleges and universities. The network recognizes the importance of education in reaching sustainability goals and aims to enhance sustainability themes in learning and teaching, estates, and operations (NSCN 2019a). The NSCN engages sustainability professionals across further and higher education institutions in the Nordic countries. Forty-five institutions are currently members of the network (NSCN 2019b). The network encourages collaboration and sharing of good practices between members by facilitating online platforms, such as blogs, mailing lists, and LinkedIn groups (NSCN 2019a). The network organizes external events around sustainability themes and leads projects such as the Nordic City Challenge, a collaborative and interdisciplinary urban development project engaging students in the Nordic countries (NSCN 2019a). National Union of Students (NUS) NUS represents around 95% of all college and university students’ unions in the United Kingdom. Six hundred local student unions are part of the NUS, and the organization represents

739

the interests of seven million students in the United Kingdom (NUS 2019a). NUS protects the rights of students in further and higher education and is offering a wide range of opportunities on matters relevant for student life. The organization’s three core values have been identified as equality, democracy, and collectivism (NUS 2019a), aiming to build a resilient and impactful organization. The sustainability department runs events such as the Green Impact scheme, the Responsible Futures accreditation, and the Student Switch Off, engaging students in making their campuses, curriculums, and communities more sustainable (NUS 2019b). ProSPER.Net: Promotion of Sustainability in Postgraduate Education and Research Network ProSPER.Net was launched in 2008 and connects higher education institutions in the Asia-Pacific region on Education for Sustainable Development in postgraduate courses. The network focuses on embedding sustainability across a wide range of academic disciplines for a higher impact and outreach. Forty-six institutions from the whole Asia-Pacific region are currently members of the network (ProSPER.Net 2019). The network aims to foster responsible leaders with the right skills, knowledge, and abilities to solve future and contemporary sustainability challenges. By embedding sustainability themes in the formal curriculum, students will be better equipped to be part of future solutions and make a positive difference. Rootability Rootability is a nonprofit social business, recognizing the student demand for greener educational institutions from both students and staff. Rootability aims to provide opportunities and resources for people to take action in their own institutions (Rootability 2019a), by engaging students and staff in sustainability projects and events, such as the “Green Office Model,” an open-source solution aiming to involve whole institutions in sustainability initiatives. In 2019, there were Green Office initiatives in close to 70 institutions across the world (Rootability 2019b).

G

740

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

Studenten voor Morgen Studenten voor Morgen is the Dutch national student network for sustainability in higher education. They connect student organizations interested in sustainability from across the Netherlands, with 40 organizations currently part of the network. The aim of the network is to provide students with the right knowledge and tools to live a sustainable life and to make a difference. In addition, they aim to further enhance sustainability in curriculum, research, and operations in higher education institutions across the Netherlands. The network uses the SDGs as a framework, which can be seen through a wide range of projects and resources made available by the organization, including a monthly magazine and the sustainability ranking tool SustainaBul (Studenten voor Morgen 2019). Sustainability and Education Policy Network (SEPN) Launched in 2012, SEPN is an international network of researchers and institutions responding to the need for sustainability education policy research. The organization enables collaboration between researchers within the field of sustainable development and international policy research (SEPN 2019a). The network engages 11 Partner and Contributor Organizations as well as academics, graduate students, and research fellows (SEPN 2019b). SEPN aims to explore how educational systems are contributing toward sustainable development and how to align educational policy to efficiently combat sustainability challenges (SEPN 2019b). The network enables partnerships between researchers, policy-makers, and organizations to create research opportunities and collaborations on a global and national scale (SEPN 2019a). Sustainable University Network of Thailand SUN Thailand is a group of 20 higher education institutions working toward sustainable campuses and curriculums (SUN Thailand 2019). The network recognizes the need for educational institutions to contribute to sustainable development by establishing sustainable policies and operations and aims to link Thai universities interested in making a difference to both national and

international networks. The network also wants to set an example and share good practice for other sectors to follow (SUN Thailand 2019). UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) UKYCC is a group consisting of people aged 18–29, focusing on raising awareness of environmental problems. The organization offers ways for young people to get involved and make their voices heard. The group was set up as a response to the climate change mobilization of young people across Europe and the world, and aims to highlight the urgency to act on climate change and environmental challenges. The organization wants to empower young people to take action and collaborate with like-minded people to create maximum impact (UKYCC 2019b). In 2019, they mobilized youths around the United Kingdom to take part in the climate strike, demanding leaders worldwide to act on climate change (UKYCC 2019a). United Nations Environment (UNE) UNE is a UN body focusing on global environmental challenges, setting the environmental agenda and contributing to solutions in member states (UN Environment 2019a). Their work is categorized into seven themes: climate change, disasters and conflicts, ecosystem management, environmental governance, chemicals and waste, resource efficiency, and environment under review (UNE 2019b). UNE collaborates with a range of stakeholders, including research networks, other UN bodies, and educational institutions, to adequately tackle some of the main environmental challenges we are facing today. Their main aim is to provide leadership and opportunities for collaboration and partnership building around environmental themes and projects. UNE wants to enable all nations to take action and ensure quality of life for current as well as future generations (UN Environment 2019b). UNE supports the International Green Gown Awards. International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) IARU, founded in 2006, is a network of research universities focusing on solving some of the biggest

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

sustainability challenges of our time. By bringing together some of the most renowned higher education institutions around a common theme, can opportunities for collaboration and exchange develop on a global level? The network offers opportunities for staff and students to develop vital skills through internship schemes and summer courses, aiming to foster global citizenship and international collaboration (IARU 2019a). The main aim of IARU is to enable future leaders to develop skills and knowledge that will allow them to make responsible decisions and contribute to positive change. Academic diversity and international collaboration are two key aspects of IARU’s vision (IARU 2019a). Eleven universities from nine different countries are currently part of the network. The members collaborate around the main themes of the alliance, organize joint projects, and share best practice regularly (IARU 2019b). US Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development (USPESD) and the Disciplinary Associations Network for Sustainability (DANS) USPESD is a network launched in 2003, working to enhance sustainability education in the American education system and ensure that sustainability themes are fully integrated in educational institutions across the United States (USPESD 2019b). The partnership consists of around 100 participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, from faith communities to environmental NGOs and higher education institutions (USPESD 2019a). DANS is an informal network, coordinated by the USPESD and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). The network consists of 40 academic associations and stakeholders interested in enhancing Education for Sustainable Development across the further and higher education sector (AASHE 2019d).

Key Project of the Global Alliance: SDG Accord The SDG Accord was launched in September 2017 with the aim to highlight the vital role

741

education plays in contributing to the fulfillment to the SDGs and show the sectors commitment to the Goals. The initiative was initiated by the Global Alliance of tertiary education and is led by the EAUC (SDG Accord 2019a). The SDG Accord is open for anyone to sign through the website www.sdgaccord.org. Signatories are encouraged to show their commitment to the SDGs and continuously develop their practice to contribute to the fulfillment of the goals. Over 800 individuals, 100 institutions, and 14 students’ unions worldwide have signed the Accord (February 2019). The SDG Accord is also endorsed by members of the Global Alliance, such as the COPERNICUS Alliance, the UN PRME, and the International Sustainable Campus Network. The SDG Accord is also an officially recognized tool of the UN Partnership Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) (SDG Accord 2019b). Signatories have access to resources relating to the SDGs such as case studies and webinars as well as the online discussion group the SDG Accord Learning Network (SDG Accord 2019c), a place for discussions and sharing experiences, bringing together students, academics, and HE professionals from across the globe. Institutional signatories are required to report on how they are contributing to the fulfillment goals by submitting yearly reports on their progress. The questions given to the reporting signatories ask, for example, on how each goal is embedded in leadership, education, research, operations, administrations, and/or engagement activities and future plans the HEI might have in addressing the goals. While giving evidence and links to the initiatives within their institutions, HEIs are asked to assess themselves with regard to their efforts. They can choose to share some of their best practices with the sector. Combining all these reports, an overview of how the HE sector as a whole is addressing the SDGs is presented annually at the UN High-Level Political Forum. In July 2018 the first SDG Accord report was launched, containing case studies, best practice, and recommendations from signatories across the globe (SDG Accord 2019d).

G

742

Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

Going forward, institutions will be encouraged to submit more detailed reports on the SDGs. Currently, reporting signatories are invited to present the evidence, but it is not mandatory that they do so. It is envisaged that leading institutions will be keen to provide the evidence and share their best practice more widely.

Cross-References ▶ oikos, International Student Organization for Sustainability in Economics and Management Education ▶ Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) Initiative ▶ Sustainability Literacy Test ▶ Sustainable Development Goals and Networks as a Collaboration Model

References AASHE (2019a) History of AASHE. http://www.aashe. org/about-us/aashe-history/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 AASHE (2019b) Who we are. http://www.aashe.org/ about-us/who-we-are/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 AASHE (2019c) What we do. http://www.aashe.org/ about-us/what-we-do/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 AASHE (2019d) DANS. https://www.aashe.org/partners/ dans/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 ACTS (2019a) About us. https://www.acts.asn.au/aboutus/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 ACTS (2019b) Support the SDGs. https://www.acts.asn. au/wwd/sdgs/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 ACTS (2019c) Membership. https://www.acts.asn.au/mem bership/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 APSCC (2019) Association for promoting sustainability in campuses & communities. http://www.apsccindia.org/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 CCUEN (2019a) About us. https://www.ccuen-rccue.ca/ en/about-us/about-us. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 CCUEN (2019b) Mission and vision. https://www.ccuenrccue.ca/en/about-us/mission-and-vision. Accessed 28 Feb 2018 CCUEN (2019c) Members. https://www.ccuen-rccue.ca/ en/members. Accessed 28 Feb 2018 Copernicus (2019) About. https://www.copernicusalliance.org/ca-members. Accessed 03 Mar 2019 Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(3):15–22

Dyer G, Dyer M (2017) Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. J Clean Prod 140:111–116 EAUC (2019a) Global alliance. https://www.eauc.org.uk/ global_alliance. Accessed 04 Mar 2019 EAUC (2019b) AISHE. http://www.eauc.org.uk/ theplatform/aishe. Accessed 27 Feb 2018 EAUC (2019c) What we do. https://www.eauc.org.uk/ what_we_do. Accessed 27 Feb 2019 Ecocampus (2019) Ecocampus. https://www.sustainabil ityexchange.ac.uk/ecocampus_belgium. Accessed 03 Mar 2019 FEE (2019) Foundation for environmental education. http:// www.fee.global/our-work. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 Fien J (2002) Advancing sustainability in higher education: issues and opportunities for research. High Educ Pol 15:143–152 Grandes Ecoles (2019) Grandes Ecoles. www.studyrama grandesecoles.com. Accessed 04 Mar 2019 GRLI (2019) Our network. https://grli.org/about/ournetwork/. Accessed 03 Mar 2019 HESI (2017) 2017 Higher education sustainability initiative report. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/17374HESI_2017_Report.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 IARU (2019a) About. http://www.iaruni.org/about/aboutiaru. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 IARU (2019b) IARU members. http://www.iaruni.org/ about/members. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 IAU (2019) International Association of Universities. https://iau-aiu.net/. Accessed 03 Mar 2019 ISCN (2019) Membership overview. https://www. international-sustainable-campus-network.org/member ship/overview. Accessed 03 Mar 2019 KAGCI (2010a) Vision. http://kagci.org/eng/subpage. php?p=m12. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 KAGCI (2010b) Our tasks. http://kagci.org/eng/subpage. php?p=m13. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 KAGCI (2010c) History of KAGCI. http://kagci.org/eng/ subpage.php?p=m14. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 Lozano R (2011) The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):67–78 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2011) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 2011:1–10 MESA (2019) UN Environment – Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in Africa (MESA) Universities Partnership. https://www.unenvironment. org/explore-topics/education-environment/why-doeseducation-and-environment-matter/global-2. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 NSCN (2019a) About NSCN. https://nordicsustainable campusnetwork.wordpress.com/about-nscn/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 NSCN (2019b) NSCN members. https://nordicsustainablecam pusnetwork.wordpress.com/nscn-members/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking NUS (2019a) What we do. https://www.nus.org.uk/ en/who-we-are/what-we-do/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 NUS (2019b) NUS sustainability. https://sustainability. nus.org.uk/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 Roorda N (2001) AISHE – Auditing instrument for sustainability in higher education. https://www.sustainabil ityexchange.ac.uk/files/aishe-book1_5.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 Rootability (2019a) About us. http://rootability.com/aboutus/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 Rootability (2019b) Green office model. http:// rootability.com/green-office-model/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 Sáenz O (2018) Alliance of networks for environmental sustainability of higher education institutions in IberoAmerica, in approaches to SDG 17 partnership for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), 2018, pp 60–74. https://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/files/ 2018-11-13_osz_ariusa_and_sdgs_003.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 SDG Accord (2019a) About. https://www.sdgaccord.org/ about. Accessed 27 Feb 2019 SDG Accord (2019b) The SDG accord – The University and College Sector’s Collective Response to the Global Goals. https://www.sdgaccord.org/. Accessed 27 Feb 2019 SDG Accord (2019c) SDG accord learning network. https://www.sdgaccord.org/sdg-accord-learning-net work. Accessed 27 Feb 2019 SDG Accord (2019d) Reporting. https://www.sdgaccord. org/reporting. Accessed 27 Feb 2019 SEPN (2019a) About us. https://sepn.ca/the-project/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 SEPN (2019b) People. https://sepn.ca/the-project/people/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 STARS (2019) About STARS. https://stars.aashe.org/ about-stars/. Accessed 28 Feb 2019 Studenten voor Morgen (2019) Missie en visie van Morgen. https://www.studentenvoormorgen.nl/over-ons/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 SUN Thailand (2019) Sustainable University Network of Thailand. http://www.sunthailand.org/eng/index.html. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 UKYCC (2019a) Climate action. https://ukscn.org/. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 UKYCC (2019b) Mission. https://ukscn.org/mission. Accessed 01 Feb 2019 UN Environment (2019a) About UN, environment. https:// www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 UN Environment (2019b) Why does UN environment matter? https://www.unenvironment.org/about-unenvironment/why-does-un-environment-matter. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 USPESD (2019a) History. https://uspartnership.org/pages/ brief-history. Accessed 01 Mar 2019 USPESD (2019b) Mission and vision. https://uspartnership. org/pages/mission-vision. Accessed 01 Mar 2019

743

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking Yusuf A. Aina1, Ismaila Rimi Abubakar2 and Habib M. Alshuwaikhat3 1 Department of Geomatics Engineering Technology, Yanbu Industrial College, Yanbu, Madinah, Saudi Arabia 2 College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 3 Department of City and Regional Planning, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Definition A campus sustainability ranking system can be defined as a tool that evaluates the sustainability performance or expected performance of a higher education institution (HEI) and translates that evaluation into a general assessment that allows for comparison across similar institutions. It is referred to as global campus sustainability ranking whenever it is done on a global scale cutting across countries and continents. It is different from the conventional ranking of universities that evaluates a university based on teaching, research, employability of graduates, and other factors with limited or no consideration of the environmental or sustainability factors.

Introduction The emergence of global campus sustainability ranking systems is increasingly contributing to a race among HEIs to achieve sustainability of their campuses. Thakur (2007) affirmed that higher education is witnessing an era of global competition due to the prominence of university ranking systems. While the conventional systems of ranking HEIs have been established more than two decades ago, the campus sustainability ranking systems have just started about a decade ago. Thus, it is not surprising that whereas there are several well-established global university ranking

G

744

systems, including Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education World University Rankings, QS World University Rankings, U-Multirank, and SCImago Institutions Rankings, there is only one global campus sustainability ranking system: GreenMetric World University Ranking. While college and university rankings result in “league tables” of universities based on mainly research and teaching, the campus sustainability or green campus rankings focus mainly on sustainability or environmental performance. Despite their differences in focus and pace of development, the impacts and criticisms of the two different ranking systems have been similar. The criticisms include the validity of the rankings, comprehensiveness of the criteria, and variability of the issues addressed by the different ranking systems (Marginson and van der Wende 2007; Lauder et al. 2015; Suwartha and Sari 2013; Thakur 2007). Despite the criticisms, both types of university rankings have been helpful in providing guidance to universities on teaching, research, and sustainability performance (Ragazzi and Ghidini 2017; Suwartha and Sari 2013; Thakur 2007). This entry, therefore, reviews the concept of campus sustainability ranking and its contribution to improving the environmental sustainability of universities and compares the ranking criteria and process of three selected ranking systems. It then analyzes the geographical distribution of universities that participated in global campus sustainability ranking and concludes with implications and future research direction.

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

definition established the need to ensure a balanced consideration of the social, economic, and environmental aspects of development. This is highlighted by the triple-bottom-line theory which is being extended to the universities (Ragazzi and Ghidini 2017). The introduction of sustainability principles to HEIs and the competitive ranking systems started with the Sustainability in Higher Education Declarations (SHE) (Grindsted 2011). Though the declarations do not necessarily translate to implementation, they offer the opportunity to bring to the fore the discussion on the role of universities in achieving sustainability (Grindsted 2011). The universities are regarded as “mini” cities (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008; White 2014) where sustainability principles can be implemented on a microscale and the experience can be applied to the wider society. According to Disterheft et al. (2013), campus sustainability has three dimensions (physical, educational, and institutional) which should be considered in implementing sustainability at HEIs. Alshuwaikhat et al. (2017a) highlighted six dimensions which include teaching and curriculum, research and scholarship, campus operations, institutional framework and management, community outreach and collaboration, and sustainability assessment and reporting. The universities are important centers for disseminating information and influencing the society since they educate the future generation (Abubakar 2007; Abubakar 2013; Disterheft et al. 2013). Thus, the universities could play a vital role in fostering SD, and their levels of implementation of sustainability principles should, therefore, be assessed to promote best practices.

The Concept of Campus Sustainability Ranking The conceptual framework of campus sustainability ranking is derived from the concept of sustainable development (SD), defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report as “the development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). The

Campus Sustainability Assessment, Rating, and Ranking There are other campus sustainability assessment instruments that serve as “monitoring tools” (Grindsted 2011), but they do not directly rank the universities per se. These tools include the rating and assessment reports such as Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS) by the Association for the Advancement

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), Global Reporting Institute (GRI), campus sustainability awards, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) certifications. The STARS framework is mainly adopted by North American universities, and its assessment is based on common sustainability criteria which can be compared across universities (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2017b). The GRI was established mainly for companies to assess their environmental sustainability performance, but some universities have participated in GRI reporting, and the number is increasing. According to Alshuwaikhat et al. (2017b), the number of universities participating in STARS and GRI increased by 320% and 600%, respectively, from 2011 to 2016. The campus sustainability awards include the AASHE Campus Sustainability Leadership awards and the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) Campus Excellence awards. The LEED and BREEAM certifications (launched in the 1990s) are awarded to individual buildings or construction projects based on green building criteria (Kasai and Jabbour 2014). The Role of Campus Ranking in Achieving Sustainability in Higher Education The global campus sustainability ranking system has led to the creation of a network of participating institutions whereby feedback on the ranking, successes, and best practices can be shared (Sari and Widanarko 2016). It provides guidelines for establishing sustainable universities and develops benchmarks and key performance indicators for improving and comparing campus sustainability performance (Ragazzi and Ghidini 2017; Sari and Widanarko 2016). It also improves the prestige and credibility of HEIs in terms of environmental stewardship. In addition, the global campus sustainability ranking system helps in raising the awareness of implementing sustainability principles at the university campuses. For example, the UI GreenMetric organizes workshops to improve the outreach and address the challenges of implementing the ranking system (Sari and Widanarko 2016).

745

Campus Sustainability Ranking Systems Global campus rankings have recently acquired significant prominence with visible effects on university governance and educational policy (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2017b; Marginson and van der Wende 2007). The campus sustainability ranking systems include the international and national ranking systems (Table 1). (a) Global campus sustainability ranking systems A review of the literature and online contents revealed only one global campus sustainability ranking system as follows. • The Universitas Indonesia GreenMetric World University Ranking: this is regarded by Grindsted (2011) as “first attempt to make a global ranking of universities’ sustainability behavior,” and it is probably the only system that is ranking universities on a global scale. It ranks universities based on the assessment of policies and campus operations (Table 1). (b) National campus sustainability ranking systems There are several national-level sustainable/ green university ranking systems. Examples in the USA and the UK are provided here for illustration purposes, given that the focus of this entry is on global campus sustainability ranking. • USA: campus sustainability ranking systems in the USA include Green Rating by Princeton Review, SIERRA Cool Schools, College Sustainability Report Card (CSRC), and American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). The CSRC has been suspended since 2011 (Table 1), while the ACUPCC requires universities to sign a commitment to be climate neutral (White 2009). The SIERRA Cool Schools and the Green Rating are still operational, and they rank schools based on green campus parameters.

G

746

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking, Table 1 Comparison of some campus sustainability ranking systems. (Source: Grindsted 2011; http://www. Ranking system GreenMetric World University Ranking Green Rating

greenreportcard.org/index.html, https://www. princetonreview.com/college-rankings/college-ratings)

Coverage Global

Sponsors Universitas Indonesia

Year 2010

Description Provides profiles for universities and compare them based on campus greening and sustainability criteria including policies

North America UK

Princeton Review People & Planet Sierra Magazine Sustainable Endowments Institute ACUPCC

NA

Ranks top 50 colleges based on green campus criteria Ranks universities and compares environmental initiatives and plans and carbon reduction targets Benchmarks the most environmentally friendly campuses Provides sustainability profiles of institutions based on sustainability indicators

University League SIERRA Cool Schools CSRC

USA

ACUPCC

USA

USA

2007 2007 2007–2011

2006

Enjoins signatory to a commitment to be climate neutral

• UK: In the UK, the main campus sustainability ranking system is the People & Planet’s University League or Green League by the Guardian. The Green League places emphasis on plans and policies and initiatives for carbon reduction (Table 1).

campus sustainability efforts and to rank universities accordingly, those related to campus buildings and operations are predominant (Grindsted 2011). Table 2 provides the summary of the criteria and indicators employed by GreenMetric, Green Rating, and University League.

Campus Sustainability Ranking Process

Green Campus and Buildings

Campus rankings are conducted either countrywide or globally, based on selected criteria related to campus characteristics (Thakur 2007). To describe the process of campus sustainability ranking, this section compares the criteria and procedures used by three renowned campus sustainability ranking systems: (a) UI GreenMetric ranking, (b) Princeton Review’s Green Rating, and (c) People & Planet University League. GreenMetric was selected because, to the best of our knowledge, it is the only known global campus sustainability ranking system. The Green Rating and University League are the prime examples of national ranking systems popularly used in the USA and UK, respectively. Campus Sustainability Ranking Criteria Sustainability rankings categorize the performance of HEIs using a variety of criteria and indicators. Although several indicators are being used to assess

Green buildings mean more fresh air, natural lighting, fewer toxins, and energy conservation, and they form an important criterion for campus sustainability ranking. GreenMetric system has a criterion on “campus setting and infrastructure” with six indicators measuring total campus floor and parking areas and sizes of green and open spaces and their ratio to campus population and total area, which all together form 15% of the ranking score. It also has one green building indicator under the energy category (UI GreenMetric 2016). Green Rating system, on the other hand, has green building indicators measuring whether campus buildings that were constructed or underwent major renovations in the past 3 years are LEED certified (The Princeton Review 2018). Under carbon reduction category, the University League assigns 15% of the total score to measure the rate of university expansion, size, and number of buildings, residences, and construction activities. Another 7% is assigned to carbon management efforts (The Guardian 2017).

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

747

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking, Table 2 Summary of criteria used by global campus sustainability ranking systems

a

UI GreenMetric, 2017 (6 criteria) Setting and infrastructure (15%)

Princeton Review’s Green Rating, 2017 (12 criteria)a Buildings and grounds

Energy and climate change (21%) Waste (18%) Water (10%) – Transportation (18%) Education (18%)

Energy and air and climate Waste diversion – Food and dining Transportation Curriculum and research Campus engagement Investment and finance Coordination and planning Purchasing

People & Planet University League, 2017 (13 criteria)b Carbon reduction (15%) Carbon management (7%) Energy sources (8%) Waste and recycling (8%) Water reduction (8%) Sustainable food (4.5%) – Education for SD (10%) Staff and student engagement (5%) Ethical investment (7%) Human resources (8%) Workers right (5.5%) Environmental policy (4%) Environmental audits and management (10%)

Source: https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings/green-guide/data-partnership. Accessed 22 Feb 2018 Source: https://peopleandplanet.org/university-league-2017-methodology. Accessed 22 Feb 2018

b

Energy and Climate Change

Climate change is affecting every aspect of our lives, and substantial reduction in carbon emissions is essential to avert the worst impacts of climate change (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2017a). Indeed, all the three ranking systems use this vital criterion. The GM uses six indicators related to university’s carbon footprint, electricity consumption, GHG emission reduction, usage of energy-efficient appliances, green and smart buildings and renewable energy, and assigns this category 21% of the total scores (UI GreenMetric 2016). Similarly, the Green Rating measures the proportion of energy consumption from renewable sources as well as the presence of strategies to mitigate GHG emissions (The Princeton Review 2018). In the case of the University League, the proportion of renewable energy HEI generated or purchased through green tariff accounts for 8% of its ranking scores (The Guardian 2017). Waste Management

Given that effective waste management initiatives like waste reduction and recycling help campuses to improve their environmental sustainability

levels, all the three ranking systems utilize this category in their rankings. The GM has six indicators, constituting 18% of the total scores, measuring efforts on paper and plastic reduction program, recycling, organic and inorganic waste treatment, toxic waste handling, and sewerage disposal (UI GreenMetric 2016). The Green Rating system measures reduction in waste output and rate of recycling (The Princeton Review 2018). In the case of 2017 University League ranking, the rate of waste reduction accounts for 8% of the total score (The Guardian 2017). Water Consumption

The GM uses four water-related indicators in their ranking: water consumption level, conservation program, water recycling, and use of waterefficient appliances, which altogether carry 10% of the ranking scores (UI GreenMetric 2016). Despite the importance of minimizing water consumption in fostering campus sustainability, the Green Rating does not have criteria for assessing water consumption level at HEIs. In the case of University League, the rate of water reduction accounts for 8% of the total ranking scores (The Guardian 2017).

G

748

Food Purchasing

Campuses that procure local and particularly organic food offer healthier dining options for their students in addition to developing the local economy and lessening pollution resulting from mechanized farming. While GM has no indicators on food procurement, Green Rating indicators measure the percentage of HEI’s food expenditure on local or organic food (The Princeton Review 2018). Also, the University League measures what roles campuses play in the food supply chain both as procurers and providers of food (The Guardian 2017). Transportation

Green transportation, including public or shared transportation, increases access and reduces air pollution, thereby promoting campus sustainability. The GM assigns 18% of its ranking weight to transportation category with eight indicators, even though some are redundant: vehicles ownership rate, bus services, bicycling, and parking areas (UI GreenMetric 2016). For the Green Rating system, indicators include mass transit, pedestrian walkways, bike sharing, bicycling, carpooling, telecommuting, and on-campus housing (The Princeton Review 2018). However, the University League does not have specific indicators on green transportation, but the carbon reduction category measures whether there is a strategy for reducing emissions from transport. Education for Sustainability

Courses on environmental sustainability provide students with an understanding of how the global ecosystem works and prepare them to make a positive difference for the society (Abubakar 2013). In its 2017 ranking system, GM assigns 18% of the scores to education for SD using six indicators: sustainability courses, publications, research funding, scholarly events, website, and students’ sustainability organization (UI GreenMetric 2016). Similarly, the Green Rating system measures the proportion of majors and minors in environmental studies offered by an HEI (The Princeton Review

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

2018). The University League also assigns 10% of its rating score to education and learning for sustainability (The Guardian 2017). Stakeholder Participation

Involving university stakeholder, including students, is vital in implementing sound and inclusive campus sustainability initiatives (Abubakar et al. 2016; Aina et al. 2019). Among the criteria used in its 2017 university ranking, GM has one indicator on students’ participation under setting and infrastructure category (UI GreenMetric 2016). Similarly, Green Rating system measures whether a college or university engages students to advance sustainability on campus (The Princeton Review 2018). For the University League ranking system, staff and student engagement in sustainable behavior change constituted 5% of its 2017 ranking scores (The Guardian 2017). Sustainability Administration

Campus sustainability administration involves having a sustainability policy, plan, and office to manage campus sustainability efforts. In the 2017 ranking system, GM has two indicators related to this category: university budget for campus sustainability efforts and the presence of a website that provides information about the efforts (UI GreenMetric 2016). Here the Green Rating system evaluates whether an HEI has a formal committee and dedicated full-time officer for coordinating sustainability initiatives on campus, as well as investor responsibility and green purchasing of electronics, paper, and cleaning products (The Princeton Review 2018). For the 2017 University League ranking, four indicators were used in this category: environmental policy and strategy (4%), ethical investment (7%), human resources (8%), and workers’ right (5.5%) (The Guardian 2017). As shown in Table 1, there is variation in the number and type of ranking criteria across the three ranking systems. While the 2017 University League ranking used 13 criteria, Green Rating and GM systems used 12 and 6 criteria,

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

respectively. This stems from the fact that all ranking systems are purpose-driven, shaped by some values and assumptions incorporated into the process of selecting indicators covering different aspects of campus sustainability (Marginson and van der Wende 2007; Shi and Lai 2013). The variation in indices as well as in the calculation system leads to “built-in bias that gives a systemic, unfair advantage to Englishspeaking, research-intensive institutions with strengths in natural sciences” (Lauder et al. 2015). Campus Sustainability Ranking Procedure Campus sustainability ranking remains a complex and challenging process given the plethora of assessment tools as well as the several differences in the environment, size, operations, and activities taking place in HEIs (Alghamdi et al. 2017; Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). Among the three main approaches of assessing campus sustainability – indicator-based, accounts, and narrative assessment – the first is the dominant approach used in campus sustainability ranking given that it is easily measurable and allows comparison among HEIs (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2017a). Below is the description of the procedures used by the three studied campus sustainability ranking systems in 2017.

749

rankings are also annually invited to participate. Collected data are then analyzed and the results are published. The Green Rating by Princeton Review

In the case of 2017 Green Rating, at the beginning of the year, nearly all 4-year colleges and universities in the USA and Canada were invited to participate in online institutional and student surveys. School contacts are asked questions about institution’s efforts to promote environmentally sustainable campuses using the criteria previously mentioned. The student opinion survey responses included student ratings of how sustainability issues influenced their education and life on campus, administration and student support for environmental awareness and conservation efforts, and the visibility and impact of student environmental groups. Based on the school-reported data and students’ ratings, the schools are assessed based on 60–99 points system. Schools that got the highest possible score of 99 receive Green Honor Roll, while those who did not supply answers to a sufficient number of the questions receive the minimum rating of 60 points. The schools have an opportunity to update their sustainability data every year and will have their ratings recalculated and published annually. People & Planet University League

UI GreenMetric World University Ranking

To participate in the GM ranking requires a sustainability officer of any interested university in the globe to send an email with expression to UI GreenMetric secretariat. The secretariat would then add the institution to its database and send an official invitation letter to the university sustainability officer with access to the online survey where the required data of the university will be submitted. The submitted numeric data, covering the criteria mentioned in the previous section, is to provide a picture of university’s commitment to campus greening and the existing sustainability policies and initiatives. Other participating universities and those with a presence in the QS, Webometric, and Shanghai Jiao Tong

To compute the 2017 University League ranking, People & Planet obtained campus sustainability information about UK universities from two sources. First, campus information on 9 out of the 13 ranking criteria, representing 61% of the ranking scores, was collected from the individual websites of the universities. Second, the data on the four remaining criteria, energy sources, waste and recycling, carbon reduction, and water reduction, were obtained from the 2015/2016 Estates Management Record (EMR) dataset published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency and other independent and external verification agencies. Using information from these two sources, universities were evaluated and ranked, and provisional scores were released. Universities were

G

750

offered the opportunity to review their scores and check for human error and could appeal any marking decision before the final league scores were released (The Guardian 2017). As indicated above, the procedure for data collection involves online self-reporting and information made available on the websites of the participating universities as well as student’ opinion survey. This could lead to universities publishing favorable environmental sustainability information on their websites, given that global rankings are nowadays viewed as a reputation maker that entrenches competition for prestige (Gómez et al. 2015; Shi and Lai 2013). As such, public debate on campus sustainability ranking should be informed by the methodology used, especially data collection procedure; selection of criteria and indicators, including their validity; as well as the appropriateness of the statistical approach (Thakur 2007).

Distribution of Green Universities Based on 2017 GreenMetric Ranking Nowadays HEIs are judged not only by their academic ranking but also in terms of how sustainable their campuses are. Globally, educational policy-makers and HEIs are taking account of global campus sustainability rankings in which national and international comparisons of universities are constantly made (Lauder et al. 2015; Marginson and van der Wende 2007). Given that universities have entered an era of open global competition due to the global ranking of their sustainability performance, this section seeks to discuss the distribution of the universities that participated in the 2017 campus sustainability rankings conducted by UI GreenMetric. In 2010 when the GreenMetric ranking started, 95 universities from 35 countries participated. The number increased to 407 universities from 65 countries in 2015 and to 617 universities from 76 countries in 2017 (UI GreenMetric 2016). Figure 1 shows the worldwide distribution of universities that participated in the 2017 GM ranking. Like the previous years, Asian universities have dominated the ranking (38%), trailed

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking Africa 2.1%

Australia 1.0%

North America 13.6%

Asia 38.0%

South America 10.4%

Europe 35.0%

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking, Fig. 1 Distribution of campuses that participated in 2017 GM World University ranking. (Data source: http:// greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ranking-by-region-2017. Accessed 02 Feb 2018)

closely by those from Europe (35%). While only 13 African universities from 7 countries participated (2.1%), with five universities from Egypt alone, 13.6% and 10.4% of the universities are from North America and South America, respectively. Underrepresentation of African universities could be due to lack of awareness about the ranking system. The Australian continent is also abysmally represented by only six universities (1%). Table 3 shows that US universities dominated the 2017 ranking, representing almost one-tenth of the universities that participated. Indonesia, being the home of the ranking system, has the second-largest number of participants (9.4%) after the USA. More than half (54.6%) of the 617 universities that participated in the 2017 edition are from only ten countries out of the total (67 countries). Seven of these ten countries are from Asia and two are from Europe: Spain (4.5) and the UK (2.4%). Despite its growing appeal, Gómez et al. (2015) are of the opinion that the GM ranking system fails to incorporate other noteworthy components of

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking

751

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking, Table 3 Top ten participating countries in 2017 GM ranking. (Data source: http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ranking-by-country2017/ 02 Feb 2018) Country USA Indonesia Colombia Russia Taiwan Spain Thailand United Kingdom Turkey India Other countries Total

Participating universities 61 58 31 30 29 28 27 25 24 24 280 617

Percent 9.9% 9.4% 5.0% 4.9% 4.7% 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 45.4% 100%

sustainability like campus diversity and equity performance. Another concern is that the ranking treats all universities the same while they clearly differ in geographical context, typology and goals, and missions (Lauder et al. 2015). Similarly, because resources and educational standing are unevenly distributed from high- to low-income countries, the ranking systems have tended to favor the developed countries, those using English language medium, and those that focused on graduate education and research (Marginson and van der Wende 2007; Lauder et al. 2015). In developing countries, such as those in Africa and some Asian countries where campus sustainability is not yet prominent, GM global campus sustainability ranking needs to first elicit participation and to create awareness about its benefits. University rankings generally evaluate universities holistically and compare them nationally and internationally even though rankings are purpose driven, are partial in coverage, and do mix objective data with subjective data and indicators are assigned arbitrary weightings and contain biases and as such should be interpreted only in the light of these limitations (Marginson and van der Wende 2007; Shi and Lai 2013). For a ranking system to add value to campus sustainability efforts, it should assess all relevant aspects of a sustainable university and not be too difficult for universities to participate. Campus sustainability rankings are

valuable for fostering the sustainability journey of universities, serving as a roadmap where the experiences of more sustainable universities can be studied (Gómez et al. 2015).

Conclusion The emergence of campus sustainability ranking is transforming the landscape of universities globally and is likely to continue to influence further development. The influence of sustainability ranking on the implementation of sustainability principles on university campuses will grow further with the introduction of the new University Impact Rankings by the Times Higher Education. The new sustainability ranking rates universities based on their achievement of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.timeshighere ducation.com/world-university-rankings). In spite of some criticisms over their methodologies, campus sustainability rankings are deemed advantageous because they highlight the contribution of universities in fostering SD within and outside their campuses (Abubakar 2013; Thakur 2007; Shi and Lai 2013). They are also now the subject of growing research literature and media coverage. Due to its immense importance such as influencing institutional policies and strategies, informing students’ decision in selecting an HEI, and guiding allocations of public funds, campus ranking systems will remain a component of HEIs for unforeseeable future (Thakur 2007). This entry has shown that the reviewed campus sustainability ranking systems are driven by different purposes that are associated with different notions of what constitutes campus sustainability and utilized varying ranking methodologies. While there are more national-level campus sustainability ranking systems, few systems offer global ranking. This study found that universities from Africa, East Asia, and the Caribbean are grossly underrepresented in the GM ranking system. To achieve a balanced participation, reaching out to universities in these regions is necessary. Campus sustainability rankings can be improved

G

752

when they are conducted using more objective data, good and transparent practices, and with collaboration with university stakeholders (Lauder et al. 2015; Thakur 2007). Despite its benefits and wide appeal, comparing universities based on campus sustainability ranking should be made with caution as the scores are suggestive rather than conclusive. Future studies are needed to explore the status of campus sustainability in Africa and other underrepresented regions in the ranking systems.

Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the support of the National Plan for Science, Technology, and Innovation (MAARIFAH), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology through the Science & Technology Unit at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia (Award number: 14-BUI109-04).

References Abubakar IR (2007) The role of GIS in the planning, implementation and management of university environmental management system—Case of KFUPM, Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings of the 2nd National GIS Symposium in Saudi Arabia, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, pp 23–25 Abubakar IR (2013) Role of higher institutions of learning in promoting smart growth in developing countries: University of Dammam as a case study. In smart growth: organizations, cities and communities. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Forum on Knowledge Assets Dynamics, Zagreb, Croatia, pp 12–14 Abubakar IR, Alshihri FS, Mohammed SAS (2016) Students’ assessment of campus sustainability at the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 8(1):59 Aina YA, Amosa MK, Orewole MO (2019) Students’ Perception on Sustainability. In: Leal Filho W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education. Springer, Cham, Switzerland Alghamdi N, den Heijer A, de Jonge H (2017) Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical overview. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(1):84–115 Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16:1777–1785 Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar IR, Aina YA, Adenle YA, Umair M (2017a) The development of a GIS-Based model for campus sustainability assessment. Sustainability 9(3):439

Global Campus Sustainability Ranking Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar IR, Aina YA, Saghir B (2017b) Networking the sustainable campus awards: engaging with the higher education institutions in developing countries. In: Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, Cham, Switzerland Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2013) Sustainability science and education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition. In: Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions. Springer, Cham, pp 3–27 Gómez FU, Sáez-Navarrete C, Lioi SR, Marzuca VI (2015) Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 107:475–485 Grindsted TS (2011) Sustainable universities–from declarations on sustainability in higher education to national law. Environ Econ 2(2):29–36 Kasai N, Jabbour CJC (2014) Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian Engineering Schools. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3(1):87–95 Lauder A, Sari RF, Suwartha N, Tjahjono G (2015) Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. J Clean Prod 108:852–863 Marginson S, Van der Wende M (2007) To rank or to be ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher education. J Stud Int Educ 11(3–4):306–329 Ragazzi M, Ghidini F (2017) Environmental sustainability of universities: critical analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia 119:111–120 Sari RF, Widanarko B (2016) Evaluation of UI GreenMetric 2010–2015: challenges and opportunities. IREG-8 Conference, 4–6 May 2016, Lisbon Shi H, Lai E (2013) An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a structured criteria tree. J Clean Prod 61:59–69 Suwartha N, Sari RF (2013) Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. J Clean Prod 61:46–53 Thakur M (2007) The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. J Inst Res 13(1):83–96 The Guardian (2017) People & Planet University League. https://peopleandplanet.org/university-league. Accessed 25 Feb 2018 The Princeton Review (2018) The Princeton Review’s College ratings. https://www.princetonreview.com/ college-rankings/college-ratings?preview=1#green_ rating. Accessed 5 Feb 2018 UI GreenMetric (2016) Guideline of UI GreenMetric World University Ranking 2016. From policy to action. Universities Ranking. International Laboratory and Research Center, Universitas Indonesia WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford White SS (2009) Early participation in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. Int J Sustain High Educ 10(3):215–227 White SS (2014) Campus sustainability plans in the United States: where, what, and how to evaluate? Int J Sustain High Educ 15(2):228–241

Global Change and Sustainable Development

Global Change and Sustainable Development Pimtong Tavitiyaman1, Xinyan Zhang1 and Artie W. Ng2 1 College of Professional and Continuing Education, School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 2 School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Definition Sustainability is a key concept discussed by the majority of profit and non-profit organizations worldwide. Millar and Park (2013, 81) defined sustainability as “the long-term and comprehensive view of a business enterprise’s awareness of and actions toward its financial, social, and environmental impacts.” In the tourism and hospitality sector, sustainability refers to a range of balancing acts being implemented that ultimately affects global sustainable development. To enhance global sustainability, pertinent activities should alleviate poverty in developing economies, generate employment, promote sustainable consumption and production, and advocate the sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources (UN 2017). Furthermore, such a global change should embrace local cultures while improving the quality of life and rural development by fostering economic progress in developing countries (UN 2017; United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2018). When it comes to learning and education, sustainability in the tourism and hospitality sector is conceived to be closely linked to the objective of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) set for 2030 (UNWTO 2018). Such an alignment is expected to develop knowledge and inspire stakeholders to act toward

753

the development of the tourism and hospitality sector through concerting policies, business operations, and investments. An important development toward sustainability requires training and educating the next generation of professionals who will work in the tourism and hospitality sector. Accordingly, incorporating relevant knowledge into the higher education curriculum can ensure that these future professionals will be equipped with the necessary competence to realize sustainability in the tourism and hospitality industry.

Introduction Sustainability indicates that business goals should be achieved by optimizing the financial, social, and environmental impact. These key aspects have different consequences on various stakeholders. That is, stakeholders perceive different priorities in terms of learning and applying sustainability ideas (Barber et al. 2011). Accordingly, the best fit sustainability ideas should be determined for the stakeholders’ goals. The management of sustainability in the tourism and hospitality industry is extremely challenging because of the rapid changes in the following aspects: (1) tourists or consumers’ behaviors and needs, (2) society and the community, (3) nature of a demanding business environment, and (4) political policies. The nature of this industry and the concept of sustainability appear to be incompatible. This industry needs many tourists visiting destinations, consuming products and availing of services, and generating maximum profitability (i.e., financial and nonfinancial) for related enterprises and stakeholders. Consequently, the growth of the tourism and hospitality sector has resulted in unstable tourist consumption and production, greenhouse gas emissions, economic leakages, poor management of natural resources, and cultural conflicts between the local communities and tourists (United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2018). By contrast, sustainability aims to conservatively manage existing resources, avoid damage to resources, and

G

754

promote business ethics and values. Ideally, sustainability should not contradict the present goals of tourism and hospitality management but be an integral element (Boley 2011). Given the current trends in society, the community demands additional corporate responsibility on sustainability within the tourism and hospitality industry (Boley 2011). This chapter explores the concept of and principles related to sustainability in the undergraduate tourism and hospitality curriculum design to ensure that the aforementioned gaps in the area of sustainability are lessen from the stakeholders’ perspective. In the field of education, such disciplines as engineering, architecture, and business have exerted effort to introduce the concept of sustainability into their respective program curricula. However, sustainability is relatively limited in the tourism and hospitality curriculum (Millar and Park 2013). Deale et al. (2009) argued that sustainability education has yet to be completely integrated in the tourism and hospitality discipline in the undergraduate and graduate levels. Sustainability and its implementation in tourism and hospitality cannot provide significant outcomes. Evidently, stakeholders in this field have neglected to execute sustainable planning. The notion of sustainability in education can be expanded to how institutions operate, how teachers teach, and how learners learn (Brookfield and Holst 2010). Quality education on tourism and hospitality sustainability for all stakeholders could be an alternative narrow the gap between tourism and hospitality management and sustainability issues. Accordingly, tourism and hospitality education can assist in preparing future industry professionals to validate opportunities, challenges, and ethical issues in this sector, enabling them to make sound judgments and management for tourism and hospitality sustainability (Shakeela et al. 2012). Tourism and hospitality education aims to ensure that the tourism and hospitality industry can create robust and lasting sustainability for a country’s citizens, environment, and economy. Thus, integrated educational strategies that support staffing, curriculum visioning, and strategic planning are required (Wilson and Von Der Heidt 2013).

Global Change and Sustainable Development

The lack of stakeholder involvement in developing tourism and hospitality curricula was prevalent in the past (Shakeela et al. 2012). Three major groups of stakeholders, namely, institutions and educators, students, and industry practitioners, play important roles in promoting and further discussing sustainability practices. From the perspective of higher education, sustainability cannot be treated as the interest or personal value of an individual institution and educator (Wilson and Von Der Heidt 2013). The impact of sustainability directly and indirectly influences every citizen in society. Accordingly, a holistic approach is suggested in introducing sustainability-related topics. Hence, institutions and educators, students, and industry professionals from various disciplines should collaborate to develop the curriculum and research design of tourism and hospitality education (Barber et al. 2011). Kreisel (2012) explained that the major challenge among tertiary educators is the method of integrating tourism and hospitality sustainability and the tourism and hospitality sector, thereby consequently contributing to sustainable development in the field of education. Sustainability is a key concept in research, policy development, and management in any field, including tourism and hospitality. Policymakers encourage strong commitment from the private business sector by supporting sustainable business activities and innovations (UNWTO 2018). Moreover, the inclusion of sustainability in tourism and hospitality higher education is required because this concept can offer students or future industry leaders with the knowledge and skills to promote tourism and hospitality development and business sustainability (Paris 2016). Therefore, key stakeholders should get involved in designing tourism and hospitality curriculum. The present study proposes the formulation of a tourism and hospitality sustainability course in the undergraduate curriculum, see Fig. 1. To develop effective tourism and hospitality sustainability courses, curriculum objectives (e.g., knowledge and skills related to economic, social, and environmental sustainability) should be shared to all key stakeholders

Global Change and Sustainable Development Global Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Proposed model in formulating tourism and hospitality sustainability curriculum

755

Economic

Students

Industry professionals Tourism & hospitality courses

Environmental

Social Institutions and educators

G (e.g., industry practitioners, students, and educators), thereby enabling the feasible execution of the related plans. Political policy is one of the issues that influences the effectiveness of tourism and hospitality courses. The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) (2017) reported that a few policy issues in higher education include budgets, increasing tuition, building a skilled workforce, and improving institutional productivity and student success. The execution of sustainability and political challenges in tourism and hospitality higher education should be substantially discussed, particularly in the following aspects: (1) Who will be responsible for the strategic development and implementation of sustainability in the curricula design – the institutions and educators alone or otherwise? (2) How will the strategic development and implementation of sustainability in the curriculum be executed throughout the tourism and hospitality courses? (3) How will institutions evaluate the effectiveness of students’ learning and the budget allocated for offering sustainability course? (4) What are the effective tools in measuring students’ skills, institutional productivity, and students’ success in relation to sustainability? The attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of all stakeholders are of major importance in the tourism and hospitality curriculum (Deale and Barber 2012). The objective is to align each stakeholder’s viewpoints and integrate these aspects in developing sound tourism and hospitality courses and curricula. The key aspects will be explored to

plan and implement sustainability courses in tourism and hospitality education, namely, teaching and learning strategies, education-industry partnership, educator engagement, and curriculum planning.

Industry Professional Aspects of Business Sustainability Implementation The business profession is moving toward sustainable initiatives and revolution. Thus, tourism and hospitality professionals should be innovative in developing valid management, strategies, and practices related to sustainability. For example, “green initiatives” can assist a business organization reduce operational costs, enhance customer satisfaction, and promote positive publicity (Boley 2011). From the business perspective skills and knowledge in sustainability are required for future employees (Millar and Park 2013) and tourism and hospitality leaders. The common sustainable practices in tourism and hospitality organizations include waste management (e.g., proper disposal of wastes and batteries), energy management (e.g., use of energyefficient light bulbs and water-efficient fixtures in guest bathrooms), use of locally grown or produced foods or drinks, recycling, environmental training to employees, and use of green messaging in promotional literature (Nicholls and Kang 2012). These green or sustainable practices influence consumers’ perception of a company, perceived quality, overall satisfaction, loyalty, and

756

future behavioral intention (Gao et al. 2016; Xu and Gursoy 2015). Businesses that endeavor to engage in sustainable practices can benefit from high profits, low costs, substantial employee commitment, increased customer satisfaction and retention, and improved investor relationships (Ali et al. 2018). On the other hand, customers or tourists tend to recognize and reward organizations that implement green practices. For example, customers are willing to pay additional costs to stay in hotels with green award or sustainable achievement. Consequently, many tourism and hospitality organizations proactively exercise sustainable practices.

Student Aspects in Tourism and Hospitality Sustainability Education Students will be the agents of change of the tourism and hospitality industry after their graduation. In relation to sustainability concerns in the workplace, students should be considerably proactive in terms of obtaining knowledge on sustainable practices and planning. Moreover, they should be co-creators of knowledge, gatekeepers of the community, and drivers of change (Muller-Christ et al. 2014). They should also experience sustainability from the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives at the local and global levels (Gombert-Courvoisier et al. 2014; Muller-Christ et al. 2014; Shrivastava et al. 2013). This method can facilitate students’ understanding of sustainability from the holistic system perspective in a business context (Williams et al. 2017). Many scholars have explored the understanding of sustainability from students’ perspective. Accordingly, students lack a real understanding of the actual definition of sustainability because such a concept is generic and subjective. They are afraid of difference and innovation in learning. Hence, they do not like the concept of sustainability (it is too subjective). Consequently, they lack support in the incorporation of sustainability principles (Wilson and Von Der Heidt 2013). The World Environment Center (2011) suggested that the business community is dissatisfied with the sustainability-related skills of business school

Global Change and Sustainable Development

graduates. Even though students have work experiences in the field of tourism and hospitality, such experiences are merely limited at the junior level and substantially on sustainable operation and execution. Consequently, they lack a concrete understanding of the rationale of sustainable planning. Therefore, students lack motivation and engagement in exercising sustainability. MacVaugh and Norton (2012) determined that students who enter business programs expect to gain professional skills and knowledge that will enable them to find jobs as leaders or managers and not spend time on sustainability.

Institutional and Educator Aspects in Curriculum Design and Development Teaching and Learning Strategies The effective facilitation of a considerably mature understanding of sustainability among students would be extremely beneficial (Paris 2016). Institutions can offer suitable infrastructure, budget, and educators for curriculum design and development. Meanwhile, educators can introduce many options to enhance student learning. For example, the institution can promote sustainable practices, such as recycling, waste management, and energy conservation and management. These can promote sustainable practices on campus. Educators can embed sustainability concepts in case studies and videos and experiential learning through overseas study, internship, and service learning. In a hands-on teaching and learning environment in school, tourism and hospitality courses can be developed through a paperless, online, and transdisciplinary case study approach (Dale and Newman 2005). Moreover, sustainability as a discourse in undergraduate courses should be taught (Alveraz and Rogers 2006) to enable students to gain a basic understanding of sustainability concepts, general business practices, and community concerns. Consequently, a few online courses have been offered to supplement regular courses. Education-Industry Partnership Sustainability in tourism and hospitality is closely linked with the objective to achieve the UN SDGs

Global Change and Sustainable Development

set for 2030 (UNWTO 2018). Such an alignment is expected to inspire industry stakeholders to act toward the sustainable development of the tourism and hospitality sector. The sustainability of the tourism and hospitality industry is dependent upon high-quality and innovative personnel trained by educational institutions. When students have exercised best practices of sustainability from the industry, they tend to implement these practices that lead them to become influential managers or entrepreneurs (Wade 1999). Barber et al. (2011) argued that sustainability-related developments would benefit from education–industry partnership. For example, the University of New Hampshire has realized such a need and developed and implemented the Green Launching Pad (GLP). GLP is a program that aids early-stage environmentally sustainable entrepreneurs in bringing their innovations to the market by connecting them with faculty researchers and students. Students will share their skills and knowledge to assist these new businesses. GLP purposely unite education (including educators and students) and external (e.g., industry groups) stakeholders via student engagement, industry demands, and knowledge sharing (Barber et al. 2014). Through partnership, education and industry stakeholders have successfully begun to break down institutional barriers toward integrating sustainable business practices. Moreover, student engagement in sustainable education has been enhanced. Meanwhile, industry practitioners can be invited as guest speakers to share current sustainable practices in the industry to update and enhance the knowledge of students. Institutional and Educator Engagement The perspectives of educators and institutions should also be discussed from the viewpoint of tertiary educator engagement. Tourism and hospitality educators act as facilitators in educating, training, and leading sustainability courses. Thus, they should gain additional understanding of sustainability concepts related to the industry and education of the tourism and hospitality sector. In particular, tourism and hospitality educators should introduce the concept of sustainability

757

and the related practices in the tourism and hospitality industry to students and propose the sustainability business model to industrial practitioners (Deale et al. 2009). Deale and Barber (2012) provided two reasons for tourism and hospitality educators to demonstrate sustainability in higher education: (1) to increase the significance to the hospitality industry and green initiatives and (2) to educate the future agents of the industry. To date, the influence of sustainability education on students has been studied; however, information is limited on how tertiary educators understand and incorporate the concept of sustainability in their teaching (Reid and Petocz 2006). Many academics may already be tenured and no longer have time to attend training courses or update their knowledge on sustainability (Kokkarinen and Cotgrave 2018). Educational institutions also have a duty to enhance the people’s knowledge. Institution leaders are required to convince educators regarding the responsibility of institutions and educators themselves in the sustainability process. Institutions should provide all support (e.g., time and incentives) to instructors to develop sustainability courses (Muller-Christ et al. 2014). The classroom environment, facilities, administrative policies, and planning should be aligned with the school or institution’s mission and vision of sustainability. Curriculum Design and Planning The educational paradigm should ensure that sustainability concepts and practices influence course development and planning, develop quality criteria, and enhance quality assurance (MullerChrist et al. 2014). Teaching topics related to sustainability include environmental management practices in hotels, resort, and foodservice operations, sustainable tourism design and construction, waste management, economic sustainability, and energy production, products, and conservation (Deale et al. 2009). Specific skills should also be developed throughout the course delivery, such as socialization, community engagement, conflict resolution, and cooperation (Deale et al. 2009).

G

758

Table 1 presents the summary of topics taught in tourism and hospitality sustainability. Sustainable environmental and social topics are commonly introduced in these courses based on the three aspects (i.e., economic, social, and environmental) of sustainability. The concepts of environmental principles, such as waste management and energy conservations, are often taught as well. From the social aspect, the topics of personal ethics and values and legislation and environmental law are presented in the curriculum. Meanwhile, the themes of creating sustainable business model, corporate culture issues, and

Global Change and Sustainable Development

training and education are commonly discussed in the economics curriculum. Barber et al. (2011) explained that educators emphasizes on social sustainability, such as understanding consumer demand. By contrast, economic topics are discussed minimally because they are more applicable to industry professionals than students. Table 1 shows that a few topics are similar to the sustainable development goals proposed by UNWTO (e.g., customer and supplier involvement, training and education, waste management and recycling, eco-design, efficient technology with energy and water resources, cultural and heritage

Global Change and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Topics of sustainability in tourism and hospitality higher education

Topic Economic issues Corporate culture issues Sustainable development concepts Creating sustainable business models Purchasing principles Food ethics Organic food Accreditation scheme Training and education Social issues Understanding consumer demand, consumer behaviors, and attitudes Personal ethics and values Legislation and environmental law Communication systems Agri-technology Cultural preservation and sustainability Environmental issues Environmental policy development Environmental principles Waste management Energy conservations Water conservation Sustainable buildings Energy efficiency calculations Environmental auditing Ecological footprinting

Sources of literature Barber et al. Deale et al. (2011) (2009) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Wade (1999) √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Global Change and Sustainable Development

education, fair trading, and responsible investment and local purchase). This similarity reflects the alignment of the curriculum courses offered to students in terms of content, knowledge, and the sustainability goals of UNWTO. However, a few of the topics have not been mentioned in UNWTO. The recommendations for the curriculum planning and development to cope with political challenges are presented as follow based on the summary of the literature review. First, the course contents of sustainability subject and a complete picture of the UNWTO sustainability policy and planning can be introduced or embedded in the key contents for students’ learning outcomes (Millar and Park 2013; Wade 1999). These contents can include but are not limited to the following aspects: • Economic topics – sustainable consumption and production, corporate social responsibility practices, supplier selection, customer relationship, responsible officer selection, and innovative economy for tourism sustainability; • Social topics – health-related initiatives, staff training, security and health, changes of consumer behavior and attitudes, and poverty alleviation; • Environmental topics – pollution reduction, energy measurement, certification of energy and environmental design, new equipment and technologies, and waste management; and. • Integration topics – tourism value chain and its effects, publicity and tourism sustainability, awareness of tourism sustainability, sustainable tourism policies, ecotourism, green supply chain, and green entrepreneurship. The embedded subject contents can assist institutions monitor the budget allocation for each course offering. Second, appropriate curriculum delivery modes for content presentation are important. The educators have restrictions of subject contents’ delivery with limited teaching time (Canziani et al. 2012). Delivery modes can stimulate student learning and engagement in the courses and contents. Apart from offline teaching,

759

online teaching could be treated as another innovative channel for sustainability teaching (Wilson and Von Der Heidt 2013). On-the-job training is another pedagogical approach for learning sustainability. Developing education-industry partnerships is suggested to enable students to regularly explore current good practices in the tourism and hospitality sector (Wade 1999; Barber et al. 2011). This partnership can improve students’ professional skills and assess their development for the tourism and hospitality industry. Third, as far as budget is concerned, offering sustainability courses as electives could be a good starting point. The budget can be mainly allocated to the core subjects as a required skill and knowledge for students. Moreover, sustainability can be embedded in other core subjects, thereby mandating all students to learn this concept. Eventually, proposing this subject as a required course could be ideal when educators have already gained familiarity with the operating courses and content delivery (Muller-Christ et al. 2014). Fourth, the debate on whether to incorporate the sustainability subject into the curriculum remains. Springett (2005) and Pitkethly and Prosser (2001) argued that the concept of sustainability should be incorporated in the 1st-year curriculum of tourism and hospitality undergraduate degree programs. Students will perceive the foundation of sustainability early on. When they continuously study at their higher years or the graduate degree levels, they would be able to apply sustainability concept into the managerial decision-making implication, managing uncertainty, and encouraging collaboration (Gombert-Courvoisier et al. 2014). By contrast, Wilson and Von Der Heidt (2013) determined that teachers prefer to teach this concept when students have matured in terms of critical thinking related to sustainability issues. The educators need to monitor the teaching patterns and appropriated time offering sustainability course. Lastly, the future challenges of sustainability in tourism and hospitality higher education include optimizing institutional productivity and student success despite financial resource constraint. AASCU (2017) suggests that institutions offer dual enrollment to enhance students’ accessibility

G

760

to the classification of transfer pathway and promulgation of online courses. Students can take sustainability subjects from other institutions and transfer this course as credit requirement for program fulfillment. This strategy can optimize the course offered from other institutions, thereby reducing the budget of course offering. In addition, students can gain knowledge of the sustainability requirement to enhance their competence. The viewpoints of different stakeholders should be aligned to make sustainability in tourism and hospitality education meaningful. One way to achieve this alignment is through collaboration among industry practitioners, educators, and students in the tourism and hospitality discipline. For example, industry practitioners can explain the rational or the importance of exercising sustainability practices during students’ internship. Students can comprehend strategic planning and support sustainable practices thereafter. This strategy will facilitate the improvement of the understanding of tourism and hospitality educators and students on environmental issues, industry-led practice changes, and the political and social challenges that should be addressed for strategy implementation. Eventually, these improvements will benefit the industry. However, issues related to different aspects and approaches may hinder the collective effort stakeholders.

Conclusions This study aims to align stakeholders’ viewpoints on the current global change toward sustainability in tourism and hospitality and integrate these aspects to develop sound tourism and hospitality higher education courses and curriculum. The major stakeholders include industry professionals, students, and institutions and educators. To develop a successful sustainability curriculum, all stakeholders should be involved and their concerns should be balanced. Educators of tourism and hospitality can consider the following initiatives: (1) recognize the importance of incorporating sustainability education at the tertiary level as a globally impactful initiative, (2) incorporate

Global Change and Sustainable Development

formative education and extracurricular activities in higher education, and (3) align with UN SDGs by educating the next generation of tourism and hospitality professionals.

References Ali A, Murphy HC, Nadkarni S (2018) Hospitality employers’ perceptions of technology for sustainable development: the implications for graduate employability. Tour Hosp Res 18(2):131–142 Alvarez A, Roger J (2006) Going “out there”: learning about sustainability in place. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(2):176–188 American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) (2017) Top 10 higher education state policy issues for 2017. A higher education policy brief 1–8 Barber N, Deale C, Goodman R Jr (2011) Environmental sustainability in the hospitality management curriculum: perspective from three groups of stakeholders. J Hosp Tour Educ 23(1):6–17 Barber N, Wilson F, Venkatachalam V, Cleaves SM, Garnham J (2014) Integrating sustainability into business curricula: University of New Hampshire case study. Int J Sustain High Educ 15(4):473–493 Boley BB (2011) Sustainability in hospitality and tourism education: towards an integrated curriculum. J Hosp Tour Educ 23(4):22–31 Brookfield SD, Holst JD (2010) Radicalizing learning: adult education for a just world. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Canziani BF, Sonmez S, Hsieh YJ, Byrd ET (2012) A learning theory framework for sustainability education in tourism. J Teach Travel Tour 12(1):3–20 Dale A, Newman L (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):351–362 Deale CS, Barber N (2012) How importance is sustainability education to hospitality programs? J Teach Travel Tour 12(2):165–187 Deale C, Nichols J, Jacques P (2009) A descriptive study of sustainability education in the hospitality curriculum. J Hosp Tour Educ 21(4):34–42 Gao YS, Mattila AS, Lee S (2016) A meta-analysis of behavioral intentions for environment-friendly initiatives in hospitality research. Int J Hosp Manag 54:107–115 Gombert-Courvoisier S, Sennes V, Ricard M, Ribeyre F (2014) Higher education for sustainable consumption: case report on the human ecology master’s course (University of Bordeaux, France). J Clean Prod 62:82–88 Kokkarinen N, Cotgrave AJ (2018) Are university lecturers literate in sustainability? In: Sustainable development: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, pp 1278–1291

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development Kreisel W (2012) Some thoughts on the future of research on leisure and tourism geography. Curr Issue Tour 15(4):397–403 MacVaugh J, Norton M (2012) Introducing sustainability into business education contexts using active learning. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(1):72–87 Millar M, Park SY (2013) Sustainability in hospitality education: the industry’s perspective and implications for curriculum. J Hosp Tour Educ 25(2):80–88 Muller-Christ G, Sterling S, Van Dam-Mieras R, Adombent M, Ficher D, Riekmann M (2014) The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable tourism – a conference report. J Clean Prod 62:134–137 Nicholls S, Kang S (2012) Green initiatives in the lodging sector: are properties putting their principles into practice? Int J Hosp Manag 31(2):609–611 Paris MC (2016) Sustainability: a threshold concept for tourism education. Tourism 64(3):329–337 Pitkethly A, Prosser M (2001) The first year experience project: a model for university-wide change. High Educ Res Dev 20(2):185–198 Reid A, Petocz P (2006) University lecturers’ understanding of sustainability. High Educ 51(1):105–123 Shakeela A, Breakey N, Ruhanen L (2012) Tourism education’s role in sustainable tourism development: a case study of SIDS introduction. J Hosp Tour Educ 24(1):35–43 Shrivastava P, Ivanaj S, Persson S (2013) Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Bus Strateg Environ 22(4):230–244 Springett D (2005) Education for sustainability in the business studies curriculum: a call for a critical agenda. Bus Strateg Environ 14(3):146–159 UN (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2016: promotion of sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, for poverty eradication and environment protection UNWTO (2018) Tourism and the sustainable development goal – journey to 2030, highlight. Retrieved from https:// www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419340 Wade JA (1999) Students as environmental change agents. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 11(5):251–255 Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J Clean Prod 148:866–881 Wilson E, Von Der Heidt T (2013) Business as usual? Barriers to education for sustainability in the tourism curriculum. J Teach Travel Tour 13(2):130–147 World Environment Center (2011) Business skills for a changing world: an assessment of what global companies need from business schools, World Environment Center and Net Impact, available at: http://www.wec. org/events/net-impact-wec-business-changing-world. Accessed 27 May 2018 Xu X, Gursoy D (2015) Influence of sustainable hospitality supply chain management on customers’ attitudes and behaviors. Int J Hosp Manag 49:105–116

761

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development Greg Bothun Department of Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

Definition Environmental change for most countries involves changes in regional weather patterns that alter the local hydrological cycle either facilitating extreme drought to or extreme storms. These events can lead to considerable alteration of local land conditions that in turn alter various plans for developing these lands in a sustainable manner.

Introduction In this contribution the lens of data is used to assess the current rate of global environmental change with respect to (a) climate change, (b) increasing global consumption, and (c) various resource depletion scenarios. These data indicate that our improved awareness and desire toward sustainable development, particularly in developing countries, is occurring at the most unstainable time in history as measured by the consumption rates. This makes achieving actual sustainability, which is a quantitative result based on reducing consumption, quite difficult as the developing world is gaining increased access to electricity and internet mobility. Global climate change is the most daunting aspect of global environmental change, and such change most definitely compromises any individual country’s ability to meet their growing needs, especially if in their country resource base has been negatively affected by these intense climate events associated with this change. With that in mind, families of countries are identified as most at risk with respect to adapting to environmental change. In general, these countries are characterized by (a) low per

G

762

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

capita GDP, (b) strong reliance on in country resources as their principal economic product, and (c) located in sub-Saharan Africa (Bothun 2016). In general, the world is now in the difficult position of a dwindling time window in which to decide that potential compromising of economic growth serves the greater good (Lectures on Ethics by Immanuel Kant 1997) of promoting global sustainability, a healthier environment, and overall environmental justice. A useful framework for discussing these ideas is that of “just sustainability” (Agyeman et al. 2003). Under this framework, social justice and global equity are the long-term goals of the overall adaptive process and should be the outcome of sustainable development. Yet, achieving sustainability is not about the more efficient harvesting of resources, it’s about establishing a more equilibrium use of resources with respect to innate planetary cycles. This view is well articulated as follows: Sustainability cannot be simply a ‘green’, or ‘environmental’ concern, important though ‘environmental’ aspects of sustainability are. A truly sustainable society is one where wider questions of social needs and welfare, and economic opportunity are integrally related to environmental limits imposed by supporting ecosystems. (Agyeman et al. 2002. The need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems. (Agyeman 2005) The environment must be protected . . . to preserve essential ecosystem functions and to provide the wellbeing of future generations; environmental and economic policy must be integrated; the goal of policy should be an improvement in the overall quality of life, not just income growth; poverty must be ended and resources distributed more equally; and all sections of society must be involved in decision making. (World Commission on Environment and Development 1996)

The above sentiments suggest that human cultures need to be living in partnership with nature within natural ecosystem limits rather than dominating all of nature and ignoring those limits. To achieve sustainable development, both of these principles need to be embraced and honored. Sustainable development can never occur only by continually rising above natural boundaries solely to support escalated consumption.

The Data View: Global Consumerism and Global Climate Change In this section available data is used to directly argue that the rate of global climate change and the rate of global consumption are both accelerating in a way that demonstrates they are strongly related. In the qualitative terms used here, accelerated growth can be expressed as: Pollution or Resource Usage a ðPopulation growthÞN ; N>1

For linear change, N = 1. Population growth is used as a proxy for the growth of individual consumers. To minimize mathematical notation, acceleration will be graphically represented by systematic overshoot of the data with respect to some linear baseline. Resource Usage An illustrative example of nonlinear resource usage comes from the decadal growth of world steel production since 1960 as shown in Fig. 1. The period 1980–2000 shows that production can be represented by shallow linear growth (green arrow). However, steel use suddenly grew primarily due to the emerging global economic power of China, starting around 2003 (Vidal and Adam 2007). The linear prediction based on the previous period clearly under predicts current steel consumption. The value of N is arrived at as follows: • Over a span of 56 years, steel production has increased by a factor of 4.7. • Over this same time, population growth has increased by a factor of 2.45. • 2.45N = 4.7. • N ~ 1.75. This means that if the population doubles, the world economy does not simply double its steel output, but rather output increases by 21.75 = 3.6. Thus the change in steel production has accelerated because of its nonlinear dependence on population growth. Indeed, most any resource usage conforms to this general nonlinear dependence

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Decadal production of world steel. Green line shows extrapolation of linear trend defined by 1980–2000 time period

763

World Steel Production (Million Tonnes) Source: World Steel Association

1630

2000

1433 1148 770

717

347

500

850

1000

595

Production

1500

G 16 20

10 20

05 20

00 20

90 19

80 19

70 19

19

60

0

Highcharts.com

between number of consumers (proxy by population growth) and actual usage. Some other examples are: • Over the period of 1985–2015, N for soy production was 4.5. • Over the period 1950–2015, N for fertilizer production was approximately 2. • Over the period 1970–2015, N for lithium production was approximately 3.6. One aspect of sustainable development for any country involves increasing the amount of electricity/energy that can be generated from renewable resources. But a lot of the devices needed for this increase rely on the availability of certain raw materials (e.g., lithium for batteries, neodymium or dysprosium for magnetic motors on wind turbines, platinum for fuel cell catalysis, and tellurium for more efficient solar PV panels). Here the value of N for lithium matters quite a bit: for N ~ 3.6 doubling the number of consumers would then require 23.6 ~ 12 times more lithium resource, a resource that is already under constrained production (Olivetti et al. 2017). The Rise of Global Consumerism For the most part, consumer goods are shipped via containers on large container ships. These containers are known as TEUs (20-foot equivalent

units). This fact allows analysis of container traffic to be a good proxy for global consumption. The total energy associated with these processes can be divided into three areas: (a) extracting the raw resources, (b) converting raw resources into consumer products, and (c) integrating transportation and distribution of these goods. Much of the energy associated with these processes is lost as thermodynamic waste heat, which as shown below, ends up as increasing heat content of the world’s oceans and changing their overall energy balance which in turn produces global climate change. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show some of the relevant data trends that are consistent with the escalation of consumption whose embodied energy subsequently heats the oceans. Figure 2 shows a 10-year ramp-up period (2004–2013) for the combined top ten container handling points in the world (six are in China, the remaining are in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates; the largest US port at Los Angeles is rated number 18 and handles 4 times less volume than the world’s largest port at Shanghai). Figure 2 also shows the behavior of the world’s top two ports. Note that as of 2013, some ports were handling 30 million containers annually; since there are 31 million seconds in a year, facilities like Shanghai are able to process containers at the astonishing rate of 1 per second. The global economic meltdown of

764

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

Container Traffic 250

Containers in Millions

200

204

191.4

198.8

57.5

61.6

64.3

66.2

2010

2011

2012

2013

177

170 158 150

136.8 120.3 105.6

100

50

35.9

41.3

46.5

2005

2006

54.1

57.9

2007

2008

50.9

0 2004

10 Port Total

2009

Top 2 Ports

Highcharts.com

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Time behavior of container traffic for the world’s ten busiest ports (blue line) and the world’s two busiest ports, both located in China

2009 is not readily apparent in the total data but can be seen for the two busiest shipping ports as about a 15% reduction in volume handled for that year, from which there was a quick rebound to maintain business as usual (BAU) growth. Figure 3 shows the tremendous increase in total container traffic volume. The solid black line is a 10% annual growth curve fitted to the 1990–2008 data, and this kind of growth rate is the very definition of anti-sustainability. While the economic meltdown of 2009 put a temporary halt to this enormous growth curve, the data clearly show a rapid rebound and continued growth now at the level of about 5.5% per year. This reduced rate of globalization may be the silver lining in the cloud of doom brought on by the 2009 economic meltdown. For the period of 1990–2008, the overall scaling is the following: • World population grew by 28% (1.28). • Total container traffic grew by a factor of 6.5. • N ~ 7.5. For that absurdly high value of N if the world doubled its population, it would use 180 times more resources. Clearly the Earth is not big

enough to satisfy this demand which has led to the notion of global ecological debt, further discussed in section “Sustainable Development.” Figure 4 shows the evolution of the container ship itself. Over the last 50 years, the individual capacity of a single container ship has grown by approximately a factor of 15. In turn larger container ports are needed. The data shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 reveal our remarkable ability to scale the needed infrastructure to the escalating global market by building larger container ships and larger container ports to process larger volumes of consumer goods. All of this scaling and the resultant nonlinear growth is a direct manifestation of our BAU value system and its trajectory based on the post-WW2 mantra, let’s do more, faster. In turn this only serves to accelerate the overall impact of ocean heating and global climate change. Humans have altered the very system that they live in. How can one expect there to be no significant outcomes from this action? One can’t, and the significant outcome is global climate change which will have a strongly differential impact, on various countries’ and regions’ economic well-being and available resources. In turn, this has a deleterious effect on any internal plans for sustainable development.

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

765

G

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Growth of global shipping container traffic. Solid black line is a 10% growth curve

applied from 1990 to just before the economic recession of 2009. (Data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants. https://www.drewry.co.uk/)

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Evolution of the size of individual container ships. Those ships that have more than

18,000 individual containers are not able to navigate through the existing Panama Canal

766

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

Accelerating Climate Change Growth of terrestrial CO2 emissions is shown in Fig. 5 which uses decadal averages of annual emissions. Data comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory which has been making reliable, well-calibrated measurements since 1958 (data retrieved from http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/ atmospheric_co2/). The solid red line is the average annual emission over the period 1960–2000 (1.34 ppm), and the circles above each decadal bin correspond to the highest emissions in that decade for 1 particular year. Figure 5 informs us that: • The current decadal annual increase in CO2 emissions is 2.41  0.38 ppm. This is almost twice as large as the 1.34  0.36 ppm value during the 1960–2000 time periods. • For the current decade (2010), every single year has a larger annual emission than the long-term 1960–2000 average of 1.34 ppm. • For the previous five decades, the average annual emission rate is 1.46  0.42 ppm. This decade’s current value of 2.41 is 2.26 standard deviations larger than the previous decadal

value. This increase has only a 1.2% probability of randomly occurring and therefore statistically indicates systematically increasing annual CO2 emissions and a more rapid buildup of atmospheric CO2, i.e., acceleration. • Extrapolating the observed increasing annual rate out to 2030 yields 440 ppm. This accelerated pace rapidly hinders the overall ability to achieve atmospheric CO2 level stabilization; in particular, stabilization at 450 ppm (e.g., Wigley 2018) now seems impossible. To assess the change in average surface temperature, the most recent data on global land+sea temperature anomalies as provided by NASA Goddard (data available from https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) is shown in Fig. 6. The use of both land and ocean is a far more sensible approach than just using landbased data. For instance, urbanization effects over the period of record are not likely to influence ocean-based temperatures compared to the land temperatures. By NASA convention, the measured DT values use a baseline of 1951–1980. These data are plotted in Fig. 6, and a linear baseline has been added show that the DT values for the last few years

Annual CO2 Emissions Averaged Per Decade Source: Mauna Loa Observatory 4PPM Decadal Average Max Year

Decadal Average

Maximum in Decade

3PPM

2PPM 1.34 PPM 1PPM

0PPM 1965

1975

1985

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 Growth rate of CO2 emissions in units of ppm. Vertical size of the box indicates  1 standard

1995

2005

2015

deviation around the mean value shown as the solid blue line. Individual circles above each box show the largest emission for 1 year in a particular decade

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

767

Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data 1.0

Temperature Anomaly (C)

0.8

Annual Mean Lowess Smoothing

0.6 0.4 0.2 –0.0

G

–0.2 –0.4 NASA GISS –0.6 1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Green line is linear extrapolation of the 1970–2014 data – recent points above the line

indicate that the global temperature anomaly is now changing in a nonlinear matter (e.g., this is acceleration)

indicate a more rapid rate of annual increase. The most likely result of this increase is catastrophic large-scale events (such as Hurricane Harvey, the California wildfires, etc.). Indeed, 2017 set a new record for insured financial losses related to natural disasters (Tabuchi 2018). At its foundation, climate change is driven by our systematic heating of the oceans, since the industrial revolution, through human industrialized processes and their associated thermodynamic waste heat. Waste heat is the inevitable result of work done by an inefficient machine that gives off heat to the environment while doing the work. Fossil fuel burning is one of the waste heat channels. Even though thermodynamic waste heat originally is dissipated in the atmosphere, the collective action of precipitation washes that heat out, storing in temporarily in the soil and ground water before eventually ending up it is final repository – the Earth’s oceans (Trenberth et al. 2014). Therefore, the simple expectation arises that the total embodied energy associated with increasing industrialization/consumption will systematically raise OHC. The differential warming of ocean surface waters directly couples to the behavior of the atmospheric jet stream which determines regional weather patterns (Dahlman 2015; Griese

and Polvani 2014; Blackport and Kushner 2017). As shown in Fig. 7, from the data in (Levitus et al. 2000; Levitus et al. 2012; Cheng et al. 2017), the rate of heat content addition to the ocean is also accelerating. The rise in ocean heating since the mid-1990s is fairly linear (green arrow) although the most recent data lies a bit above the linear extrapolation, particularly for the black line. Since there are significant lags in the system, it will take some time for this overheated ocean to manifest itself in terms of increasing atmospheric temperature and that time may be now according to the behavior of the most recent years seen in Fig. 6. Note that the Y-axis in Fig. 6 is not temperature – instead ocean surface buoy measurements of temperature have been converted to heat content (Cheng et al. 2017). On an annual basis, human activities are adding approximately 1022 joules of energy to the world’s oceans. These units are likely meaningless to most readers, but their equivalency is as follows: • Each person on the planet using 10,000 gallons of gasoline per year. • One trillion annual barrels of crude oil (current world consumption is 35 times less than this).

768

1960 25

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Global Ocean Heat Content

2020 25 20

20 Pentadal average 0-700 m through 2012-2016

Heat Content (1022 Joules)

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 7 Rise of global ocean heat content. Green line is the linear extrapolation of the time period 1990–2010, and the data indicate that the oceans are now experiencing accelerated rates of heat content increase. The data are averaged over 5-year intervals. Two different vertical depths of ocean heating are shown

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

15

Pentadal average 0-2000 m through 2012-2016

15 10

10 5

5

0

0 –5

–5 NOAA/NESDIS/NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory Updated from Levitus et al. 2012

–10 1960

• Each person on the planet using 1.4 billion AA batteries per year (that’s 10 billion batteries). The combined waste heat of all the industrial processes associated with keeping us on the BAU trajectory has increased the heat content of the oceans. As the world continues to escalate global consumption, the rates of impact on the natural system will correspondingly increase. The above numbers represent the sheer nonsensical scale of global consumerism and the resulting extra energy that is delivered to the system. Figure 8 shows the relation between increased container traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, as averaged over a 5-year period starting in 1970 (see also Wang et al. 2016). Despite some scatter around the plotted exponential curve, over the last ~ 50 years, a clear positively correlated trend has emerged. Extrapolation suggests that for the 2015–2020 periods, there will be an increase of ~215 MTEUS of container traffic resulting in an increase of ~14 ppm during this 5-year period compared to the previous one.

Sustainable Development The entire concept of sustainability and sustainable development requires that human actions are, over some timescale, in equilibrium balance with nature. The previous data section has shown that

1970

1980

1990 Year

2000

2010

–10 2020

all rates are accelerating. This behavior is likely a reflection of our collective value system: growth, growth, growth. Since continued growth cannot occur indefinitely in a finite system, a value system based only on economic gain needs to be supplanted by one involving issues of fairness, environmental justice, human dignity, and global equity. That new priority system produces a more intelligent way of managing dwindling planetary resources and is consistent with the ideas of “just” sustainability and nature’s trust. In short, human cultures need to be living in partnership with nature within ecosystem limits rather than dominating all of nature and ignoring those limits. Differential Climate Change Resilience as a Barrier to Sustainable Development Global climate and environmental change will have a highly differential impact on various countries and regions on the planet. In general, this impact requires two forms of country or regional response: • Resiliency to recover from large-scale climate changed induced weather events. These events are mostly flooding, and there are many recent examples of very large-scale flooding, devastation, and disruption. In particular, over the period of 2010–2016 in Europe, there have been 13 once-in-a-century floods induced by

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

769

Container Traffic vs. CO2 emissions

14

13.5

5 year change in CO2 PPM

13 12.08

12 11 10.43 9.85

10 9

8.83

8.65

8 7.45

7

7.35 6.49

6 5.63

G

5 4

5 year increases in MTEU Traffic 0

50

100

150

200

250

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development, Fig. 8 Positive relation between increases in container traffic (X-axis) and increases in CO2 emission (Y-axis). For instance, the 2015–2020 periods will see an increase of about 220 TEUs of container

traffic and a corresponding increase of about 14 ppm of CO2 emission compared to the previous 5 years. The solid line indicates the nonlinear BAU trajectory that arises from this data

very heavy rain events. The 2012 floods in Russia and the 2014 floods in Romania, Croatia, and Serbia were both accompanied by significant fatalities. The frequency of these recent events is far larger than the statistical average of past events, and there is growing scientific recognition that changing and increasing flood patterns across Europe are a major component of their regional climate change (Alfieri et al. 2015; Roja et al. 2013; Madsen et al. 2014). Other examples include the floods in Pakistan (2010) and Malawi (2015) and the Hurricane Harvey event in the USA (2017). • Adaptation to loss of natural resources as a result of mostly changing precipitation patterns and/or wholesale loss of land due to sea level rise and associated inland flooding. This strongly affects countries whose primary economic value lies in agriculture, livestock, or exporting lumber and other tree products.

per capita can serve as a proxy for available capital that can be redirected toward adaptation. A related index, known as the Gini coefficient, often used in economics, can also serve as a proxy or, at the very least, provides a uniform measure of economic inequality between countries (Inoue et al. 2015). GDP per capita data for the year 2016 is available from the World Bank database (retrievable from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD). Investments required for adaptation to global environmental change, despite being heavily researched (Hinkel et al. 2014; Eakin et al. 2014; Wise et al. 2014; Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler 2015; Neumann et al. 2015), remain rather unknown and are highly dependent on the details of any given county. Many estimates suggest that the annual cost for a country like the USA is a few tens of billions of dollars per year (BN) perhaps up to 100 BN. While it is difficult to estimate adaptation costs for any county, most adaptation would consist of new kinds of infrastructure (better flood control, improved irrigation for agriculture, new kinds of crops, etc.). This new infrastructure is mandatory to better managing the changing land conditions that will be subject to further development. Altogether, these costs are

Effective response to these issues requires substantial country investments in new forms of infrastructure and governmental emergency responses in order to effectively cope with the problem. This requires available capital, and, to first order, GDP

770

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

• Sustainable development could be forced, via some kind of global climate change disaster, in that the bulk of the resources for countries’ citizens might be greatly compromised thus forcing resource conservation on a large scale. • Sustainable development could be triggered by enlightened consumers and governments that choose to follow and implement some of the principles of “just sustainability” manifesting the change in priority that global justice and overall environmental health are more important than increasing that country’s GDP.

landlocked countries, a cost of 5 BN per annum is used, and for countries vulnerable to sea level rise that cost rises to 10 BN per annum. Obviously, these costs are a strong function of the area of the country that requires protection, but those details are very difficult to obtain and not necessary for our primary purpose of illuminating disparity in terms of the fractional GDP cost needed for environmental adaptation. Currently the world consists of 197 individual countries. Approximately 20 of them are small island states (e.g., Micronesia, the Maldives) that are not included in the following analysis. From the remaining, the 50 poorest countries in terms of 2016 GDP per capita comparison to the USA have been identified. At the low end are the countries Burundi, Malawi, and Niger that are 0.6% of the USA. At the “high” end are the countries Honduras, Laos, and Sudan at 4.1% of the USA. This ratio of this GDP per capita index to the estimated fixed costs yields four categories of ability for an individual country to be able to manage adaptation/mitigation/resiliency.

Of course, one hopes that sustainable development occurs for the latter set of reasons. But such development requires significant planning (Bhowmilk et al. 2017; Quazi 2001), and knowledge of available resources and potential future land use is key to the successful implementation of planning. For example, if planning involves substituting a more sustainable crop on some plots of land in the future, those plots of land must exist in that future rather than having been inundated with floods and possible salt water intrusion which then makes it impossible to harvest that particular crop (Klassen and Allen 2017). Hence many developing countries are now in the relatively untenable situation of having to invest in infrastructure and facilities to help mitigate local environmental change, likely caused by volatile weather events while at the same time planning for sustainable development, which will likely require even more resources to implement. The costs of doing both activities are likely to be significantly higher for countries vulnerable to sea level. The estimated vulnerability is made by comparing the 2016 annual GDP to estimated fixed costs of climate change resiliency: for

• Category A (annual resiliency costs >75% of GDP (19 countries)): Countries in this category have no ability to invest in adaptation/mitigation and hence are entirely dependent upon foreign investment. In general, these countries are fairly small and/or dependent upon a single sector, usually agriculture or mining, to support their export economy. In most cases, infrastructure investment will be required to better manage water resources for future agricultural and/or mining operations. Of these 19 countries, only 4 (Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Nicaragua) are not located in Africa. • Category B (annual resiliency costs from 25 to 75% of GDP (16 countries)): In general, these countries have larger total economies than those in previous category, but investments at this level, while financially possible, are very unlikely to occur. Given the large population growth rates of some of these countries (e.g., Cameroon, Mali), the move to sustainable development needs to come sooner rather than later. Of these 16 countries, 10 are located in Africa, and the remaining 6 are Afghanistan, Cambodia, Honduras, Laos, Tajikistan, and Yemen.

significantly higher than current spending which averages only ~ 0.4% of global GDP (Georgeson et al. 2016). Since climate change will have impacts on land use, available resources, and total economic vitality for any country, then such impacts need to be minimized so that there remain available resources that can help buoy sustainable development. This head-in-the-sand condition leads to two extreme pathways for sustainable development:

Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development

• Category C (annual resiliency costs from 10 to 25% of GDP (seven countries)). These seven countries and their primary economic commodity are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (mineral extraction), Kenya (agriculture), Myanmar (rice exports), Nepal (tourism/agriculture – rapidly melting glaciers are its example of global environmental change), Uganda (coffee exports; mineral extraction), Ukraine (wheat and corn), and Zambia (copper exports). In many cases their GDP is growing as the world consumers more of their primary products and thus that have an increased ability to deal with environmental remediation as well as planning for the future. In most cases, particularly for the countries of Africa in this category, their total economy is strongly buoyed by the kinds of mineral resources that are being overconsumed in the rest of the world. • Category D (annual resiliency cost Reflection > Conceptualization > Active Experimentation and around again. In some senses, experiential learning can offer easy access innovation. Traditional seminars or workshops are of course direct multisensory experiences, and educators can create activities that promote reflection, as well as mirror wider lived realities through scenario building and role play discussion, etc. Another example is the inclusion of weekly written reflective accounts required based on the experience of postgraduate students taking socio-ecological economics via new flipped-classroom pedagogy (Foster and Stagl 2018). Other programs require reflective diaries throughout, both as a teaching method and also as a form of summative assessment (Blewitt 2011). ESD can also draw from pedagogical traditions in the arts – such as drama, dance, visual studies,

music, and film – to offer more immersive learning experiences. One option is to use films about sustainability, perhaps as a way to access less proximate narratives and promote reflection on values, such as “ethical” behaviors (Giacalone and Jurkiewics 2001). Innate potential for experiential learning can be heighted by screening sustainability films in more immersive environments such as lecture theatres and cinemas. Thoughtprovoking films – such as “The Forgotten Space,” about the role of container ships in globalization – can be embedded with active thinking tasks, such as prompt questions, and reflective discussions (Schramm and Anderluh 2016). This idea can be extended through affective, multisensory, and immersive storytelling, which might unfold narratives of food histories and associated sustainability issues, using kinesthetic, taste, touch, smell, and oral components (Bendor et al. 2017). Storytelling can also be used by requiring student research and production, perhaps as part of group storytelling exercises. Elsewhere, experiential ESD learning has innovated through “real-world” activities or more practical doing. For example, students are invited to audit their own environmental impacts and reflect on this. A slightly different approach sees learners actively amend one selected environmental behavior, such as energy use, over a semester, while being required to reflect on and write about the enablers, obstacles, and personal feelings during the process. A further extension is to practical project work on campus or wider afield (see “Service Learning”), perhaps addressing energy, resource management, or food systems (Brylinsky and Allen-Gil 2009). Here, the process of learning by doing in scoping, planning, and implementing a project, as embedded in active reflection, can promote subject and professional skills, as well as affective learning (Brylinsky and Allen-Gil 2009). In another example, the construction of an urban campus garden offered learning opportunities through its creation as well as subsequent use, and such a resource might then facilitate multisensory learning opportunities for subjects such as bioecology (Jagger et al. 2016).

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development

Another form of experiential learning is discovery learning, in which students are “immersed in a rich context where they encounter some element of mystery, the learners become curious and begin to make sense of their encounter through exploration and meaning-making” (UNESCO 2012, p. 27). While this pedagogy is strongly associated with younger learners, for example, using puppetry to engage the public in science education, it has also been deployed to foster sustainability awareness in graduate engineers (Ramanujan et al. 2014). Problem-Focused Experiences: Gamification and Serious Play Another set of active learning innovations see problems embedded in game scenarios, designed to promote the learning of skills and knowledge. These might require physical participation or be created using information technology, using digital platforms and even virtual worlds. Escape room learning or locked in learning provides a physical manifestation of game-based learning (GBL). Inspired by online puzzle games, these lived learning experiences are based on escape activities designed for entertainment but also embedded with many of the characteristics of simulated experiential learning (Were 2017). At the broadest level, escape scenarios require participants to solve a series of problems within a given time, to reach a tangible goal: which might be opening a box to reveal a prize or being freed from a room. Escape games are structured problems, so do not offer the unstructured challenges desirable within ESD. However, they do require team communication and the construction of analysis through dialogue. Although the ultimate problem is designed, contextually constructed games can also require problem identification and framing skills. Such pedagogies have been deployed to teach research and library inductions (Hsu et al. 2009) and have been adapted to teaching physics or enthusing students about mathematics (Glavas and Stascik 2017) and teaching history and social science analysis skills (Were 2017). Treasure hunt learning is another possible experiential pedagogy that lends itself to ESD.

959

This can be used to create placed-based learning experiences, concerning the history of an area such as King’s Cross in London (Battista et al. 2005). Fawcett and Bell’s (2002) Hegemony Treasure Hunt allow students to apply theoretical understanding to their own lived experience, by searching for embodiments of ecological hegemonic around university campus or wider afield. The application of mobile technology allows for augmented reality treasure hunts. These might leverage student literacy and fascination with SMART phone technology to develop both knowledge and normative appreciation of the natural environment, such as that concerning the importance of plants to ecological process as part of a field visit to a Botanic Garden (Kissi and Dreesmann 2017). Increasingly, virtual reality (VR) technology allows experiential learning opportunities that are difficult or impossible in the real world. This can range from the use of virtual laboratories, for example, focused on the physics of circuit boards (Meyers and Bittner 2012), to environments that allow interaction with significant capital technology, such as energy generation and the wider design and construction of sustainable buildings (Sewilam et al. 2017). VR field trips can also be created, and there are an increasing number of innovations that use technologies such as Google Glasses to provide immersive experiences connected to ESD and even create live, field-based and distance learning experiences. Such VR environments might be relatively small but can also extend to simulations in which complex systems and scenario thinking can be played out, such as for sustainable water and flood management (Sewilam et al. 2017) and thinking through the issues associated with climate change (Lee et al. 2013). Service Learning With roots in the educational revolution of the early twentieth century, service learning is an experiential pedagogy designed to facilitate student learning – of subject knowledge, personal skills and promote affective development – in the process of producing outcomes explicitly designed to directly benefit wider stakeholders (Molderez and Fonseca 2018). Learning

I

960

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development

opportunities therefore engage outside of formal educational institutions, into local or more distant and scattered communities (Gibson et al. 2011), and even as a field based, study abroad experience (Syring 2014). Students who participate in service learning are argued to develop more sophisticated metacognitive abilities, better strategic planning and task-analysis skills, better ability to discriminate useful from insignificant information, and better understanding of client needs and constraints. Indeed, Kendall (1990) links service learning with the systems-thinking competence by stating that students learn to understand problems in a more complex and interconnected way. Other work concludes that service learning promotes energy, enthusiasm, a sense of adventure about the world, and a wish to make a difference amongst students participating (Bamber and Hankin 2011). Therefore, service learning might be linked to discovery learning. Likely undertaken in groups, the pedagogy is argued to promote team working and leadership skills. Moreover, given that working relationships might be created with outside stakeholders, it has the potential to promote understanding of cultural differences. The defined objective of providing outcomes of value to wider stakeholders might also have affective impacts on students’ ethics and civic responsibility. Service learning might be embedded as part of campus operations, where learning produces outcomes for other stakeholders beyond the teaching departments. More complex projects connect to wider communities. The Brookstreet Project (BSP), part of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) module at KULeuven, is a place-based learning experience in which students work in groups to research, create, and present a sustainable development physical planning project. Designs must facilitate connections between diverse stakeholders, including the numerous student residents and promote a better quality of life (Molderez and Fonseca 2018). In this case, the ultimate product is a poster, preliminary model or sketch or a digital file, to be exhibited in the Brookstreet area. In other cases, however, student work feeds into concrete interventions. In India, rural higher education

institutes (RHEIs) in the state of Gujarat have implemented the Samvardhan program (which means “to nurture” in Gujarati), in which student learning is embedded within the development of university extension services (Kiran 2010). In the USA, where traditions of service learning are arguably the most widely developed, there are many stand out examples, including work at the Netter Centre for Global Society, where the Angaston Urban Nutrition Initiative promoted undergraduate learning through active research around the illstructured problem food poverty and malnutrition (Harkavy et al. 2017). Work-Based Learning This is defined as learning derived from doing a job or taking on a workplace role. Work placements provide students with the opportunity to experience real-world sustainability work first hand and ideally be meaningfully involved. This provides hands-on experience to learn professional practices and link knowledge from formal learning to genuine action for SD. The focus of activity might be about bringing knowledge management and research skills to a real-world organization (Rosenberg Daneri et al. 2015). However, internships or work placements can have a more practical focus, perhaps as embedded with reflective exercises to promote experiential learning. In some cases, workplace innovation can be created by reworking traditional dissertation projects, to allow knowledge inputs to be generated through work placements rather than academic research (Shah and Treby 2006). Work experiences might be found within the university itself, for example, where students undertake internships focused on sustainable development/sustainability, such as energy management (Barnes and Jerman 2002). These might be alongside their classes or as an opportunity during nonteaching time. In other cases, students leave the campus for a given period to work full time with private companies, third sector organizations, or even government departments (Rosenberg Daneri et al. 2015). In some disciplines, work placements are a common characteristic that might be reoriented to focus specifically on SD issues, such as the regeneration of

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development

brownfield sites within civil engineering (Vojvodikova et al. 2016) or Costal Management (Ballinger and Lalwani 2000). Living Labs A living lab is often defined and used as a research and innovation tool to address a define problem. They offer a user-centered, open innovation ecosystem, often operating in a territorial or regional context (such as a city of city-region), integrating concurrent research and innovation processes within a citizen-public-private partnership (BergvallKareborn and Stahlbrost 2009). It is the participatory nature of the approach that links it to the sustainability and sustainable development agenda. The emphasis is on innovation, and products can include a physical object (e.g., a solar panel), a service (e.g., waste recycling services), a technology (e.g., decentralized sanitation), an application (e.g., electric cars as energy storing systems at home), a process (e.g., a participative neighborhood development method), or a system (e.g., a new logistic waste collection system) (Steen and Bueren 2017). However, living labs are also used as pedagogical processes, through research-based or inquiryoriented learning. Very similar to project-based learning, students respond to a specific task, creating and trialing innovation for problem-solving, although specifically in a co-creative process with wider stakeholders. For example, this approach has been used in architecture, focused on renewable energies and nearly zero energy buildings and green energy infrastructure (Dabaieh et al. 2018). It is argued that such an approach builds knowledge, skills, and motivation to promote sustainable living. Field-Based Learning Field-based modules have long been included to promote learning of sustainability topics in disciplines such as Physical/Human Geography and Ecology. Teaching in this context can be particularly relevant to the ESD agenda as there are possibilities to promote affective learning such as ecological appreciation. However, where fieldtrips rely on traditional pedagogies of information transfer they can be rather passive experiences, with only minimal advantages (Mintz and Tal 2013). Instead, innovations can improve

961

outcomes through active field exercises (Herrick 2010), for example, by employing experiential learning opportunities where the field experience is linked to reflection activities, conceptualization, and active experimentation. Field-based learning can be used for researchbased/inquiry-oriented learning for ontologically objective topics, as well as ontologically subjective understanding, for example, the teaching of Malawian deforestation was embedded in critical reflection on the respective roles of indigenous and western scientific epistemologies (Glasson et al. 2006). Other proposed innovations are to incorporate students into the design and implementation of field experiences, which might move pedagogies beyond learning around structured problems, to offer the opportunity for learners to engage in unstructured problems and problem identification. Beyond this, extended field-based experiences can be created through residential field-based learning (RFBL) in which learning opportunities are densely connected to field experience, perhaps as part of a study abroad program for a whole semester/term and beyond. These practices are used to teach specific issues, such as about the management of common ecological resources, but also broader programs of ESD. One example is the School for Field Studies, which provides study abroad opportunities for US undergraduates (Farrell and Ollervides 2005). Learning is highly interdisciplinary, with students from a variety of backgrounds taking a combination of natural science and social science-based modules where onsite classroom opportunities are embedded in wider field exercises, for example, students might learn foundations of social and ecological surveying methodologies in order to design their own instruments, before generating and analyzing data. The SFS model comprises 2 months of experiential-based modules before students undertake a directed research project, in which they conceive, design, and execute an individual project within an area of research defined by faculty members. Both the module- and research-based components can be interpreted as offering not just researchled, research-tutored, and research-oriented learning but also research-based opportunities where learners are fundamentally involved in the creation of new knowledge/research.

I

962

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development

Future Directions: The Future of Innovation? The chapter struggled with the definition of innovative approaches, as while many progressive teaching methods are far from new (see, e.g., Dewey 1916), they have remained at the margins of higher education. At the base level, this has been because the interests and incentives for higher education staff have poorly supported investment in innovative and quality teaching: largely as research has been much more highly valued and rewarded. Some innovative teaching approaches require higher investment costs, often in staff time for preparation, or fit poorly into the physical or temporal structures of university operation. Some institutions formally stifle individual innovation through standardization of learning and teaching methods but particularly assessment. Moreover, the trends in many countries, particularly those intensifying neoliberal governance structures, are toward larger student cohorts and very often reduced staff-to-student ratios. This context continues to minimize the opportunities for even motivated staff to invest in innovative practices. Positively, there have been trends to promote university teaching quality and drive educational innovation in general. Universities have begun to operationalize long-held views that higher education needs a variety of expertise; the many institutions now place more emphasis on pedagogical knowledge, experience, and innovation. Teaching quality is increasingly evaluated and reviewed, with growing incentives for staff to invest in this area. Unfortunately, progress has been very slow, and many reforms are arguably superficial. For example, teaching-only roles are often part and fixed term as departments and universities fail to invest in staff dedicated to driving teaching quality. While institutions have introduced prizes and awards for teaching quality and innovation, these are arguably a poor substitute for offering full-time, stable positions for those genuinely capable and motivated to further develop the pedagogies discussed above, finally pushing them out of the margins and into the mainstream of education for sustainable development and beyond.

Cross-References ▶ Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development ▶ Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development ▶ Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development

References Armstrong CM (2011) Implementing education for sustainable development: the potential use of timehonored pedagogical practice from the progressive era of education. J Sustain Educ 2(2):2011 Ball GDS (1999) Building a sustainable future through transformation. Futures 31(3–4):251–270 Ballinger RC, Lalwani CS (2000) The role of internships in marine policy and integrated coastal management higher education. Ocean Coast Manag 43(4):409–426 Bamber P, Hankin L (2011) Transformative learning through service-learning: no passport required. Educ Train 53(2):190–206 Barnes P, Jerman P (2002) Developing an environmental management system for a multiple-university consortium. J Clean Prod 10(1):33–39 Battista K et al (2005) Exploring ‘an area of outstanding unnatural beauty’: a treasure hunt around King’s Cross, London. Cult Geogr 12(4):429–462 Beckett KS (2013) Paulo Freire and the concept of education. Educ Philos Theory 45(1):49–62 Bendor R et al (2017) The imaginary worlds of sustainability: observations from an interactive art installation. Ecol Soc 22(2):17 Bergvall-Kareborn B, Stahlbrost A (2009) Living lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. Int J Innov Reg Dev 1(4):356–370 Blewitt J (2011) Transdisciplinarity and reflective practice in sustainable development learning. Plan Theory 24(1):37–41 Blume S et al (2015) Die Lernfabrik – research-based learning for sustainable production engineering. Procedia CIRP 32:126–131 Boyles D (2018) From transmission to transaction: John Dewey’s imaginative vision of teaching. Education 3-13 46(4):393–401 Brassler M, Dettmers J (2017) How to enhance interdisciplinary competence—interdisciplinary problem-based

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdiscip J Problem-Based Learn, Osijek 11(2): 15–30 Brylinsky, S., Allen-Gil, S. 2009. Learning by doing: the university as a curricular tool for sustainability and environmental security. Dordrecht. Springer Netherlands Collins E, Kearins K (2007) Exposing students to the potential and risks of stakeholder engagement when teaching sustainability: a classroom exercise. J Manag Educ 31(4):521–540 Dabaieh M et al (2018) Living labs as a pedagogical teaching tool for green building design and construction in hot arid regions. Archnet-IJAR 12(1):338–355 Dale A, Newman L (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4): 351–362 Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. The Macmillan Company, New York Farrell TA, Ollervides F (2005) The School for Field Studies Centre for Coastal Studies: a case study of sustainable development education in México. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(2):122–133 Fawcett L, Bell AC (2002) Guiding our environmental praxis teaching; an learning for social and environmental. In: Filho WL (ed) Teaching sustainability at universities: towards curriculum greening. Peter Lang, New York, pp 223–228 Foster G, Stagl S (2018) Design, implementation, and evaluation of an inverted (flipped) classroom model economics for sustainable education course. J Clean Prod 183:1323–1336 Giacalone RA, Jurkiewics CL (2001) Lights, camera, action: teaching ethical decision making through the cinematic experience. Teach Bus Ethics 5:79–87 Gibson M et al (2011) Reflective practice in service learning: possibilities and limitations. Educ Train 53(4): 284–296 Glasson GE et al (2006) Understanding the earth systems of Malawi: ecological sustainability, culture, and placebased education. Sci Educ 90(4):660–680 Glavas A, Stascik A (2017) Enhancing positive attitude towards mathematics through introducing Escape Room games. In: Kolar-Begovic Z et al (eds) Mathematics education as a science and a profession. Faculty of Education and Department of Mathematics, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, pp 281–294 Haigh M (2008) Internationalization, planetary citizenship and Higher Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38(4):427–440 Harkavy I et al (2017) Knowledge for social change: Bacon, Dewey, and the revolutionary transformation of research universities in the twenty-first century. Temple University Press, Philadelphia Herrick C (2010) Lost in the field: ensuring student learning in the ‘threatened’ geography fieldtrip. Area 42(1): 108–116 Herrington JA, Herrington AJ (2006) Authentic conditions for authentic assessment: aligning task and assessment. In A. Bunker & I. Vardi (Eds) Proceedings of the 2006

963

Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc (HERDSA): Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching in Higher Education: Research and Development in Higher Education (29):141–151 Hsu S-H et al (eds) (2009) The experience of adopting game-based learning in library instruction. Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Jagger S et al (2016) What’s growing on here? Gardenbased pedagogy in a concrete jungle. Environ Educ Res 22(2):271–287 Kendall JC (ed) (1990) Combining service and learning: a resource book for community and public service. Vol. 1. National Society for Experiential Education, Raleigh, NC Kiran BC (2010) Higher education and curriculum innovation for sustainable development in India. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(2):141–152 Kissi L, Dreesmann D (2017) Plant visibility through mobile learning? Implementation and evaluation of an interactive Flower Hunt in a botanic garden. J Biol Educ 52(4): 344–363. Landorf H et al (2008) Education for sustainable human development. Theory Res Educ 6(2):221–236 Lee JJ et al (2013) GREENIFY: a real-world action game for climate change education. Simul Gaming 44(2–3): 349–365 Meyers EM, Bittner R. (2012) “Green washing” the digital playground: how virtual worlds support ecological intelligence...or do they? ACM International Conference Proceeding Series Mintz K, Tal T (2013) Education for sustainability in higher education: a multiple-case study of three courses. J Biol Educ 47(3):140–149 Molderez I, Fonseca E (2018) The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. J Clean Prod 172:4397–4410 Ramanujan D et al. (2014) Contextualizing environmental sustainability in design engineering curricula. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference Rosenberg Daneri D et al (2015) Students as change agents in a town-wide sustainability transformation: the Oberlin Project at Oberlin College. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:14–21 Schlottmann C (2008) Educational ethics and the DESD: considering trade-offs. School Field 6(2):207–219 Schramm H-J, Anderluh A (2016) How to bring sustainability issues in global supply chains into the classroom? In: Ojala L et al (eds) Nofoma 2016 – proceedings of the 28th annual nordic logistics research network conference. Turku Sewilam H et al (2017) Competence-based and gamebased capacity development for sustainable water management in Germany. Environ Earth Sci 76(3):131 Shah A, Treby E (2006) Using a community based project to link teaching and research: the bourne stream partnership. J Geogr High Educ 30(1):33–48

I

964 Steen K, Bueren EV (2017) Urban living labs a living lab way of working. Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions, Delft University of Technology, Delft Syring D (2014) Service-learning, sustainability, and the need for cosmopolitan experiences in undergraduate education: a view from anthropology. eJ Public Aff 3(3) UNESCO (2012) Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 full-length report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris Vojvodikova B et al (2016) Evaluation of the effects of students short – term internships in the context of a longer time horizon in the field of sustainable land use education. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM Welsh MA, Murray DL (2003) The ecollaborative: teaching sustainability through critical pedagogy. J Manag Educ 27(2):220–235 Were W (2017) Lessons learned while escaping from a zombie: designing a breakout EDU game. Hist Teach 50(4):553–564 Yasin RM, Rahman S (2011) Problem oriented project based learning (POPBL) in promoting education for sustainable development. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:289–293

Inquiry-Based Learning ▶ Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Mohammad Al-Saidi Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Introduction The study field of institutions and institutionalism is quite complex, encompassing theories, concepts, and tools that can be applied in various ways related to sustainable development. At the same time, sustainable development is not uniquely defined and can imply a range of policy, normative, or resource use issues at various

Inquiry-Based Learning

scales. Therefore, institutions and their change over time can be analyzed with regard to specific topics on sustainable development such as institutional reforms, learning, institutional interplay, and appropriate designs. Often, institutional designs and institutional change are useful approaches for investigating unsustainability in economic development (Opschoor 1996). This happens when institutions are understood as a structuring element of human–nature relationships, and institutional change is used to redirect institutional failures during the development process. Here, the institutional failures and rigidity explain why one-sided development processes can cause environmental degradation and unsustainable outcomes. However, the terms and metaphors to explain sustainability failures or successes depend largely on the type of institutionalist theory used for the analysis. Depending on the branch of institutionalism and the understanding of institutions used, different theories offer different drivers, categorizations, and consequences of institutional change and what this means for sustainable development. According to Wegerich (2001), one can differentiate the theories of new institutional economics by determining whether they see change as demand- or supply-induced. Demand-induced institutional change represents a bottom-up approach which can be related to changes in prices, technologies, environmental issues, or demographics. For example, sustainable development patterns can be seen as driven by ecological innovations or technological change resulting in new economic reality. In contrast, supply-induced changes occur in a top-down approach, or as a result of a change in the environment of an institution. Such a change can happen because of certain opportunities or important events or in relation to pressures from elites. In this regard, political parties, protest movements (e.g., Green movements), or a major environmental disaster can result in a shift toward sustainability. Thelen (2009) explained institutional change in advanced political economies. She highlighted the fact that the debate between “agency” and “structure” as drivers of change is a recurrent and unsolved theme in institutional change theories. The two

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

drivers coexist and result in different types of changes that can affect institutional governing issues such as those related to sustainable development. She highlighted four types of institutional change depending on the characterization of the change process as incremental or abrupt, and the result of change as continuity or discontinuity. These four types are reproduction by adaptation (incremental continuity), survival and return (abrupt continuity), gradual transformation (incremental discontinuity), and breakdown and replacement (abrupt discontinuity). This conceptualization can be used to characterize the specific trajectory of sustainable development in a certain country and region. Overall, the understanding of the concept of institutions as applied in any institutional theory is instrumental for empirical analysis of the institutions’ influence, and for postulating the causality in institutional change and its effects on sustainable development. This chapter illustrates this by introducing understandings of institutional change, theories, and common applications to sustainable development issues. In this context, related concepts such as institutional or organizational learning are briefly explained and related to sustainable development. Some examples of the impacts of sustainable development on institutional change in different fields are presented with a focus on the higher education sector.

Institutionalism and Sustainable Development Institutional change represents a key theme within theories of institutionalism, the interdisciplinary study field of institutions. Institutionalism is a growing field of study encompassing mainly contributions from sociology, economics, and political sciences. In fact, it is a mainstream research theme in sociological thinking. According to Sjöstrand (2015), institutionalism in sociology focuses on identifying structures as contexts to local situations, or identifying actors in social and economic life. At the same time, disciplines such as political sciences and law draw on multidisciplinary knowledge of institutions such as game theory,

965

sociological institutionalism, or collective action theories. The field of economics has also developed quite specific tools of classical and neoclassical economics in order to investigate how individuals think and act, as well as the attached rules and explanation to people’s behavior (ibid). While all these fields are relevant for explaining the role of institutions and their change with regard to sustainable development, they are not primarily concerned with sustainable development as such. It is important to understand that the change toward sustainable development cannot be isolated from societal change at large. For example, sustainability focused institutions share the same context as institutions governing other fields or systems in a society, and are shaped by the same individuals. In this sense, this chapter explains the approaches of institutionalism that are most prevalent in sustainable development studies. It explains major insights for sustainable development while recognizing that there is no unique proposition on the perfect institution for sustainable development or an accepted norm for institutional change in this field. In this section, common classifications of institutionalism are introduced and related to sustainable development. While there is no one common classification of theories on institutionalism, two classifications relevant for institutional change and environmental issues have been highlighted by Lindegaard (2013). Firstly, Hall and Taylor (1996) identified three approaches of new institutionalism that represent a reaction to the prominent behavioral perspective on institutions in the 1960s and 1970s. These are historical, rational-choice, and sociological institutionalism. Historical institutionalism emphasizes structuralism in institutions, rather than the functionalism of earlier approaches which emphasized the responses to the needs of political systems. Historical institutionalism also highlights the prominent role of power and asymmetrical power relations, as well as the persistent feature of institutions as embedded in their historical development (path dependence). This branch of institutionalism can provide important insights on difficulties associated with adopting a sustainable development agenda. For example, the costs of

I

966

changing the status quo toward more sustainability need to be considered alongside the welfare benefits from sustainability. Further, politics and history of sustainability are important to study since powerful interests groups (e.g., industrial or agricultural resource users) can resist sustainability reforms and determine their outcomes. On the other hand, rational choice institutionalism emphasizes the role of concepts from organizational theory such as property rights, rent-seeking behavior, and transaction costs. Institutions thus sustain equilibrium and constrain the behavior of rational and strategically thinking individuals. Closely related to this is the field of new institutional economics, which addresses issues such as the role of agency, bounded rationality, and opportunistic behavior (Bardhan 1989). In this sense, sustainable development studies might look at economic incentives and cost-benefit analysis of actors and organizations affected by sustainability issues. In contrast, sociological institutionalism regards institutions as embedded within culturally specific practices and conceptions of states and markets. It also defines institutions in a broader manner as not only formal rules and procedures, but also symbols or moral norms that guide human action. Thus, sustainability is also embedded in culture and can be enhanced or hindered by norms, role models, or public debates. The second classification of institutionalism to be considered is that of Cleaver (2012), namely critical and mainstream institutionalism in the context of natural resources management. Mainstream institutionalism presents institutions as rational and based on clear functions that can be designed and altered. Here, similar to rational choice theories, interventions in altering incentives or designing more efficient institutions can induce sustainable development. In contrast, critical institutionalism offers a more nuanced picture of institutions embedded in social and power relations, as well as interactions between nature and people. According to Lindegaard (2013), the key differences between these different classifications lie in how much they emphasize structure or agency, formal or informal institutions, and the role of power. For example, in general, sociological and critical institutionalism might better

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

incorporate the role of agency, informal institutions, and power relations. With regard to sustainable development, this is reflected in, among others, the studies advocating a strong role of education and informal actors such as religious leaders, musicians, marketing, or awareness campaigns.

Definitions of Institutions, Institutionalization, and Relations with Sustainable Development In order to understand the role of institutions and their effect on sustainable development, one needs to define and locate them within the field of institutionalism. A narrow understanding of institutions can lead to an overemphasis of formal organizations or the public sector role. At the same time, institutions are usually understood in a wide manner, which means that they are omnipresent in the analysis of sustainable development. There are many different understandings of institutions, and some prominent classifications of these understandings. Scott (1987) reviewed four sociological formulations of institutionalization, the underlying process that produces institutions. Firstly, “institutionalization as a process of instilling value” refers to the process of supplying intrinsic value to structure beyond its instrumental function. This process represents a consciously designed intervention. Secondly, “institutionalization as a process of creating reality” refers to the process of repeating actions and assigning meaning to them. In fact, this act of “habitualization” is a prominent understanding of institutions in sociology, while the belief systems that lead to such habitualization are understood as culturally determined. At the same time, some guiding principles for the development of institutions, such as the pursuit of modernity, rationality, or bureaucratization, can converge across cultures. Thirdly, according to Scott (1987), the characterization of “institutional systems as a class of elements” focuses on the existence of different sources and loci for various purposes and beyond the discretion of single individuals or organizations. In this sense, institutions

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

are embedded in environments to which they adapt in order to acquire resources, conformity, and legitimacy. Fourthly, the conceptualization of “institutions as distinct societal spheres,” similar to the third formulation, stresses the plurality of institutions and corresponding belief systems, and regards institutions as systems of social beliefs and organized practices in different functional areas of societal systems. This structural–functional understanding therefore generally explains institutional change by ascribing it to the adaptation to changing societal functions in different spheres (e.g., economy, culture, or the political system). If one reflects on the different definitions of institutions, different implications arise about/ with reference to their influence on the change toward sustainable development. A clear understanding or a definition of institutions can reveal much about institutions and whether and how they change. Defining institutions as a class of elements, as systems, or as spheres implies that they change over time. Institutions change in order to provide value to a new set of rules providing directions on how to govern society. For example, if sustainable development is adopted through society-wide consensus or overarching development strategies, institutions change to reflect the values behind this shift. On the other hand, the cultural understandings of institutions are more concerned with the nature of institutions. It provides an important insight on the contribution of the manifestation of institutions through habitualization, but little insights with regard to institutional change. An important consequence with regard to sustainable development might be that formal adoption or implementation of sustainability is not enough. Institutions need to lead a process of habitualization or repeated actions. Finally, the understanding of institutions either as systems or as elements merely fulfilling certain functions can fail to predict and explain adaptation and change. With regard to the understanding of institutions removed from the process of instituitonalization, Roland (2004) identifies two general approaches to classifying institutions. Firstly, the functional approach, which is often used by economists,

967

defines institutions in relation to their function of fulfilling efficient contracting. Accordingly, such an approach does not explain the needs, evolution, and change of a specific institution nor does it reveal much about how institutions interact. This approach is helpful in understanding the design of institutions focused on sustainable development or their usefulness in this regard. It is however, not often used to explain institutional change over time. Secondly, a macrosystemic approach classifies institutions through institutional descriptions using general and specific categories as well as rules. It is therefore more capable of providing an understanding of specific institutions as well as systems of institutions. In fact, in the context of sustainable development, it is very important to provide insights into how institutions change, differentiate, and complement or substitute each other. From this perspective, sociological theories using structural–functional approaches and theories of new institutionalism and critical institutionalism might be more useful to shed light on problems of institutional failures, inefficient performance, and inadequate regulation associated with the management of ecosystems and common-pool resources. For example, Portes (2006) showed that by using sociological theories of institutions related to culture and social structure, one can better explain failures to transplant institutions from the developed north to the global south than one can by relying on classic economic (mostly functional) literature.

Theoretical Relevance of Institutional Change for Sustainable Development To explain institutional change and its relevance to sustainable development issues, one can outline the theoretical insights in this regard of the five major specific institutional approaches, namely rational choice theories, historical institutionalism, evolutionary theories, political institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. In this section, key messages from these theories are summarized with regard to their potential to explain institutional change in the broad field of sustainable development.

I

968

Firstly, contemporary rational choice theories emphasize issues such as property rights (rules of the game) and the associated transaction costs. Actors engage in strategic behavior to modify their institutions after calculating the benefits of change. Change represents the departure from the institutional equilibrium represented by the status quo. In this line, North (1990) explains institutional change as a result of the implementation of property rights and the modification in incentives attached to institutions (e.g., relative changes of prices for labor and land). He also relates institutional change to economic performance and explains that institutional development in certain countries may lead to path-dependent development. In sustainable development issues, the property rights approach represents a quite common way to explain the change in resource use patterns and the institutions governing these resources. Since many environmental issues involve common-pool resources, a change in ownership or access rights to allow the economization of these resources can result in improved development of institutions in areas such as markets, community businesses, or resource user groups. For example, Coleman and Mwangi (2015) explain two principle rational choice theories, the Cooperation Theory and the Conflict Theory, and their ability to explain common property institutions that exist in land management in Kenya. Here, the inherently functional cooperation theories emphasize that groups adopt new institutions if they increase net gains. In contrast, conflict theories stress the bargaining process, the associated costs, and the dominance of powerful actors due to asymmetric distribution of power. With regard to common property issues, conflict theories might have a better explanatory power. Accordingly, the societal benefits of common property do not outweigh private property due to resulting resource overuse. This means that the prevalence of common property in the examined case study in Kenya cannot be explained by cooperation theory; rather, the asymmetric power relations favor large landholders who promote and benefit from common property arrangements (ibid).

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

Historical institutionalism can provide important insights on how historical events or decisions shape the pathways to sustainable development. Countries or sectors adopting an unsustainable technology or production pattern get “stuck” in such decisions and cannot change easily. Historical institutionalism does not endorse a specific theoretical approach. It explains institutional change using contextual and institutional factors related to a certain time and place (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). The key idea in historical institutionalism is that of path dependence, whereby actions and decisions at critical junctures determine the change pathway. In the aforementioned theory of North (1990), historical decisions on property rights and incentives induce path-dependent economic development. However, a certain development pathway of a country – for example, by promoting polluting fossil fuels – does not necessarily mean being locked into this decision. In fact, less radical versions of historical institutionalism suggest that path dependence might not be that influential, and advocate the idea of small and incremental changes rather than major irreversible disjunctures (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). Sustainable development is therefore conceived as a process of historic choices concerning the pattern of resource use or economic growth model. This perspective might be more aligned with evolutionary theories of institutional change. Evolutionary theories build on Darwin’s ideas such as selection, fitness, mutation, and evolutionary drift. Accordingly, institutional change and evolution results from the proliferation and internalization of ideas, while such internalization is affected by how ideas are framed, perceived, and challenged as relevant solutions to environmental challenges (Lewis and Steinmo 2012). Evolutionary theories do not contradict historical institutionalism, but rather develop a muchnuanced and theoretically rich toolkit to examine institutional change (see Lustick 2011). In this sense, a decision for or against change toward sustainable development is a result of debates about the best solutions for a certain societal, cultural, economic, or technological context. Furthermore, political institutionalism analyses

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

how macrolevel political decisions and state policies often affect institutions, which in turn shape politics and political actors. Similar to the perspective of historical institutionalism, political institutionalism often examines how new incentives, specialized programs, and changes in state policies in the social sphere facilitate institutional change over time (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). As an example, a public strategy to promote sustainable development through the use of renewable energies can result in various changes in terms of pricing incentives, subsidies, and investments, ultimately leading to significant institutional changes. Finally, sociological institutionalism can provide valuable analyses on how the broad sustainable development agenda result in the proliferation of (often similar) organizations within and across countries. It looks at the organizational and cognitive elements that underlie organizational change. For example, scholars of sociological institutionalism note that institutional change often implies homogenization or so-called structural isomorphism. This means that institutions evolve to reproduce common cultural, cognitive, or normative principles that define what is an appropriate form of political organization (so-called logic of appropriateness), and for achieving certain policy goals (see Scott 2014). Institutional change occurs when organizations – based on a bounded or “garbage can” mentality, and in the pursuit of legitimacy – search solutions from a shared repertoire or by emulating other organizations (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). From this perspective, sustainable development, which is largely coined through broad economic, societal, and environmental recommendations on the global level, can result in a convergence of institutions in order to fulfill the new global norms. Often, the convergence of institutional design is induced by a “shared global agenda” (world polity) based on common principles on how problems should be solved. One can argue that the global sustainable development agenda with its specific sets of goals (e.g., the Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Agreement) reflect such world polity principles and induce institutional isomorphism. In fact, according to Kontinen and

969

Onali (2017), institutional isomorphism can be observed in the case of the development of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In the work of NGOs, program mechanisms in the field of consultancy have accordingly converged over time. Glover et al. (2014) show how common and dominant logics of cost reductions and profit maximization in the food supply industry have hindered the emergence of more sustainable practices. Another example of sustainable development issues can be mentioned here: Häikiö (2014) analyzed the institutionalization of sustainable development in Finland over the last two decades. Accordingly, sustainable development presented a utopia and a logic of appropriateness that induced important institutional change. At the same time, the vagueness of the concept meant that local normative conceptions of growth and prosperity remained prevalent in society.

Institutional Change, Learning, and Sustainable Development Institutional change theories are quite useful in assessing environmental change issues and topics related to sustainable development. In fact, institutional change is prevalent in many domains related to key areas of sustainable development, such as the management of natural resources, ecosystems management, the governance of common pool resources, or newer issues related to the transition toward sustainability and holistic sustainable development policies. For example, Carney and Farrington (1998) introduce an analysis of institutional reforms related to land management and the changing roles of extension services in the developing world. Connor and Dovers (2004) examined the extent to which countries establish working institutions for sustainable development. They found that the integration of policies and institutions, the implementation of the subsidiarity principle, and the installation of reiterative processes have been a key result of the adoption of the sustainable development agenda. Accordingly, although the sustainability paradigm has been institutionalized in the studied case of Australia, New Zealand,

I

970

and the EU, policy learning and coordination of methods, as well as applications, was slow-moving. In fact, learning from past experiences and institutional trajectories is highly important in institutional change. For example, Markóczy (1994) explained organizational learning as the encoding of past experiences into the organizational routines of the day-to-day operations of organizations as well as the institutionalization of rules and their interpretation. Accordingly, such learning can affect the outcome and performance of the institutions under change. Tamtik (2016) explained, using the example of research policies of the European Union, the different approaches for policy learning during the transformation of institutions, namely via changing administrative processes, using networks, updating policies, and reframing issues. Furthermore, institutionalism and institutional learning can contribute to understanding of institutional reforms in environmental and natural resources governance. Young et al. (2008) have presented various case studies highlighting the institutional dimensions of environmental change using theories of new institutionalism. While they did not focus on the aspect of institutional change as such, their empirical analysis of institutional fit and interplay reveals that institutions matter greatly in common-pool issues. While changes in institutions can have big impacts such as crossing certain thresholds or tipping points in ecosystems, substantial changes in environmental outcomes often require radical moves in terms of institutional designs (Young 2008). For example, adaptive management through various institutional and social learning processes can improve institutional fit, bring out effective and participatory governance systems, and ultimately help in increasing the resilience of ecosystems (Galaz et al. 2008). As another field of application, the institutional change perspective can enrich the study of institutional reforms such as the decentralization of natural resources. Marothia (2010) explains how institutional theories can explain the resistance to change, the issue of resource mobilization, and the costs and benefits of decentralization of natural resources in the context of India. He advocated the

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

consideration of more pluralistic and polycentric institutional approaches to the management of natural resources, as well as multilayered institutional frameworks, in order to achieve complementarity. This idea of improving connectedness or nestedness of institutional rules, especially between informal and formal institutions, is important during decentralization of reforms and, in general, for the governance of natural resources. This idea has also been reiterated by other studies (Rahman et al. 2017; Bartley et al. 2008). Becker and Ostrom (1995) emphasized that during institutional change, it is important to understand the relationships between natural resources, the communities involved in their management, and the meta-rules for changing rules. Accordingly, institutional diversity is needed in order to include institutions that restrain unsustainable behaviour and provide flexible and adaptive rules. Finally, institutional change can explain transformation or transition processes toward sustainability. Opschoor (1996) explained how market failures can induce institutional change through the adaptation of institutional arrangements such as standards, charges, tradeable rights, and voluntary agreements. Since environmental degradation is closely linked to markets and economic activities, institutional, change in the economic sphere is instrumental in moving toward sustainability. In contrast, Hoffman (1999) showed how, in the case of the chemical industry in the USA, corporate environmentalism positively evolved over many decades based on the interplay of regulative, normative, and cognitive aspects, with little influence of markets and technologies.

Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Higher education institutions (HEIs) provide a good example of how the sustainable development idea induces institutional change within these institutions while they themselves promote this idea and help catalyze change in other areas. Within HEIs, the dissemination of the idea of sustainable development has had tangible impacts

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

on both their education and organizational missions. This is particularly true for the last couple of decades. During the 2002 UN Summit on Environment and Development in Johannesburg, the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) was declared between 2005 and 2014. According to Everett (2008), the DESD was embraced by many HEIs and was translated into principles advocating intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration, including with societal stakeholders, as well as promoting sustainability education and research. In fact, education for sustainable development (ESD) has long been theorized and promoted as a force for change in terms of fostering creativity, innovation, and stakeholder participation in research and education work within HEIs (Tilbury 2004). In recent years, there is evidence of HEIs taking initiatives toward implementing sustainable development, e.g., curricula reforms, improvement of campus operations, sustainability accounting and reporting, and comprehensive sustainability assessments (Ramos et al. 2015; Godemann et al. 2014). However, institutional change toward sustainable development is still an emergent issue with many barriers facing those institutions seeking comprehensive reforms. Mulà et al. (2017) reviewed sustainable development initiatives targeting educators at HEIs and concluded that universities lack capacity to mainstream ESD into training or integrate it into teaching and learning priorities. Godemann et al. (2014) noted that there are only few HEIs implementing comprehensive sustainable development actions in teaching, research, knowledge exchange, and operations. They emphasized the need for experimentation and co-creation of sustainability trajectories for HEIs as well as understanding how HEIs transform themselves in response to the changing modes of social accountability, stakeholder engagement, and societal change in general. In this line, Hoover and Harder (2015) reviewed studies on organizational change toward sustainability in HEIs and pointed toward the complexity and contradictions of sustainability change processes. Further, the barriers to sustainability change within HEIs (e.g., resistances, bureaucracy or lack of resources,

971

engagement communication, regulations, and institutional frameworks) seem to be common for universities across different regions (BlancoPortela et al. 2018; Velazquez et al. 2005). Despite these multiple difficulties, the sustainable development agenda has led to tangible changes and transformed debates about the role of HEIs as change agents for sustainability (see Stephens et al. 2008).

Conclusion Institutional change is pervasive in sustainable development although it is not often linked to it in terms of an overarching theory or exhaustive empirical evidence. The reason for this is that sustainable development as a global agenda, a normative modus of development, or a set of practical environment-related problems cannot be associated with one dominant or preferable type of institution or change pathway. In fact, institutions and their change are embedded in diverse schools of scientific thoughts that do not isolate the changes in governing one issue or societal system from another. Therefore, insights from institutional change science on sustainable development can sometimes be perceived as either too broad or too issue- or context-specific. Besides, the ability and language used to explain the phenomenon of institutional change depends on the theoretical perspective used in defining institutions and analyzing them in their historical, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts. For example, mainstream institutional concepts regard institutions as rational and rule-based elements that can be redesigned toward certain functions. Institutions focused on sustainable development are thus designable in reaction to demands by governing systems, peoples, or elites. This mainly economic view of institutions is highly influential in explaining the emergence of institutions that benefit powerful groups or minimize certain costs. As an example here, technological innovations such as clean energies lead to changes driven by cost and economization considerations. Especially influential are models of new institutional economics that incorporate critical issues such as incomplete markets, complexity, the role of agency, bounded

I

972

rationality, and uncertainty. In this sense, actors promoting sustainability are concerned about future unpredictable or uncalculated risks from environmental degradation and the inability of current institutions to address them. However, if compared with sociological theories linking function to certain social systems’ functions, pure functional approaches are less capable of explaining the motives, evolution, and changes in specific institutions. Historical, political, and evolutionary approaches provide more nuanced and contextual information related to path dependences during development of institutions, the role of elites, and the ability of policymakers to steer change. This approach is more directly linked with the debates about the global sustainability agenda and how it influenced the creation of regulatory institutions, incentive and economic programs, or new development strategies across the world. Political actors, role models, and elites drive this change and are involved in power struggles that affect the outcomes. In analyzing institutional change in relation to sustainable development issues, there is no one correct methodological approach, but rather different frameworks used for different questions. Institutional change needs to be seen as a multifaceted perspective that can illuminate the different faces of the concept of sustainable development. For example, over the past three or four decades, the global sustainable development agenda has produced a plethora of new institutions that are often similar in their integrative policy approach. Sociology scholars have analyzed this approach as evidence of some kind of isomorphism following the global logic of appropriateness. Furthermore, in order to solve market failures related to common-pool resources, economists contributed to a great deal of institutional reforms through regulating property rights and setting incentives. At the same time, the study of decentralization reforms in the use of natural resources has revealed much about the role of informal institutions as well as the need for multilevel and complementary institutional arrangements. As another example, the ongoing institutional change to facilitate a low-carbon economic transition which has offered many

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development

opportunities for the use of different theoretical tools for studying the underlying, often multilevel, drivers affecting the change of local, national, and international institutions governing sustainability issues. Finally, institutions of higher education represent an interesting case for studying institutional change toward sustainability. While many such institutions are still undergoing changes in their activities regarding education, research, and operations in response to the sustainable development idea, the few leaders in this field have overcome serious and common challenges. Evidence shows that the sustainable development agenda made higher education institutions appreciate similar values such as inter-, intra-, and transdisciplinary research and education, innovation, stakeholder engagement, and holistic management approaches.

Cross-References ▶ Institutional Sustainability Assessment

References Amenta E, Ramsey E (2010) Institutional theory. In: Leicht KT, Jenkins JC (eds) Handbook of politics: state and society in global perspective. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer, New York/London Bardhan P (1989) The new institutional economics and development theory: a brief critical assessment. World Dev 17(9):1389–1395 Bartley T, Andersson K, Jagger P, Laerhoven FV (2008) The contribution of institutional theories to explaining decentralization of natural resources governance. Soc Nat Resour 21(2):160–174 Becker CD, Ostrom E (1995) Human ecology and resource sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:113–133 Blanco-Portela N, R-Pertierra L, Benayas J, Lozano R (2018) Sustainability leaders’ perceptions on the drivers for and the barriers to the integration of sustainability in Latin American higher education institutions. Sustainability 10:2954 Carney D, Farrington J (1998) Natural resources management and institutional change. Routledge research. ODI development policy studies, Routledge, New York Cleaver F (2012) Development through bricolage: rethinking institutions for natural resource management. Routledge, New York

Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Coleman EA, Mwangi E (2015) Conflict, cooperation and institutional change on the commons. Am J Polit Sci 59(4):855–865 Connor R, Dovers S (2004) Institutional change for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Everett J (2008) Sustainability in higher education – implication for the disciplines. Theory Res Educ 6(2): 237–251 Galaz V, Olsson P, Hahn T, Folke C, Svedin U (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 147–188 Glover JL, Champion D, Daniels KJ, Dainty AJD (2014) An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practice across the dairy supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 152:102–111 Godemann J, Bebbington J, Herzig C, Moon J (2014) Higher education and sustainable development. Exploring possibilities for organisational change. Account Audit Account J 27(2):218–233 Häikiö L (2014) Institutionalization of sustainable development in decision-making and everyday life practices: a critical view on the Finnish case. Sustainability 6: 5639–5654 Hall PA, Taylor RCR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit Stud 44(5):936–957 Hoffman AJ (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Acad Manag J 43(4):351–371 Hoover E, Harder MK (2015) What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 106:175–188 Kontinen T, Onali A (2017) Strengthening institutional isomorphism in development NGOs? Program mechanisms in an organizational intervention. Sage Open 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016688725 Lewis OA, Steinmo S (2012) How institutions evolve: evolutionary theory and institutional change. Polity 44:314–339 Lindegaard LS (2013) Power and change: locating institutional change theories in a power context. DISS working papers 2013:20. Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen Lustick IS (2011) Taking evolution seriously: historical institutionalism and evolutionary theory. Polity 43(2):179–209 Markóczy L (1994) Modes of organizational learning: institutional change and Hungarian joint ventures. Int Stud Manag Organ 24(4):5–30 Marothia DK (2010) Decentralisation of natural management in India: an institutional perspective. Indian J Agric Econ 65(1):1 Mulà I, Tilbury D, Ryan A, Mader M, Dlouhà J, Mader C, Benayas J, Dlouhý J, Alba D (2017) Catalysing change in higher education for sustainable development. A review of professional development initiatives for

973 university educators. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(5): 798–820 North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Opschoor JB (1996) Institutional change and development towards sustainability. In: Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier J (eds) Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Island Press, Washington, DC Portes A (2006) Institutions and development: a conceptual reanalysis. Popul Dev Rev 32(2):233–262 Rahman HMT, Saint Ville AS, Song AM, Po JYT, Berthet E, Brammer JR, Brunet ND, Jayaprakash LG, Lowitt KN, Rastogi A, Reed G, Hickey GM (2017) A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. Int J Commons 11(2):823–853 Ramos TB, Caeiro S, Hoof BV, Lozano R, Huisingh H, Ceuleman K (2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: environmental management for sustainable universities. J Clean Prod 106:3–10 Roland G (2004) Understanding institutional change: fastmoving and slow-moving institutions. Stud Comp Int Dev 38(4):109–131 Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Adm Sci Q 32(4):493–511 Scott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage, Thousand Oaks Sjöstrand S-E (2015) On institutional thought in the social and economic sciences. In: Sjöstrand S-E (ed) Institutional change: theory and empirical findings. First published in 1993 by M.E. Sharpe. Routledge, New York, pp 3–34 Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Román M, Graham AC, Scholz RW (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):317–338 Tamtik M (2016) Institutional change through policy learning: the case of the European Commission and research policy. Rev Policy Res 33(1):5–21 Thelen K (2009) Institutional change in advanced political economies. Br J Ind Relat 47(3):471–498 Tilbury D (2004) Environmental education for sustainability: a force for change in higher education. In: Corcoran PB, AEJ W (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. Problematics, promise, and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 97–112 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391 Wegerich K (2001) Institutional change: a theoretical approach. Occasional paper no 30. School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). University of London, London Young OR (2008) Institutions and environmental change: the scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions

I

974 and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–46 Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (2008) Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge

Institutional Sustainability Assessment Katerina Kosta Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

Definition Institutional sustainability assessment in higher education refers to universities assessing their sustainability performance across operational and educational activities.

Introduction As the countries of the world move toward meeting the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the importance of higher education institutions (HEIs) as drivers and enablers of sustainability has been levelled up. At the same time, the legally binding Paris COP21 agreement asks participating countries to measure and reduce their contribution to global warming. Consequently, the profile of sustainability assessment is rising, while the market of sustainability assessment indicators is expanding. Within this context, multiple universities use institutional sustainability assessment (ISA) to evaluate their sustainability performance and measure progress. In the literature, ISA is perceived as a necessary step for sustainability implementation as it makes progress operational and facilitates decision-making (Alghamdi et al. 2017; Disterheft et al. 2012; Maragakis and van den Dobbelsteen 2015; Rammel et al. 2016; Ramos and Pires 2013; Shriberg 2004). Exploring sustainability assessment tools for HEIs on a global scale, Fischer et al. (2015) claim that there is

Institutional Sustainability Assessment

reciprocity between assessing and developing a sustainable university, while Beveridge et al. (2015) discover strong correlations between higher education (HE) sustainability assessment and performance. The history of higher education (HE) institutional sustainability assessment starts with universities as public body entities having to conform to environmental regulations. Since then, international initiatives like the UNESCO Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) (2005–2014) have placed HEIs at the forefront of delivering sustainability. This made measurement and evaluation necessary for HEIs that wished to demonstrate their contribution to the DESD. In certain contexts, universities are invited to conduct sustainability assessments as part of quality assurance procedures. Such is the case of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for higher education in the UK, which has complemented its audit criteria with an ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) component (QAA 2014). However, as sustainability assessment was first taken up by the corporate world (Ramos and Pires 2013), the majority of sustainability assessment standards do not include indicators for the educational aspects of HEIs (Rammel et al. 2016). Yet, the uniqueness of universities lies in their research and teaching activity rather than operational performance. Thus, to conduct sustainability assessments, HEIs have two options: to either develop their own sustainability assessment tools or modify existing ones. For Rammel et al. (2016), a simple transfer of corporate ISA tools to the higher education context would easily face dead ends. Designing ISA for universities is only a recent trend with the first higher education sustainability assessment tools appearing in 2010 (Bullock and Wilder 2016). HE-specific sustainability assessment standards are expected to comprehensively cover sustainability activity across the institution. According to the literature, this activity is usually divided into the five areas of teaching, research, operations, governance, and engagement/outreach (Fischer et al. 2015; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). What follows is a section on different analytical perspectives to ISA indicators. Next, a small

Institutional Sustainability Assessment

presentation is made of studies comparing ISA systems before discussing the quality and validity of ISAs for higher education. Finally, an attempt is made to predict the future of HE sustainability assessments in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), digitization and big data.

Analytical Perspectives on ISA Sustainability assessment standards have been proliferating worldwide with some authors seeing the emergence of a new sustainability indicators’ industry (Ramos and Pires 2013). Yet, research on the comparison and evaluation of indicator frameworks is limited and inconclusive (Ramos and Pires 2013). Three studies are presented below as they provide comprehensive analysis and well-informed insights into ISA indicators. In the first study, Alghamdi et al. (2017) identify three ways in which sustainability assessments materialize; the accounts, narrative, and indicator-based assessments. Accounts assessments convert raw data into monetized units, covering highly important yet limited aspects of sustainability. Narrative assessments are familiar and flexible, yet their choice of topics is unsystematic, limiting transparency and reducing their usefulness in decision-making. Finally, indicator-based assessments codify, measure, and thus facilitate the communication of sustainability to various stakeholders. The authors consider indicator-based ISAs as the most systematic and comparable (Alghamdi et al. 2017). In the second study, Ramos and Pires (2013) conceptualize sustainability assessment indicators into two opposing groups. The first group consists of technocratic or expert-oriented indicators which are perceived as drawing on a robust methodology and are expected to directly feed into policy-making by virtue of their scientific validity. The aim is to measure sustainable development in a way that challenges its uncertainty and complexity. The second group comprises participatory or citizen-oriented indicators which are seen as a tool for community empowerment and collectively inspired actions. Questions of who participates, who decides, and for whom are indicators

975

meaningful are central and actively pursued (Ramos and Pires 2013). The two groups overlap significantly in the case of university ISAs, where a combination of technocratic and participatory indicators is usually encountered. In the third study, Disterheft et al. (2012) identify two approaches to implementing ISA at universities: the top-down and bottom-up (Table 1). The top-down approach involves a limited amount of participants from the institution’s management level, it is less time-consuming and focuses on meeting regulatory compliance. On the other hand, the bottom-up approach is more time demanding and human resource intensive as it adopts grassroots processes that focus on awareness creation and empowerment. It is claimed that bottom-up approaches to ISA implementation are more impactful and closely aligned with the educational role of universities. While universities may adopt any of the above approaches to ISA, the definition of sustainability espoused by each institution determines the indicators and criteria selected. Different definitions are adopted by different sustainability assessment standards. For instance, in the corporate world, the “triple bottom line” (TBL) model of sustainability is usually adopted which consists of environmental, social, and financial indicators. The TBL has been criticized as it allows organizations to cherry-pick elements from any of the three aspects without consistency (Milne and Gray 2013), with the indicators sometimes treated as a set of disaggregated criteria (Pope et al. 2017) and the three categories not always compatible with one another (Milne and Gray 2013). The criticism Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 1 Analytical perspectives to SA indicators (studies listed alphabetically) Approaches to sustainability assessment Alghamdi Accounts Narrative et al. (2017) Disterheft Top-down Bottom-up et al. (2012) Ramos and Technocratic/ Participatory/ Pires expertcitizen(2013) oriented oriented

Indicatorbased

I

976

levelled against the TBL gains new ground with the release of the 2017 GRI Sustainability Reporting standards, which are divided into three separate modules following the TBL categorization. As the update clarifies, the idea is that organizations can select and use only those indicators they consider relevant from any of the three categories (GRI 2017). While the TBL still dominates ISA in the corporate world, in the HE sector, the dominant approach to ISA is a whole institution one, in line with Action Area 2 of the UNESCO Global Action Programme which calls for whole institution approaches to sustainability (UNESCO 2017). Whole institution in this context means covering the five areas of teaching, research, operations, governance, and engagement/outreach (Fischer et al. 2015; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). The following section explores studies that have compared sustainability assessments specifically designed for higher education institutions (HEIs). It also identifies which of the studies have used the GRI as a framework for comparison and whether the university sustainability assessments explored reflect the threefold categorization of environment, society, and economy in their sets of indicators.

Comparisons of Different ISAs Sustainability assessments specific to higher education institutions (HEIs) have been analyzed by a relatively small amount of studies (Ceulemans et al. 2015; Karatzoglou 2013; Ramos and Pires 2013). Of these, eight are presented in Table 2 highlighting the comparison framework adopted by each. Two of the studies adopt a “strengths and weaknesses” comparison framework (Gómez et al. 2015; Shriberg 2004) with the main disadvantage of this approach being that very little is known about the type or number of indicators used by each assessment. The study of Bullock and Wilder (2016) uses the GRI as a comparison framework adjusted for HE through the addition of an ESD supplement. Looking at the university sustainability assessments explored by the eight studies, it appears that the financial aspect is not eminently present with only

Institutional Sustainability Assessment Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 2 Studies that compare HE ISA standards (listed alphabetically)

Study Alghamdi et al. (2017) Bullock and Wilder (2016) Fischer et al. (2015)

Gómez et al. (2015) Kosta and Waheed (2017)

Number of ISA tools compared 12

9

12

8

19

Kamal and Asmuss (2013)

4

Shriberg (2004) Yarime and Tanaka (2012)

10 16

Comparison framework Emergent framework created from aggregating all tools’ indicators GRI – HE

Education Research Operations (Community) engagement Strengths – weaknesses

Education Governance Operations Engagement Education Research Governance Operations Engagement Strengths – weaknesses Education Research Governance Operations Outreach

a fraction of the assessments including indicators measuring financial sustainability. Thus, mapping sustainability assessments against the GRI may not be particularly suitable from a materiality point of view, as the GRI is based on the triple bottom line and asks HEIs to report their environmental, social and financial performance. The remaining five studies compare sustainability assessment tools against the fivefold conceptualization for sustainability in HE, which consists of education (or teaching), research, operations, governance, and engagement (or outreach). Fischer et al. (2015) omit the governance section claiming that it is reflected in the other four categories, while the LiFE framework used by Kosta and Waheed

Institutional Sustainability Assessment

(2017) incorporates research in the category of education. Instead of deductively mapping indicators against a preset framework, Alghamdi et al. (2017) innovate adopting an inductive approach which allows categories to emerge from the aggregated indicators of all tools. The comparison frameworks used by the eight studies hope to illustrate the difference between corporate ISA which is based on the TBL model and higher education ISA which is based on the fivefold whole institution model, in line with the UNESCO guidelines (2017). It might be of interest to observe the consensus reached by the majority of the studies on the Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS) as one of the most comprehensive and complete assessments for higher education institutions (Alghamdi et al. 2017; Bullock and Wilder 2016; Kosta and Waheed 2017; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). STARS has been specifically designed for HE by the American Association of Sustainability in Higher Education through a collaborative multistakeholder approach (STARS 2016). Reasons cited for the selection of STARS are the systematic and comprehensive coverage of sustainability performance across the institution, the ease and clarity of score calculations and the inclusion of innovation indicators, which cover sustainability activity not foreseen by the tool’s indicators.

Issues with ISA Quality Issues with the quality of ISAs have been identified by Bullock and Wielder (2016) who conducted a comparative analysis of normalized ratings given to each university by nine different sustainability assessments. Certain universities receive high ratings in one assessment but low in others. Thus, concern is expressed over the validity of these evaluations, given the dissonance in the results. Since comparison data are unavailable or difficult to obtain, the authors suggest using proxies for ISA quality like construct validity based on the comprehensiveness and relevance of indicators. As most of these assessments rely on self-reported information, process validity is

977

also highlighted as a proxy for quality evidenced by well documented and transparent data collection methods. Table 3 presents issues with ISA quality as identified by the eight studies followed by recommendations for improvement for improvement. Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 3 Issues identified with ISA quality and suggestions for improvement (studies listed alphabetically)

Study Alghamdi et al. (2017) Bullock and Wilder (2016) Fischer et al. (2015)

Gómez et al. (2015)

Kosta and Waheed (2017)

Kamal and Asmuss (2013)

Shriberg (2004)

Yarime and Tanaka (2012)

Problems with ISA quality Conflicting perspectives on evaluating ISAs Lack of transparent methodology for gathering and reporting SA data Dominance of operational and ecoefficiency aspects, marginalization of educational aspects Selection of indicators reflects subjective value judgements on what is worth measuring Underrepresentation of sustainability research by the majority of HE ISAs Comparison of SAs is difficult as each has been designed with a specific goal in mind, assessing different aspects of sustainability Debate on whether a global ISA standard would be beneficial to HEIs

Educational aspects underrepresented in HE sustainability assessments

Suggested improvements on ISA quality ISAs should be calculable and comparable The methodology of ISAs should be reproducible and well-justified Scholars should collaboratively set standards for the evaluation of HE ISAs Rationale should be provided behind the weighing applied to each indicator HEIs should select ISAs that move beyond the operational aspects The definition of sustainability should be clarified before a ISA is selected

A global ISA should be sensitive to different cultural and regional contexts A methodology should be established to assess sustainability research and curriculum

I

978

The Future of ISA While multiple universities use assessment and reporting standards like the GRI or STARS, these were developed long before the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted. Thus, sustainability assessments designed for the HEIs of the future might need to incorporate the structure of the SDGs in their indicator sets. This process has already started at a national level with countries mapping their performance against the Sustainable Development Goals. Another interrelated development that is projected to shape the future of ISA is big data. Big data refers to voluminous amount of structured or semi-structured data that has the potential to be mined for information. Accessing such readily available information may address the current difficulty of obtaining data on sustainability metrics. On a sectoral level, an example of how big data can transform ISA comes from the UK People and Planet University League initiative. A big part of this HE sustainability assessment draws on data from HESA, the Higher Education Statistics Agency. HESA curates data for all UK higher education providers including environmental information, like water consumption, carbon emissions, or the existence of an ISA certification like ISO 14001 or EMAS (HESA 2017). This way the originally manual collection of sustainability assessment data is levelled up and this is predicted to accelerate and transform ISA.

Conclusion The plurality and diversity of HE sustainability assessments is accompanied by a need for practitioners to critically evaluate the sustainability definitions they buy into when adopting a specific ISA tool. The sustainability assessment standards of today will shape sustainability in higher education in the future, as apart from performance improving they are also agenda-setting mechanisms, which define what a sustainable university should be like (Fischer et al. 2015). A contested issue emerging from the use of multiple, diverse ISAs is whether a global HE

Institutional Sustainability Assessment

sustainability assessment system would be useful (Shriberg 2004), especially given the profound influence of global university rankings on university strategies (Stolz et al. 2010). Scholars hesitate to make recommendations on which ISAs would be best fit for the HE sector. By doing so, they miss the opportunity to determine which ISAs will eventually dominate the sustainability assessment landscape in HE (Maragakis and van den Dobbelsteen 2015). This may allow popular yet potentially ineffective methods to dominate university sustainability assessment of evaluating sustainability at universities. After exploring various approaches to ISAs, this entry concludes that universities might benefit from using ISAs designed specifically for the sector and its unique material aspects.

References Alghamdi N, den Heijer A, de Jonge H (2017) Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical overview. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(1):84–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071 Beveridge D, McKenzie M, Vaughter P, Wright T (2015) Sustainability in Canadian post-secondary institutions. The inter-relationships among sustainability initiatives and geographic and educational characteristics. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(5):611–638. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0048 Bullock G, Wilder N (2016) The comprehensiveness of competing higher education sustainability assessments. Int J Sustain High Educ 17(3):282–304. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2014-0078 Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Van Liedekerke L (2015) Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J Clean Prod 106:127–143. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.052 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Ramos MR, Azeiteiro U (2012) Environmental management systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions: top-down versus participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 31:80–90. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.034 Fischer D, Jenssen S, Tappeser V (2015) Getting an empirical hold of the sustainable university: a comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks across 12 contemporary sustainability assessment tools. Assess Eval High Educ 41(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2015.1043234 Gómez FU, Saez-Navarrete C, Rencoret Lioi S (2015) Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development education. J Clean Prod 107:475–485. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047 GRI (2017) The GRI sustainability reporting standards: the future of reporting. GRI, Amsterdam. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=AGqE4OO0_7g. Accessed 8 Jan 2018 HESA (2017) Environmental information by higher education provider 2015–16. HESA, New York. https://www. hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis. Accessed 6–8 Jan 2018 Kamal ASM, Asmuss M (2013) Benchmarking tools for assessing and tracking sustainability in higher educational institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(4):449–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-20110052 Karatzoglou B (2013) An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 49:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.043 Kosta K, Waheed H (2017) Mapping sustainability assessment and reporting in the UK tertiary education: a guidebook on sustainability assessment and reporting systems. EAUC, Cheltenham Maragakis A, van den Dobbelsteen A (2015) Sustainability in higher education: analysis and selection of assessment systems. J Sustain Develop 8(3):1–9. https://doi. org/10.5539/jsd.v8n3p1 Milne M, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Bus Ethics 118:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8 Pope J, Bond A, Huge J, Morrison-Saunders A (2017) Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:205–2015. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002 QAA (2014) Education for sustainable development; guidance for UK higher education providers. QAA, Gloucester. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Doc uments/Education-sustainable-developmentGuidance-June-14.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2018 Rammel C, Velazquez L, Mader C (2016) Sustainability assessment in higher education institutions: what and how? In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London, pp 273–286 Ramos T, Pires SM (2013) Sustainability assessment: the role of indicators. In: Caeiro S, Filho WL, Jabbour C, Azeiteiro UM (eds) Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions; mapping trends and good practices around the world. Springer, London, pp 81–99 Shriberg M (2004) Assessing sustainability criteria, tools and implications. In: Corcoran PB, Wals A (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability; problematics, promise and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 71–86 STARS (2016) Sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system STARS: version 2.1 technical manual. Administrative update two. AASHE, Philadelphia. http://www.aashe.org/files/documents/STARS/2.0/stars_

979 2.1_technical_manual_-_administrative_update_two.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Stolz I, Hendel DD, Horn AS (2010) Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe. High Educ 60(5):507–528. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9312-z UNESCO (2017) Global action programme: priority action areas. UNESCO, Paris. https://en.unesco.org/gap/ priority-action-areas. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education institutions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):63–77. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/097340821100600113

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development Tai Ming Wut School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Synonyms Nonphysical assets and sustainability

Definition According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), “sustainable development” means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The definition makes an important assumption that humans are the subjects. In other words, the needs of the present human generation are met without compromising the future human generations’ needs. In short, sustainable development integrates the economic, social, and environmental objectives of society, in order to make human being better off without taking off the resources the people need in the future.

I

980

The definition in the previous paragraph has two dimensions: the idea of making life better (development) and sustainable (maintain). Bell and Morse (2003) said sustainable development is all about an improvement in the human condition.

Introduction According to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), sustainable development “has important political, institutional and capacity implications. At the national and local level, it requires cross-sectoral and participatory institutions and integrating mechanisms which can engage governments, civil society and the private sector in developing shared visions, planning and decision making” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001, 23). Sustainable development strategies require formal approaches, and a key objective is to improve convergence among existing strategies, avoid duplication and confusion, and make efficient use of country capacity and resources (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001). In terms of economic, social, and environmental objectives of society, Martin and Schouten (2012) discuss three dimensions of sustainability: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. Environmental sustainability is defined as ongoing preservation of ecosystem and their functions. For example, ecosystems provide oxygen, clean water, enrichment of soils, and decomposition of waste. It maintains a stable resource base over time. Economic sustainability is defined as the ongoing ability of an economic system to provide for all human needs. Economic activities have impacts on both society and natural environment. It represents an economy that supports a desired level of economic production indefinitely. Social sustainability is defined as the ongoing ability of communities to provide for the well-being of its members. People need access to goods and services in order to fulfill their basic needs including health and education, labor force

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development

participation, gender equality, and political participation (Martin and Schouten 2012). Here the term sustainability is often used synonymously with sustainable development. Natural resources such as coal and petroleum are finite and nonrenewable; they become lesser as they are consumed. Other natural resources including forest and soils are subjected to use and cannot be renewed to the previous level. Therefore, using Earth’s resources more than it can replace, one is now borrowing from future generations (Martin and Schouten 2012). Nonrenewable resources must be used only when a physical compensation is possible, either in the form of renewable resources or nonrenewable resources.

Intangible Assets Ceballos et al. (2011) point out that in business context, “intangible” means the immaterial part of resources such as skills and knowledge including intellectual capital, know-how, core competencies, and so on. It is contrast to the material part of resources such as machinery and physical things. From the perspective of finance, the importance of intangible assets is the legal acceptance of the value added by the immaterial part of the business including trademark, know-how, quality of service or product, safety, social and moral values, and branding. Usually in balance sheet, goodwill and reputation are examples of intangible assets of the corporation (Ceballos et al. 2011). The International Valuation Standards Board provides a more precise definition of intangible assets: “Assets that manifest themselves by their economic properties, they do not have physical substances, they grant rights and privileges to their owner and usually generate income for their owner. Intangible assets can be categorized as arising from: Rights. Relationship, Grouped Intangibles or Intellectual Property” (International Valuation Standards Council 2006, Section 3.15). According to the previous version (2004), International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38, an intangible asset was defined as “an identifiable nonmonetary asset without physical substance held

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development

for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative services” (The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) 2004). This definition has been revised in the new version (2014) International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38 that the requirement for the asset “to be held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative services” was waived. There are three characteristics of intangible assets: generate future economic benefits, lack physical substance, and are identifiable. According to Cohen (2005), identifiable intangible assets are determined by concept of exchangeability. Does the asset have legal or contractual status? Customer relationship could be argued as an example of intangible assets so long as it is protected by a contract. Trademarks and patents are clear cut examples as well. For those customer relationships without relevant contract, exchange transactions would be the evidence showing the company can somehow control the future benefits. Specific management and talent could generate the future economic benefits to meet the definition of intangible assets provided that it is protected by legal rights (Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2018). For example, a football player signed a 3-year fixed contract with a football team for a certain amount of money. The player has to play under the team for the period. It is a bit wider definition of intangible assets in economic sense. There is a useful time period for intangible assets. The contractual time between customer and the corporation is an example. Some intangible assets may not have specific useful time period, and thus the useful life could be indefinite. Under this situation, an impairment test is needed in order to check the usefulness of an intangible asset.

Classification Hands (2003) points out that there are two types of intangible assets. One is allowed to be recognized on the balance sheet. They are purchased franchises, patents, trademarks, copyrights, leaseholds, and goodwill. Another type is a bit wider in scope

981

which might not be recognized on the balance sheet. There are three categories: research and development, advertising, and personal intangible assets. People put money on research and development and expect to earn a future income. Advertising has been found to be an asset in the sense of having a positive impact on future revenue. General and administrative expense is chosen as a proxy for personal intangibles. It is because general and administrative expense contains expenditures on brand beyond advertising including customer acquisition and retention (Hands 2003). Moberly (2014) proposes that intangibles assets are mixtures of procedures, policies, practices, relationships, and culture of an organization. They are the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital of a company and create value for the corporation fighting with its competitors (Moberly 2014). Getting a patent or copyright is a way to protect the corporate interest on intangible assets. In fact, company reputation could be seriously affected by a rumor online. If it happens, corporate sustainability will be in danger. Kaplan and Norton (2004) link up corporate strategy with intangible assets. They define human capital, information capital, and organizational capital are three main types of intangible assets. Human capital is regarded as the availability of skills, talent, and know-how to perform activities required by the strategy. Informational capital includes the availability of information systems and knowledge applications and infrastructure required to support strategy. Organization capital is the widest scope in nature. It contains organization culture, leadership, alignment, and teamwork. Durst (2011) has similar opinion. Human capital is the first category of intangible assets. It includes employees’ competence, abilities, and skills. The second category is structural capital. It refers to the things that support the corporate activities such as software, patents, and corporate culture. The last category is relational capital which includes those relationships link from stakeholders to the company (Durst 2011). How to manage relationships with customers, suppliers, regulators, and media is the scope of relationship management. “Intellectual capital” is the term trying to capture human capital, structural capital, and

I

982

relational capital. Intellectual capital is defined as “the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge” (Stewart 1999, xi). The definition is very close to intangible assets: “all nonmonetary and nonphysical resources that are fully or partly controlled by the organization and that contribute to the organization’s value creation” (Roos et al. 2005, 19). The definition is based on the resource-based view of the corporation (Bratianu 2011).

Theoretical Background and History The worry of lack of Earth resources could be traced back to Malthus (1766–1834) and William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882) in view of increased population and energy shortages. There was a “limit to growth” argument proposed by Herman Daly in the twentieth century. In order to avoid ecosystem collapse, there should be a limit on economic growth (Daly 1977). It presents a conflict between economic development and environmental protection. The theoretical foundation for sustainable development was formed from 1972 to 1992 through several international conferences: Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972; World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) conference in 1983 chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland; and the 1992 Rio Summit that proposed institutionalization of sustainable development. Rio Summit proposed the establishment of new institutions. The Commission on Sustainable Development is one of them; its main role is to monitor progress on the agreements reached at Rio. According to Bell and Morse (2003), a pressure-state-response model is suggested. For example, there is pesticide application in watershed (human activities), thus resulting reduction in river biodiversity (Environmental condition). Given the river biodiversity provides recreation environment for fishing and boating (benefits), one would encourage a reduction in pesticide use (societal strategies). It is called a cyclical pressure-stateresponse model (Bell and Morse 2003). Intangibles start off as “research and development item” in 1960s; one later suggestion on top

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development

of innovation-related intangibles are human capital and organizational intangibles such as management scheme and capacities (National Research Council 2009). Later on scholars include relational intangibles as a key intangible asset. It was explained by social contract theory. Regarding the relational intangibles, social contract theory was proposed by Rousseau (1762/1973) and existed for several centuries. The theory starts from the relationship among individuals and state. The theory had been applied on the organizational context (Keeley 1988). The key concept of theory lies on the public acceptance of a company’s behavior on the community (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Stakeholder theory is a basis for the company to earn a license to operate in a community, that is to say, the business require the support from members in the community in order to sustain its business (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Social capital is recognized as important assets for the corporation. According to the resource-based view of strategy, the competitive advantage and superior performance of an organization are explained by the distinctiveness of its capabilities (Johnson et al. 2011). Human capital and organizational or structural capital are the examples of strategic capability. For example, how employees gain and use experience, their skills, knowledge, and innovation is corporate human capital. Schein (1992) points out that values, beliefs, behaviors, and taken-for-granted assumptions are the core of an organization’s culture. It is not easily copied by the competitors and forms the uniqueness of the corporation.

Measurement on Intangible Assets Intangible assets are difficult to measure since they cannot be seen and measured directly. Thus, identification and measurement for intangible assets are important. There are several approaches on the measurement of intangible assets. The first method is market value approach. The value of intangibles is based on the difference between the stock price and balance sheet value of physical assets. It is easy to apply but based on two ideal assumptions:

Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development

to mispricing in capital market and historical value in balance sheet representing the current value. The second method is the accounting valuation approach. What is the cost of acquiring that intangible asset? But this is not an accurate number as assets’ value changes over time. Book cost or historical cost is only a reference value. Replacement cost is a proxy for the intangible asset (Cohen 2005; Gu and Lev 2011). The third method is the valuation of individual components of intangible assets such as brands and patents and so on. However, it might not capture an overall value of intangible assets in the company (Gu and Lev 2011). One could use income approach to calculate the value of individual components of intangibles assets by using the equation: value of intangible asset is equal to the return divided by the rate of return (Mard et al. 2011). Of course, discounted value formula has to be used in order to calculate the present value of cash flow. However, the determination of discount rate is a bit hard to decide. Kaplan and Norton (2004) have different view on measurement. They agreed that intangible assets are not measured by its cost or by independent appraisals. The concept of strategic readiness is introduced to describe the status of intangible assets to support the organization’s strategy. The higher the state of readiness, the faster intangible assets contribute to generate cash. Strategic readiness converts intangible assets into tangible value when increased levels of revenue and profit are recorded (Kaplan and Norton 2004).

Conclusion If a resource is used, it is replaced by growing other amounts of the resources or equivalent; this is the idea of sustainability. In a modern society, intangible assets are one of the important resources for corporation. The investment of on intangible assets, especially on those unrecognized portion, would be incorporated as a whole on the “goodwill” of the company in longer term. It contributes to the sustainable development force for the corporation.

983

Investing more on research and development would let the company have better products or services. At the same time, the company enjoys firstmover advantage and high adapting power on changing environment. One the other hand, some companies choose to invest less on research and development in order to save cost and avoid risk in short term. They are eager to enjoy second-mover advantage. However, they might suffer the risk in long term by being pulled out from the existing market. Investment on human capital motivates employees internally and attracts talents from the outside. With good employees and low turnover rate, companies have better performance. The company might earn the award such as “best employer” or “best workplace.” They contribute intellectual capital on the corporation. According to the National Research Council (2009), high turnover rate in today’s world discourage investment on human capital. Less investment in developed countries is common since almost all the workers are highly educated. Also, the company does not own human capital directly. Human capital becomes an individual property, and heavily investing on human capital might suffer higher cost (National Research Council 2009). Regarding structural capital, it would be easier for the corporation to maintain even some of the workers in and out throughout the years. More investment on structural capital usually favored by most of the shareholders as they think the money is for the whole and easy for them to rationalize would contribute as corporate goodwill eventually. For an organization to be sustainable, it must be socially responsible. Under the rules of corporate governance and social responsibility self-regulation, one might unpack the concept of social responsibility and sustainability. Borghesi and Vercelli (2008) point out the organization creates lasting values for all its stakeholders. As a return, organization reputation can be established as it is rated by stakeholders. From the accounting perspective, “goodwill” might not be realized until the company is acquired by the other party. In fact, the company can have better image or reputation in the middle of the road. In conclusion, there is a strong linkage between intangible assets and sustainable development.

I

984

Cross-References ▶ Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

References Bell S, Morse S (2003) Measuring sustainability. Earthscan, London Blowfield M, Murry A (2014) Corporate responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford Borghest S, Vercelli A (2008) Global sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Bratianu C (2011) A new perspective of the intellectual capital dynamics in organizations. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 1–21 Ceballos D, Quesada A, Ramirez D (2011) Financial risks and intangibles. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledgebased intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 294–308 Cohen J (2005) Intangible assets. Wiley, Hoboken Daly HE (1977) Steady-state economics. Freeman, San Francisco Durst S (2011) Intangible assets and company succession. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 64–85 Gu F, Lev B (2011) Intangible assets: measurement, drivers, and usefulness. In: Schiuma G (ed) Managing knowledge assets and business value creation in organizations: measures and dynamics. IGI Global, Hershey Hands J (2003) The increasing returns-to-scale of intangibles. In: Hand J, Lev B (eds) Intangibles assets. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 303–334 Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (2018) Intangible assets. Hong Kong Accounting Standard, Hong Kong. p 38 International Valuation Standards Council (2006) Valuation of intangible assets. Guidance Note No. 4, section 3.15 Johnson G, Whittington R, Scholes K (2011) Exploring strategy, 11th edn. Pearson, Harlow Kaplan R, Norton D (2004) Strategy maps. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Keeley M (1988) A social contract theory of organizations. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame Mard M, Hitchner J, Hyden S (2011) Valuation for financial reporting, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York Martin D, Schouten J (2012) Sustainable marketing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Moberly M (2014) Safeguarding intangible assets. Elsevier, Amsterdam National Research Council (2009) Intangible assets. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Integrated Sustainability Assessment Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) Strategies for sustainable development: guidance for development co-operation. OECD Publishing, Paris Roos G, Pike S, Fernstrom L (2005) Managing intellectual capital in practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam Rousseau J (1762/1973) The social contract and other discourses (trans: Cole H). Dutton & Co., New York Schein E (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Stewart T (1999) Intellectual capital. The new wealth of organization. Nicholas Brealey, London The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) (2004) International Accounting Standard 38 Intangible Assets The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) (2014) International Accounting Standard 38 Intangible Assets World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Integrated Sustainability Assessment ▶ Higher Education’s Sustainability Assessment Procedures

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education Michael Ekow Manuel1 and Alina Prylipko2 1 World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden 2 Blackpool and The Fylde College, Fleetwood, Lancashire, UK

Definition Principles of sustainable development may be defined as the concepts or propositions that inform the beliefs, choices, strategies and actions of organizations and individuals and that lead to optimum sustainable development outcomes.

Introduction Education is a key instrument of social change. Legal instruments, often heavily relied on in many

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

jurisdictions, have to be complemented with other shapers of social behavior such as market forces and primarily education (Schuck 2000). Optimum education can lead to learners’ proactive engagement with social issues and both address emerging challenges and mitigate the negative consequences of previous actions and decisions (Manuel 2017). In light of the ongoing discourse about how higher education (HE) can influence a move toward a sustainable future, this chapter explores the extant literature on the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development (SD), education for sustainable development (ESD), and the principles and value systems perceived to underpin them. It further explores the literature on how higher education institutions (HEI) have sought to integrate sustainability principles in their work and curricula, the challenges they face in doing so, and approaches taken to respond to these challenges.

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education The Nature and Societal Role of HE The role and focus of HE are not static. However, one abiding focus has been the cultivating of intellect. As Newman (1907) notes, HE “contemplates neither moral impression nor mechanical production; it professes to exercise the mind neither in art nor in duty; its function is intellectual culture”. Newman recognized the arguments of others who were “purveyors of the theory of the utility of education” but disagreed with them. The view of scholars like Newman, however, did not gain much traction and was deemed to have been rejected by society at large (Scott 1993); today’s pragmatic utility of HE evidences this. The utilitarian approach has been argued to have ensured HE’s continued survival and societal relevance based on its ability to adapt to different socioeconomic orders and to scientific and cultural change (Scott 1993; Houston et al. 2008). HE continues to express variety and adaptability. However, elements of the debate from the early 1900s remain, not least in the domain

985

of SD. While the role of HE in SD has been widely acknowledged (Adomßent et al. 2014; Amaral et al. 2015; Rieckmann and Barth 2016; Cebrián et al. 2015; Disterheft et al. 2015), views of specific roles, values, and potential in achieving sustainability vary (Shephard 2008). Wals and Jickling (2002) contrast “utilitarian views” with “emancipatory views” of HE for SD. The emancipatory view focuses on developing students’ ability to “critique, construct and act with a high degree of autonomy and self-determination” and “to cope with uncertainty, poorly defined situations and conflicting or at least diverging norms, values, interests and reality constructions” (Wals and Jickling 2002). On the contrary, the utilitarian view sees education, particularly HE, as “one means or instrument that governments can use to create a sustainable world as they (and the interest groups influencing governments) define it.” The problem with this latter view is that “to educate for sustainability is not necessarily educational when sustainability is fixed, pre-and expert determined (i.e. academics) and to be reproduced by novices (i.e. students)” (Wals and Jickling 2002). The distinction between the two views and the arguments for and against each are reminiscent of earlier discourses (Newman 1907). HE is seen as a social mechanism for developing values of a society and advancing science toward social needs (Godemann et al. 2014; Beynaghi et al. 2016) rather than being limited to being a demand derived from the needs of market economies. Stephens and Graham (2010) also emphasize that apart from the development of the cognitive domain of education, HE plays an important role in nurturing values, attitudes, and behaviors required for transition toward better societies (Rieckmann 2012; Shephard 2008). Definitions and Values Relating to Sustainability, SD, and ESD “Sustainability” has been described as ambiguous and vague (Fergus and Rowney 2005). Sustainability, in essence, is bereft of mechanisms for mediating conflicting interests between stakeholders with incompatible perceptions/values of what constitutes sustainable practices and SD

I

986

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

(Wals and Jickling 2002) and is further complicated by its interchangeable use in scientific, political, and symbolic contexts. Similarly, achieving a global consensus on what SD means is not without challenges. Despite its extensive historical roots (Du Pisani 2006), the lack of consensus regarding the definition of SD as a construct has been reported extensively (Lélé 1991; Chichilnisky 1997; Fergus and Rowney 2005; Kates et al. 2005; Jabareen 2008; Voigt 2009; Leal Filho 2011). Nonetheless, the debate on the definition and meaning of SD is not seen as meaningless (Dresner 2008). Interestingly, the very thing that makes the term difficult to define and its perceived weakness – the uncertainty arising from the extrapolation of the term to various areas of social life – is also seen by others to be a strength (Lélé 1991), because it allows for the engagement of a very large group of stakeholders, which engagement is vital for SD, howsoever defined. As Wals and Jickling (2002) argue, the vagueness, ambiguity, and ambivalence inherent in the primary word sustainability “has an enormous canvassing and heuristic capacity if it is systematically used as a starting point or operational device to exchange views and ideas.” Such open, critical engagement is the core paradigm of HE, a context in which critical thinking thrives (or should thrive). To mobilize stakeholders using SD as a framework for dialogue requires the development of mechanisms for resolving conflicting stakeholders’ interests; mechanisms that clarify the understanding of SD; the interrelation of its primary dimensions, i.e., economic, social, environmental (Godemann et al. 2014), and institutional (Aleixo et al. 2018); and the different priorities given to them by stakeholders. It is noteworthy, however, that the effectiveness of SD as a framework for stakeholder dialogue is occasionally compromised by deliberate substitution of its meaning and principles to accommodate certain corporate/political agendas. As argued by Kopnina (2011), for example, corporate entities might endeavor to subordinate the environmental and social dimensions of SD to their financial (economic) interests.

The different value systems that underpin “education for sustainable development” (ESD) raise the same issues as they do for sustainability and SD. HE’s relationship with sustainability and its development has been captured in at least three areas: (a) education for sustainability, focusing on environmental sustainability; (b) sustainability of education, focusing on the implementation of sustainable forms of education practice; and (c) education for sustainable development , focusing on better living conditions and stewardship of the earth for present and the future (Jahan et al. 2018 citing Bourn and Shiel; Dawe et al.; Sterling; Davies and West-Burnham and Shoel and Howes). Vare and Scott (2007) identify a difference between ESD 1 which they describe as “the promotion of informed, skilled behaviours and ways of thinking, useful in the short-term where the need is clearly identified and agreed” and ESD 2, described “as building capacity to think critically about what experts say and to test ideas, exploring the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living.” They state, however, that these two are complementary and, comparing it to the ancient Chinese concept of “Yin and Yang,” opine that this holistic approach to ESD provides a more appropriate heuristic. Sterling (2016) views the distinction between an “instrumental or goal-oriented view of education and ESD on the one hand, and an intrinsic or learnercentred view of education and ESD on the other” as “an unhelpful dichotomy that needs to be healed as both views bring essential insight to the vital debate on the purpose of education.” He suggests that the two together “hold the promise and potential of a shift in educational thinking, policy and practice which engenders deep and transformative learning on the part of the individual and community.” However, this ideal complementary heuristic of ESD is not always at the fore of HE. As Jickling and Wals (2012) note, contemporary education, including HE, is modelled on the interests/nature of dominant socioeconomic paradigms with an overall utilitarian/instrumental objective. As a result, HE is perceived as a derived demand from the primary demand of market forces (Sterling 2016; Godemann et al. 2014). This

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

gives impetus to a situation where HE becomes susceptible to maintaining the unsustainable practices generated by the socioeconomic status quo. Jickling and Wals (2012) are concerned that ESD, thereby, becomes an instrument of indoctrination. Education could then actually contribute to the sustainability crisis rather than help solve current challenges (Tilbury 2011). As Wals (2011) debatably stresses, “using education as a tool to influence human behaviour in a particular direction [. . .] contradicts the essence of education.” UNESCO’s holistic view of ESD is that it empowers and equips current and future generations to have values and attitudes and ways of thinking and working that enables “a more sustainable and just society for all” and uses “a balanced and integrated approach to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development” to meet their needs (Leicht et al. 2018). Barriers to Integrating Principles of SD into HE Despite the vagueness, ambiguity, and challenges associated with sustainability, SD, and ESD, the international community is slowly progressing toward SD as a coalescing of the understandings of the paradigm and the ability to take actions maturely (Kapitulčinová et al. 2018; Tilbury 2015; Wals 2014). In academia, institutions have also advanced considerably in this direction (Leal Filho 2011) but with some difficulty. A number of barriers account for the difficulty in integrating principles of SD in HE. One such barrier is the focus on different dimensions of SD by different stakeholders (Lozano 2011; Aleixo et al. 2018). Aleixo et al. (2018) note that a “holistic approach has not been taken because actions have been compartmentalized and applied in only one or two dimensions.” For example, while some HE institutions focus on the economic and environmental dimensions (Disterheft et al. 2013), others focus on the social dimension (Aleixo et al. 2018). The absence of a shared understanding of SD and ESD, their dimensions, conceptual elements, and interrelations remains a critical barrier to the implementation of the paradigm shift which is argued to be necessary for integrating sustainable

987

principles into HE (Mader et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012; Tilbury 2015). The complexity and full scope of SD complicate the understanding and application of its principles; sustainability remains misunderstood and largely underestimated (Amador et al. 2015; Leal Filho 2011; Lozano 2010; Lozano et al. 2013) due to a traditional bias for science reductionism (Huckle 2004; Wals and Jickling 2002). A full appreciation of SD’s value, which could then lead to the changes in attitude and behavior, is lacking. One of the most widely acknowledged barriers in integrating sustainability into HE is the lack of leadership and support from top management (Mader et al. 2013; Velazquez et al. 2005; Wright and Horst 2013). Such a leadership deficit manifests itself in the absence of clear strategic goals and good planning with achievable and meaningful targets (Leal Filho 2015; Leal Filho et al. 2018). The underlying reason for deficient leadership might be the lack of true commitment, the lack of awareness about sustainability (Disterheft et al. 2013; Lozano et al. 2013; Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), or the absence of staff specialized in SD in university decision-making bodies (Leal Filho 2015). On the operational level, a deficit of institutional support/interest might translate into no/weak communication, poor monitoring, and a lack of incentives for staff and students (Mader et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012; Wright and Horst 2013). The role of stakeholders – including faculty, staff, and students – as active agents of change toward SD should not be underestimated (Mader et al. 2013). However, apathy on the part of one set of stakeholders, e.g., management, faculty, or students, can contribute to a decline of interest in sustainability issues among other sets. Even though certain sustainable initiatives may be successful without top management’s support (Disterheft et al. 2015), for this to happen, there is the need for comprehensive and overarching strategies for transforming the educational paradigm toward SD. Implementing sustainability is further complicated by limitations in available resources in terms of staffing, training opportunities, time (Ávila et al. 2017; Disterheft et al. 2015; Thomas et al.

I

988

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

2012; Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), and finances (Tilbury 2015). A lack of willingness to invest in the resources required (Leal Filho 2015) and difficulties in quantifying the related costs (Leal Filho 2011) exacerbate this. Other barriers include resistance to change (Disterheft et al. 2013; Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), lack of empowerment/involvement (Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), lack of effective organizational communication (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), and even fear of extra work (Disterheft et al. 2013). Another challenge is that sustainability remains an area of scientific interest for only a few staff and largely fails “to reach the core of staff, students and stakeholders or indeed influence the culture of the institutions” (Tilbury 2011). Verhulst and Lambrechts (2015) and Leal Filho (2015) also identify barriers related to the structure of HE, such as overloaded content in curricula (Disterheft et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012), rigid disciplinary structures (Disterheft et al. 2013; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Moore 2005; Tilbury 2015; Velazquez et al. 2005), and the failure to reward transdisciplinary research (Mader et al. 2013). Ávila et al. (2017) and Lozano (2011) mention the lack of mature reporting and accountability mechanisms as another significant barrier. These barriers are all, arguably, interrelated and relate to discourses on organizational culture, change management, organizational learning, and innovation diffusion (Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010; Mader et al. 2013; Amaral et al. 2015; Ávila et al. 2017; Cebrián et al. 2015). Fundamentally, however, Disterheft et al. (2015) conclude that “universities have not yet understood the full scope of sustainability challenges” and, as a result, the absence of the needed paradigm shift, and in many cases even the awareness that such a shift is needed, remains the main barrier to the integration of SD in HE. Integrating SD into HE: Overcoming the Barriers One approach to integrating the principles of SD into HE has been for HEI to sign declarations, charters, and initiatives with a view to

implementing the principles in these instruments in curricula and management practices. However, the good intentions of signatories are not always reflected in good implementation practices (Wright 2002; Lozano et al. 2015). Ideally, such commitments should be followed by implementation, verification of outcomes, and reporting mechanisms (Amaral et al. 2015). Integrating principles of sustainable education in HE also requires a reorientation of the focus of universities. SD is often referred to as a new paradigm, which requires revision of social and scientific beliefs and practices, including the nature and role of HE (Cebrián et al. 2015). Importantly, SD not only requires such a revision but actually offers a conceptual framework for such modification (Stewart 2010). Accordingly, within the SD paradigm, the role and nature of universities must be reconsidered, reoriented, or transformed toward sustainability (Cebrián et al. 2013; Moore 2005; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Steiner and Posch 2006; Tilbury 2011, 2015) and include changes in curriculum, pedagogical approach, structure, administration, and operations. Not only does education need to be transformative as a societal change agent, it also needs itself to be transformed (Ramos et al. 2015; Sterling 2016; Stephens et al. 2008; Svanström et al. 2008). Such significant organizational transformations require exceptionally strong leadership (Cebrián et al. 2013; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010) and correctly aligned institutional strategies, vision, mission, and ethos, with genuine commitment (Thomas et al. 2012). Although contemporary research mainly highlights the benefits of a top-down approach with only few authors identifying the related risks (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), a complementary bottom-up approach is just as important. The efforts of change agents who work in a bottomup approach to engage other stakeholders in sustainable thinking and practice (Kapitulčinová et al. 2018) are important. They will, however, only yield sustainable results when combined with a matured top-down emphasis on the value of sustainability and an organizational structure and culture that inculcates the values of sustainability in all the educational elements, i.e.,

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

decision-making, governance, campus management, research and curriculum development, delivery, assessment and evaluation, staff development, and student engagement (Barth and Rieckmann 2012; Huckle 2014; Leal Filho 2015). In addition, and due to the nature and complexity of sustainability, a transdisciplinary approach has the potential to prompt synergies with other areas of HE governance by creating dialogue and even consensus among institutional stakeholders. Due consideration should be given to the planning and development of adequate practical approaches (including teaching strategies) for integrating sustainability into HE (Leal Filho 2011; Leal Filho et al. 2018) taking into account contemporary institutional experiences, specific jurisdictional sustainability challenges, and the aforementioned barriers. Teaching and learning strategies should be dynamic, providing opportunities for regular reflection (Moore 2005) as well as enabling stakeholder involvement in both content development and learning outcomes (Wals and Jickling 2002). Identifying recommendations for integrating SD into HE is a simple exercise compared to actually implementing these recommendations (Moore 2005). Implementation is key; as Mader et al. (2013) stress, “good ideas with no ideas on how to implement them are wasted ideas.” However, there are few objective success indicators to verify implementation or monitor progress. Sustainability reports, assessment of documentation and/or processes, and surveys of stakeholder opinions are the primary tools for collecting information. Actual objective measures of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are limited. The determination and measurement of objective success indicators in affective and behavioral change remain under-researched.

989

contemporary HE models which tend to be based on the interests of the dominant socioeconomic paradigm appear unable to accommodate the principles of SD without considerable transformation. The discussion in this chapter demonstrates that a paradigm shift is needed for a move toward comprehensive SD. In summary, to implement SD, HE leaders should, as recommended by Lozano et al. (2015): 1. Acknowledge that the HEI system is comprised of several interrelated elements. 2. Commit to SD by integrating SD into the HEI’s policies and strategies. 3. Show the HEI’s commitment by signing a declaration and charter of initiative. 4. Establish short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the institutionalization of SD. 5. Ensure that SD is implemented throughout the system. This rather lucid and noteworthy quote from Sterling’s (2004) is a good conclusion to this chapter: . . . Sustainability does not simply require an “addon” to existing structures and curricula, but implies a change of fundamental epistemology in our culture and hence also in our thinking and practice . . . Sustainability is not just another issue to be added to an overcrowded curriculum, but a gateway to a different view of curriculum, of pedagogy, of organisational change, of policy and particularly of ethos . . . The response of higher education should not be predicated only on the ‘integration of sustainability’ into higher education, because this invites a limited, adaptive, response . . . We need to see the relationship the other way around – that is, the necessary transformation of higher education towards the integrative and more whole state implied by a systemic view of sustainability in education and society, however difficult this may be to realise.

References Conclusion HE has always been at “the forefront of creating as well as deconstructing paradigms” (Tilbury 2011) through scientific/thought advancement and knowledge transfer (Waas et al. 2010). However,

Adomßent M, Fischer D, Godemann J, Herzig C, Otte I, Rieckmann M, Timm J (2014) Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development – management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J Clean Prod 62:1–7

I

990

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education

Aleixo AM, Azeiteiro UM, Leal S (2018) The implementation of sustainability practices in Portuguese higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 19:146–178 Amador F, Martinho AP, Bacelar-Nicolau P, Caeiro S, Oliveira CP (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: evaluating coherence between theory and praxis. Assess Eval High Educ 40(6):867–882 Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB (2015) Quest for a sustainable university: a review. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(2):155–172 Ávila LV, Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Macgregor CJ, Molthan-Hill P, Özuyar PG, Moreira RM (2017) Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. J Clean Prod 164:1268–1278 Barth M, Rieckmann M (2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. J Clean Prod 26:28–36 Beynaghi A, Trencher G, Moztarzadeh F, Mozafari M, Maknoon R, Leal Filho W (2016) Future sustainability scenarios for universities: moving beyond the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. J Clean Prod 112(4):3464–3478 Cebrián G, Grace M, Humphris D (2013) Organisational learning towards sustainability in higher education. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 4(3):285–306. https://doi. org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2012-0043 Cebrián G, Grace M, Humphris D (2015) Academic staff engagement in education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 106:79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.12.010 Chichilnisky G (1997) What is sustainable development? Land Econ 73(4):467–491 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2013) Sustainability science and education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition. In: Caeiro S, Leal Filho W, Jabbour C, Azeiteiro UM (eds) Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions: mapping trends and good practices around the world. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 3–27 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2015) Sustainable universities – a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 106:11–21 Djordjevic A, Cotton DRE (2011) Communicating the sustainability message in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(4):381–394 Dresner S (2008) The principles of sustainability, 2nd edn. Earthscan (Routledge), London Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3(2):83–96 Fergus AHT, Rowney JIA (2005) Sustainable development: lost meaning and opportunity? J Bus Ethics 60(1):17–27 Ferrer-Balas D, Lozano R, Huisingh D, Buckland H, Ysern P, Zilahy G (2010) Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. J Clean Prod 18(7):607–610

Godemann J, Bebbington J, Herzig C, Moon J (2014) Higher education and sustainable development: exploring possibilities for organisational change. Account Audit Account J 27(2):218–233 Houston D, Robertson T, Prebble T (2008) Exploring quality in a university department: perspectives and meanings. Qual High Educ 14(3):209–223 Huckle J (2004) Critical realism: a philosophical framework for higher education for sustainability. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 33–46 Huckle J (2014) Education for sustainable citizenship: an emerging focus for education for sustainability. In: Huckle J, Sterling S (eds) Education for sustainability. Earthscan (Routledge), London, pp 228–243 Jabareen Y (2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ Dev Sustain 10(2):179–192 Jahan M, Arif-Uz-Zaman M, Tofail Hossain ANM, Akhter S (2018) Open and distance learning for sustainable development in Bangladesh. In: Pandey UC, Indrakanti V (eds) Optimizing open and distance learning in higher education institutions. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 40–70 Jickling B, Wals AEJ (2012) Debating education for sustainable development 20 years after Rio: a conversation between Bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):49–57 Kapitulčinová D, AtKisson A, Perdue J, Will M (2018) Towards integrated sustainability in higher education – mapping the use of the Accelerator toolset in all dimensions of university practice. J Clean Prod 172:4367–4382 Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21 Kopnina H (2011) Revisiting education for sustainable development (ESD): examining anthropocentric bias through the transition of environmental education to ESD. Sustain Dev 22:73–83 Lambrechts W, Mulà I, Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Gaeremynck V (2013) The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: analysis of bachelor programs in management. J Clean Prod 48:65–73 Leal Filho W (2011) Applied sustainable development: a way forward in promoting sustainable development in higher education institutions. In: Leal Filho W (ed) World trends in education for sustainable development. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp 11–29 Leal Filho W (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 3–12 Leal Filho W, Pallant E, Enete A, Richter B, Brandli LL (2018) Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the

Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education difficulties and potentials. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 25(8):713–721 Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (2018) Introduction. In: Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (eds) Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 7–16 Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621 Lozano R (2010) Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J Clean Prod 18(7):637–644 Lozano R (2011) The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):67–78 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19 Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, Lozano FJ, Waas T, Lambrechts W, Lukman R, Hugé J (2015) A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. J Clean Prod 108(Part A):1–18 Mader C, Scott G, Abdul Razak D (2013) Effective change management, governance and policy for sustainability transformation in higher education. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 4(3):264–284 Manuel ME (2017) Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and training (MET): trends, challenges and opportunities. WMU J Marit Aff 16(3):473–483 Moore J (2005) Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: a guide for change agents. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):326–339 Newman JH (1907) The idea of a university defined and illustrated: (A) In nine discourses delivered to the Catholics of Dublin; (B) In occasional lectures and essays addressed to the members of the Catholic university. Longmans, Green, and Co., London Ramos TB, Caeiro S, van Hoof B, Lozano R, Huisingh D, Ceulemans K (2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: environmental management for sustainable universities. J Clean Prod 106:3–10 Rieckmann M (2012) Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44(2):127–135 Rieckmann M, Barth M (2016) State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London, pp 100–113 Schuck PH (2000) The limits of law. Westview, Boulder Scott P (1993) The idea of the university in the 21st century: a British perspective. Br J Educ Stud 41(1):4–25 Shephard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):87–98

991

Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14(9–11):877–890 Stephens JC, Graham AC (2010) Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: exploring the transition management framework. J Clean Prod 18(7):611–618 Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Román M, Graham AC, Scholz RW (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):317–338 Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-30648515-x_5 Sterling S (2016) A commentary on education and sustainable development goals. J Educ Sustain Dev 10(2):208–213 Stewart M (2010) Transforming higher education: a practical plan for integrating sustainability education into the student experience. J Sustain Educ 1(1):1–13 Svanström M, Lozano-García FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):339–351 Thomas I, Hegarty K, Holdsworth S (2012) The education for sustainability jig-saw puzzle: implementation in universities. Creat Educ 3(6):840–846 Tilbury D (2011) Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress. In: GUNi (ed) Higher education in the world, vol 4. Global University Network for Innovation (GUNi), Barcelona, pp 18–28 Tilbury D (2015) Education for sustainability: a snakes and ladders game? Foro de Educación 13(19):7–10 Vare P, Scott W (2007) Learning for change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191–198 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391 Verhulst E, Lambrechts W (2015) Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education: lessons learned from a change management perspective. J Clean Prod 106:189–204 Voigt C (2009) Sustainable development as a principle of international law: resolving conflicts between climate measures and WTO law. Legal aspects of sustainable development. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Waas T, Verbruggen A, Wright T (2010) University research for sustainable development: definition and characteristics explored. J Clean Prod 18(7):629–636 Wals AEJ (2011) Learning our way to sustainability. J Educ Sustain Dev 5(2):177–186 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15

I

992 Wals AEJ, Jickling B (2002) “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):221–232 Wright TSA (2002) Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):203–220 Wright T, Horst N (2013) Exploring the ambiguity: what faculty leaders really think of sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(2):209–227

Integrative ▶ Multi-disciplinarity

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

Integrative

(World Bank Group 2016). These INDCs collectively “contribute” towards reaching the global goal of less than 2  C warming compared to the preindustrial baseline (Levin et al. 2015). Simply put, the INDCs are the method by which countries communicate internationally on their climate policies and address emissions reduction and adaptation strategies, thereby creating “a constructive feedback loop” on the global scale (WRI n.d.). The concept behind INDCs is a way to commit into writing the mitigation and adaptation strategies that each nation must take to sustainably develop in the face of climate change (World Bank Group 2016). INDCs which are ambitious, transparent, and equitable present an opportunity for individual nations to stand out and demonstrate leadership and political commitment (WRI n.d.; Levin et al. 2015). They aim to spark investment, new technologies, and innovation to create a shift towards sustainable development and a low-carbon future (Levin et al. 2015).

Emma Thornton Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Introduction Definition The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are the foundation of the Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.). They represent the voluntary national post-2020 climate action commitments that Parties intended to take and communicate to the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Secretariat under the 2015 Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.; Levin et al. 2015; World Bank Group 2016; Clemencon 2016). Each country developed its own commitment to combatting climate change, according to its own unique circumstances, making each INDC “nationally determined” (Levin et al. 2015). The pledges are voluntary and demonstrate a wide variety of methodologies and baselines (Clemencon 2016). When the INDCs were devised in 2015, their legal status was yet to be solidified, which made them “intended” (Levin et al. 2015). They become binding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) when a Party ratifies the Paris Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was adopted by 196 Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2015 during the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) (Rogelj et al. 2016; UNFCCC 2019). This monumental global Agreement strives to limit global warming to 2  C or less above preindustrial levels, with a further ambition to keep warming below 1.5  C, in an effort to mitigate the threats caused by climate change; create common but differentiated mitigation commitments between countries so as to safeguard equity; and ensure transparent monitoring and reporting of emissions (Clemencon 2016; Levin et al. 2015; WRI n.d.). In order to achieve these goals, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Paris Agreement calls upon Member Parties to create and communicate voluntary emissions reductions targets detailed by Member Parties to COP21, called the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (Clemencon 2016; Levin et al. 2015; UNFCCC 2019).

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

How the INDCs Were Created? The INDCs were to be drafted for the 2015 COP21 in Paris, after which they were adopted (Levin et al. 2015). The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was a breakthrough in the climate negotiations after years of deadlock, as it represented a shift in the way nations viewed their approach to solving the climate change crisis (Clemencon 2016). Previously, under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for which negotiations began in 1992 in Rio, both developing and developed countries were required to limit their emissions equally, though emissions reductions targets were binding for developed countries only (Chasek et al. 2017). When the INDCs were designed, each Party was entitled to take its own approach to creating its unique INDC in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) (WRI n.d.). This resulted in documents which differ greatly from country to country (Clemencon 2016). In developing their INDCs, Parties had the option of taking one of two approaches: (1) outlining specific mitigation strategies and (2) specifying a desired outcome of national action (Levin et al. 2015). The Regional Technical Dialogues on INDCs, hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNFCCC in 2014–2015, recommended that the Parties use data and technical analysis, including current and projected emissions, to inform their INDCs (Levin et al. 2015). This is distinct from the legally binding Kyoto Protocol because it is the first time that each country created a voluntary, nationally determined obligation, or commitment to combat climate change with an emphasis on consensus-building. In the Paris Agreement, there is no real division between developed and developing nations (Chasek et al. 2017).

Transitioning INDCs to NDCs The INDCs are “intended” because they were created in anticipation of the Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.). These commitments turn into NDCs when a country formally ratifies and joins the

993

Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.; Meinshausen n.d.). The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016, which is 30 days after the date that 55 Parties (constituting 55% of the global greenhouse gas emissions) submitted their ratifications. Parties are invited to communicate their first NDC prior to ratification (UNFCCC 2019), and countries are expected to submit to the UNFCCC Secretariat an updated NDC every 5 years (WRI n.d.). Each new submission, all of which are public in the NDC registry on the UNFCCC Secretariat’s website, must represent a progression upwards from that Party’s last commitment (UNFCCC 2019). At COP23 and 24 in 2017–2018 the Global Stocktake (GST), with negotiations known as the Talanoa Dialogue, was initiated. Every 5 years starting in 2023, the GST will encourage countries to prepare new NDCs and increase their ambitions and long-term targets (UNFCCC 2019). The implementation of the GST is one of the major achievements of COP21 (Kinley 2017).

Select Components Many sectors are touched upon in the mitigation, adaptation, and financing aspects of the INDCs, including energy, agriculture, transport, environment, urban, water, and disaster risk management (World Bank Group 2016; UNFCCC 2019). The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) published briefing papers on sectoral implementation of the NDCs, including recommendations. In its overview, GIZ notes that in order to best implement NDCs, action takes place primarily at a sectoral level. The most commonly covered sectors are energy, agriculture, and mitigation. Mitigation is an obvious inclusion since its very definition in this context is reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major focus of the Paris Agreement and an essential way to tackle the root cause of climate change. The energy sector retains great importance, considering over half of GHG emissions come from this sector. Agriculture is another major source of GHG emissions, but more information is needed on how to make and enforce

I

994

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

low-carbon strategies (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 2017). The strategies outlined in the NDCs are either conditional or unconditional. Conditional NDCs, which are common in developing countries, are contingent on external funding for implementation (Helland et al. 2018). These distinctions represent the CBDRs of different countries outlined under the Paris Agreement, as developing countries are usually those which have not contributed to climate change but tend to suffer disproportionately from its harm (Zyl et al. 2018). Sustainable Development According to the UNFCCC, emissions reductions should be done in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication (UNFCCC 2019). Indeed, 2015 marked both the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the completion of the Paris Agreement on climate change (Ari 2017). Sustainable development is defined by the monumental Brundtland Report as development which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland et al. 1987). This concept is better characterized as ecologically sound development than as sustained growth or change (Lele 1991), since the limits to global development are enshrined in the limits of ecological and energy resources (Brundtland et al. 1987). International cooperation is necessary to successfully ensure sustainable development (Brundtland et al. 1987). In light of this, nations around the world came together in 2015 to develop the Sustainable Development Goals. While explicit connections between the SDGs and the Paris Agreement are not strong, the two international agreements remain interconnected nonetheless (Ari 2017). Each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is connected to ten or more climate activities in the original INDCs. The SDGs with the greatest presence (according to how many INDC climate activities correspond to the SDG) in the original INDCs are (7) Affordable and Clean Energy, (15) Life on Land, (2) No Hunger, and (11) Sustainable Cities and Communities, in that order. SDG 13 (Climate

Action) is inherently present in all NDCs, and 66% of climate action is related to adaptation measures (compared to 9% mitigation and 22% combination mitigation and adaptation). In terms of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 31% of INDC climate action commitments in this space are quantifiable and therefore measurable (German Development Institute n.d.). Adaptation and Mitigation The (I)NDCs are the way that countries communicate internally and globally on their climate policies through adaptation and mitigation targets (WRI n.d.). Climate change mitigation refers to combatting the issue through GHG emissions reductions, and broad policy categories include switching to renewables, increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy demand, and sequestering atmospheric carbon (IPCC 2007). A sustainable energy future would require all countries to lower their emissions, requiring a dramatic shift in the way we see energy: fossil fuels to renewable sources, along with carbon capture and storage (CSS) (World Bank 2009). Other methods of reducing GHG emissions in different sectors include policies which promote active transport, including walking and bicycling; sustainable agriculture policies, including those that decrease meat consumption; and reforestation and forest growth land-use policies (Dellasala and Goldstein 2018). One such conditional mitigation method is reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), by which developing countries are compensated for sustainable management of forests and reduction of forestrelated carbon emissions (Larson et al. 2013). Climate change adaptation refers to an “adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts” (IPCC 2007). While 189 countries included mitigation targets in their initial or subsequent (I)NDCs, only 140 included adaptation targets (World Bank Group 2016). Much of adaptation is reactive, and adaptations may amplify the impacts of climate change (or example, air conditioning). Any adaptation has the potential to impose unintended consequences on natural and social systems (Adger

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

et al. 2005; Nelson 2011; Godfray et al. 2010). Therefore, successful adaptation measures are effective, efficient, and equitable, taking into account sustainable development, especially for developing countries (Adger et al. 2005). Common but Differentiated Responsibilities The 1997 Kyoto Protocol asked each country to share an equal part of carbon emissions reduction. Unfortunately, this strategy led to a disproportionate burden on developing countries (Clemencon 2016), especially since developed countries are responsible for the majority of atmospheric carbon emissions related to energy, while developing countries are hardest hit by climate change (World Bank 2009). Learning from this, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) was determined so that Parties from developed countries must provide financial resources for Parties from developing countries (Zhang and Pan 2016). The shared responsibility of mitigation is determined based on development level, including social, economic, and technical capabilities (Ari 2017). Since each country faces unique challenges, each INDC was designed such that every Party could determine its own fair contributions (Levin et al. 2015). The Paris Agreement was a shift to a universal treaty, so that all countries, not just the developed ones, made commitments (Chasek et al. 2017). Climate Finance The issue of finance is widely debated. Nonetheless, coming out of COP21 Parties agreed to focus on the reporting and assessment of financial support from developed countries to developing countries (Kinley 2017). Out of 160 INDCs, 122 include information on financing. Finance is linked to mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, and capacity-building (Zhang and Pan 2016). The total self-reported cost of the INDCs is $5,119 billion USD by 50 countries, while the International Finance Corporation Climate Investment Opportunity Report finds that there are $23 trillion in emerging markets investment potential by 2030 (World Bank Group 2016). Business support is a necessary part of moving to a low-carbon economy: the world needs not

995

only the financial resources in the private sector but also that field’s technical and organizational skills (Geels et al. 2017). Market approaches to tacking climate change mitigation were codified in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, thereby creating a pathway of emissions reductions for industries and businesses (Kinley 2017). Some believe that market mechanisms such as a carbon cap-and-trade program or carbon tax are essential in the transition to lower emissions without risking social and economic disruptions (World Bank 2009). The global abatement costs of meeting the unconditional commitments outlined in the original INDCs are estimated to be $135 billion by 2030. In order for many developing countries to meet their primary and successive (I)NDC goals, conditional financing is necessary. Implementation of these conditional commitments could add another $40 to 55 billion (Hof et al. 2017). Under CBDR, developing nations are expected to achieve their “fair share” of the mitigation effort in their own contexts, which can require pursuing renewable energy options which lead to net savings. After this point, further reductions necessitate, and are therefore conditional upon, international financing (Zyl et al. 2018). Technology The challenges we must overcome in the face of climate change have inspired “unprecedented” innovations and collaborations in technology (Jiang et al. 2017). In light of this, technology is a major component of many of the NDCs. Following the technology transfer commitments mandated by the UNFCCC in 1992 (Zhou 2019), the Paris Agreement proposed a climate change technology development and transfer mechanism for which policy and financial support were advocated (Jiang et al. 2017). As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, leaders must find a way to feed even those of the lowest economic status in an environmentally and socially sustainable way (Godfray et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2017). Technology might be the way to support sustainable growth. According to some, technology is the link between humans and nature. Many believe that

I

996

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

advancements in technology are what we need to focus on to ensure sustainable development (Anado et al. 2016). Technology and innovation need to be made accessible to people in developing countries, and technology development should pay attention to environmental factors (Brundtland et al. 1987). However, others caution that this approach is too simplistic. In Limits to Growth, the authors argue that the most dangerous reaction to the global climate model is technological optimism, since it is a band-aid on the root of the problem: the illusion of a possibility of unlimited growth in a finite system (Meadows and Club of Rome 1972). In any event, global development and sharing of technology based on cooperation is essential in combatting climate change (Jiang et al. 2017).

Implications of the INDCs Energy, Emissions, and GDP Growth Climate science research, particularly that of the carbon cycle, demonstrates that the total carbon we can allow to enter the atmosphere is finite (Matthews and Caldeira 2008), and that over two-thirds of allowable atmospheric carbon levels before reaching the 2  C threshold have already been emitted (UNFCCC Secretariat 2016). Indeed, in order to regain geologic stability, we must eventually reach net zero emissions (Matthews and Caldeira 2008). Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a clear estimate on how INDCs and their subsequent policies will affect warming, since many commitments lack the details necessary to create an analysis (Rogelj et al. 2016). Analyses conducted in 2016 predict that without action, the world will reach 4  C warming by 2100, and even if the INDC commitments are met, the world will still experience warming close to or exceeding 3  C by 2100 (Rogelj et al. 2016; Clemencon 2016). Unfortunately, the first INDC commitments are not strong enough to reach even our 2030 goals, as global GHG emissions show no sign of peaking (UN Environment n.d.). There are competing goals in energy policy: economic growth, energy access for the poor, energy security, and environmental protection. The overarching objective is to produce

affordable, reliable energy which increases economic growth for all people without compromising the environment (World Bank 2009). In order to reach global goals, Parties should increase the commitments in their future NDCs and follow-up with strong national policies. Non-state and subnational actors should also focus on their own emissions reductions (UN Environment n.d.). This is especially important given the IPCC Report on 1.5 , which demonstrates the need for a rapid, increased effort to limit warming to below 1.5  C to best ensure that the world wins the fights against climate change and poverty in the context of sustainable development (IPCC 2018). Future Effects As of April 2016, 161 INDCs were received by the UNFCCC Secretariat, covering 189 Parties and 99% of global emissions, according to a synthesis report on the aggregate effects of INDCs which was originally prepared by the Secretariat in November 2015 and updated in May 2016 (UNFCCC Secretariat 2016). While the Paris Agreement and the INDCs represent an important step towards global emissions reductions, there are some aspects which could be improved upon. For example, the Paris Agreement fails to make legally binding emission targets, create specific financial support mechanisms, determine liability for loss and damage, or address connected international trade policies (Clemencon 2016). New fiscal policies and innovation spurred from the INDCs can create new opportunities, but this cannot happen without impetus (UN Environment n.d.).

Final Remarks In 2018, the IPCC heightened the significance of meeting national emissions targets when it released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C focused on “the impacts of global warming of 1.5 C above preindustrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty” (IPCC 2018).

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development

While the INDCs are a step along the path to a more sustainable global future, the Paris Agreement and therefore the NDCs are nonbinding and nonenforceable. Indeed, after its implementation, more than one country has threatened to exit the agreement. However, even if governments in the international community fail to act, other actors work to combat climate change and hold their countries accountable. For example, young people have inspired media-attracting grassroots activism. In Sweden, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began taking school strikes on Fridays in protest of climate inaction, which has sparked similar protests globally. In the USA, a group of young students legally challenged the US government’s unsafe policies, which the students claim violate their constitutional rights (Juliana v. The United States) (Taylor 2018). The inspiring action of this young generation brings hope that countries will take strong action on the commitments they made in their initial INDCs and beyond.

References Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang 15:77–86 Anado LD, Chan G, Harle AG, M K, Moon S, Murthy SL, Clark WC (2016) Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. PNAS 113(35):9682–9690. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1525004113 Ari İ (2017) The interconnection between sustainable development goals and the cliamte change negotiations: the Paris Agreement case. Special Issue on Climate Change and Energy 27–45 Brundtland B, Khalid M, Agnelli S, Al-Athel S, Chidzero B, Fadika L et al (1987) Towards sustainable development. In: Report of the world comission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, New York Chasek PS, Downie DL, Brown JW (2017) Climate change. In: Global environmental politics, 7th edn. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 162–186 Clemencon R (2016) The two sides of the Paris climate agreement: dismal failure or historic breakthrough? J Environ Dev 25(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1070496516631362 Dellasala DA, Goldstein MI (eds) (2018) Encyclopedia of the anthropocene. Elsevier, Amsterdam Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (2017) Briefing series: Sectoral implementation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Bonn

997

Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357(6357):1242–1244 German Development Institute (n.d.) NDC-SDG connections. Retrieved from Klimalog. https://klimalog.diegdi.de/ndc-sdg/ Godfray HC, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, . . . Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(812):812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Helland L, Hovi J, Sælen H (2018) Climate leadership by conditional commitments. Oxf Econ Pap 70(2):417–442 Hof AF, Elzen MG, dmiraal A, Roelfsema M, Gernaat DEHJ, Vuuren DP (2017) Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2  C and 1.5  C. Environ Sci Pol 71:30–40 IPCC (2007) Working group II: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Retrieved from IPCC. https://www.ipcc. ch/working-group/wg2/?idp=643 IPCC (2018) Special report: global warming of 1.5 C. IPCC, Geneva Jiang J, Wang W, Wang C, Liu Y (2017) Combating climate change calls for a global technological cooperation system built on the concept of ecological civilization. China J Popul Resour Environ 15(1):21–31 Kinley R (2017) Climate change after Paris: from turning point to transformation. Clim Pol 17(1):9–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191009 Larson AM, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Duchelle A, Babon A, Dokken T, . . . Huynh T-B (2013) Land tenure and REDD+: the good, the bad and the ugly. Glob Environ Chang 23:678–689 Lele SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621. Elsevier Levin K, Rich D, Bonduki Y, Comstock M, Tirpak D, McGray H, . . . Waskow D (2015) Designing and preparing intended nationally determined contributions. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Creative Commons Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388 Meadows DH, Club of Rome (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Meinshausen M (n.d.) NDC & INDC factsheets. Retrieved from The University of Melourne Climate and Energy College. http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/ndc-indc-factsheets Nelson DR (2011) Adaptation and resilience: responding to a changing climate. WIREs Clim Change 2:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.91 Rogelj J, Elzen MD, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, . . . Meinshausen M (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2  C. Nature 534:631–639 Taylor L (2018) Too young to vote, children strike, protest and sue for climate action. Reuters, London UN Environment (n.d.) The emissions gap report 2018. Retrieved February 2019. https://www.unenvironment. org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2018

I

998 UNFCCC (2019) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Retrieved from UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/ process/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determinedcontributions/ndc-registry UNFCCC Secretariat (2016) Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. FCCC, Marrakech World Bank (2009) Energizing development without compromising the climate. In: World development report 2010. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 189–229 World Bank Group (2016) Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). Retrieved from The World Bank. http://spappssecext.worldbank.org/sites/indc/ Pages/INDCHome.aspx WRI (n.d.) INDCs. Retrieved from World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/indcs Zhang W, Pan X (2016) Study on the demand of climate finance for developing countries based on submitted INDC. ScienceDirect 7(2):99–104 Zhou C (2019) Can intellectual property rights within climate technology transfer work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement? Int Environ Agreements: Polit Law Econ 19(1):107–122 Zyl HV, Lewis Y, Kinghorn J, Reeler J (2018) The cost of achieving South Africa’s ‘fair share’ of global climate change mitigation. Clim Pol 18(10):1327–1339

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Competences ▶ Soft Skills and Sustainable Development

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Ann Crabbé Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Group Environment and Society, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Synonyms Multi-disciplinarity

Introduction Interdisciplinarity is an umbrella term that is used to designate the collaboration between disciplines.

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Competences

The term discipline is adapted from the Latin word disciplina, meaning “a branch of instruction or education; a department of learning or knowledge” (Aram 2004). While the term discipline has been used since the early Middle Ages to signify a way of ordering knowledge for teaching and learning, the idea and practice of knowledge exchange between disciplines are used since the mid-1920s. However, the rise of interdisciplinarity on the science policy agenda only started at the end of the twentieth century, fitting into a wider context of cultural changes that took place in the western world in the late 1960s (Wernli et al. 2016). In 1970, a conference of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identified interdisciplinary research as a means to respond to both changing societal and scientific challenges (Apostel et al. 1972). Hereafter, we describe the what, why, and how of interdisciplinarity, (where possible) in relation to sustainability. In section “Defining Interdisciplinarity” on the “what,” it is explained: (a) that interdisciplinarity can be a one scholar enterprise or can be “team science,” (b) that there are several degrees of interdisciplinarity, and (c) that interdisciplinarity is one term alongside many others with a prefix preceeding disciplinarity. In section “Interdisciplinarity as a Commitment to Social Change and as a Contribution to Basic Academic Research” on the “why,” we elaborate on the idea that interdisciplinarity is often associated with creating social change (for sustainability) but that it is also valuable for pure academic basic research. Section “Conditions for Successful Interdisciplinary Research” on the “how” discusses the necessary conditions for successful interdisciplinary research. Section “Opportunities and Obstacles” makes an overview of the added value of interdisciplinary working but also highlights obstacles for interdisciplinarity.

Defining Interdisciplinarity Interaction Between One or Two Different Disciplines In September 1970, the OECD organized a seminar on interdisciplinarity in Nice (France). The

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

final report (Apostel et al. 1972) discussed the experiences and problems of university programs and surveyed institutions worldwide on the concept of interdisciplinarity. The definition of interdisciplinary teaching and research adopted in the final report is, until today, widely cited. It refers to interaction as well as mutual integration between disciplines. It points to the presence of a team of discipline-based academics and emphasizes applications to real-world problems (Franks et al. 2007). Interdisciplinary—an adjective describing the interaction among two or more different disciplines. This interaction may range from simple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organizing concepts, methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data, and organization of research and education in a fairly large field. An interdisciplinary group consists of persons trained in different fields of knowledge (disciplines) with different concepts, methods, and data and terms organized into a common effort on a common problem with continuous intercommunication among the participants from different disciplines. (Apostel et al. 1972).

Ranging from a Single Scholar to “Team Science” In terms of research practice, interdisciplinary research can be seen as a mode of research by individuals or by a team. At the individual level, some researchers are interested in a topic that traditionally “belongs” to another discipline and create space for interdisciplinary interactions. Others successfully develop proficiency in more than one discipline during their career with some of them having a dual disciplinary background. However, most interdisciplinary research is currently based on the collaboration of researchers from different backgrounds on specific projects. Most universities have seen the emergence in many fields of a new generation of researchers who are trained to work across disciplines (Wernli et al. 2016). The importance of the team and the challenges associated with collaborative science have given rise to the notion of “team science,” which seeks to identify and understand the dynamics of teams in producing collaborative research (Fiore 2008; Stokols et al. 2008).

999

Depth of Integration of the Disciplines An often-asked question is whether interdisciplinary research generates new, so-called integral knowledge or whether it is a case of (re)combining or (re)translating insights from disciplinary knowledge. In other words, is interdisciplinary research a matter of integration, interaction, or both? Different answers to this question are possible, as is apparent from research on interdisciplinary cooperation. Lattuca (2003) from the University of Calgary conducted interviews in 2003 with some 40 researchers in four different American institutions. The typology of different forms of interdisciplinarity which she applied further in her study is generally in line with the classification into five types made by the Dutch consultancy Ackers and De Vries (2004). They discerned between five types of interdisciplinary cooperation. In this typology an indication is given of how researchers from different disciplines work together (see Box 1). Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation

Type 1 – Mutual exchange of knowledge In type 1 integration, the different researches are independent of one another. The progress of one project will not be determined by the progress of another. They share a common research domain, but they each approach the idea from a different perspective. Regular communication between the researchers generates understanding for the other person’s research perspective and the exchange of insights from the autonomous research projects. Type 2 – Reciprocal influence Type 2 integration, in contrast to type 1, is typified by mutual dependence between the research projects. For example, project 2 is dependent on the outcomes of project 1 for its preconditions. The research projects need one another and influence one another in terms of content. Ideally, there (continued )

I

1000

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation (continued)

Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation (continued)

is exchange inherent in the interaction, so that the projects do have real influence on one another. Type 3 – Integration of objectives The concept of integrating objectives indicates that, in type 3 integration, the different research projects will be combined at the end into one entity, which results in a separate model fed by the different projects. The interaction between the projects has a common goal: to fit into the joint result. In this method, the research projects do not originate from one model, but they jointly contribute to the final phase. Type 4 – Integration of basis The core of type 4 integration develops in the preliminary phase of the projects. Different disciplines relating to a subject are considered in relation to one another and are combined into a comprehensive research model. Research projects are initiated and founded on the shared basis, whereby the model indicates where the necessity lies for further development in the relevant fields. The results of these more penetrative projects are used as a repeat loop for improving and interpreting the basic model. The research question in this instance is multilayered. There is a main question, which is formed in the basic model, and each more in-depth research has its own question which is derived from this. In a multidisciplinary program, the basic model is often a complex model. The scientific models of the subprojects may well be “hard science” or in their turn complex science. Type 5 – Directed integration In type 5 integration, as well as internal integration (within the research program), there is also external integration, whereby the scientific framework is combined with the frameworks of the other stakeholders (e.g., from policy, society, and industry),

which you could also associate with “transdisciplinarity,” a term explained below. The research program is determined in interaction with the other stakeholders and is given a general interpretation, after which each stakeholder develops the issue in his/her own way. This leads to parallel tracks, whereby the scientist seeks further deepening of the issue and the policy-maker, for example, prepares the policy documents. Ideally there is interaction between the different parallel tracks during the course of the process, and the scientific result is integrated in the other tracks. Source: adapted from de Boer et al. 2006: 12–14

The Many Prefixes of Disciplinarity When it comes to the collaboration between scholars of different disciplines, a variety of terms and expressions can be found in literature. The most relevant concepts to understand growing modes of collaboration between academic disciplines are disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity (Darbellay 2015; Nissani 1995; Piaget 1972; Rosenfield 1992). Throughout this terminological variation, disciplinarity is modulated on a case-by-case basis by prefixes: from disciplinarity to multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity. Hereafter, we explain the differences between the four: • Disciplinarity is characterized by a low degree of openness, interaction, and integration between scholars of different disciplines. This is in contrast to multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity, as they are characterized by a progressive decompartmentalization of knowledge. • Multidisciplinarity refers to a sequential analysis of a problem by disciplinary experts, with few interactions between them.

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

• Interdisciplinarity is the result of growing interactions and efforts to integrate disciplinary insights, ideally with an added value both for the disciplinary science and society. • Finally, transdisciplinarity refers to research in which not only different scientific disciplines are involved but also a wide range of stakeholders in society (citizens, community organizations, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, etc.) (Klein 2008). In this way, nonacademic forms of knowledge are also included.

Interdisciplinarity as a Commitment to Social Change and as a Contribution to Basic Academic Research Interdisciplinary research is often problemfocused applied research. Indeed, a lot of themes of interdisciplinary collaboration are an example of a commitment to social change (Aram 2004; Filemyr 1999). Many interdisciplinary fields, including women’s studies, environmental studies, peace studies, African-American studies, labor studies, cultural studies, etc., have emerged out of social, political, and economic struggles of groups historically excluded or marginalized by the dominant discourse. They represent critical challenges to the status quo and have the potential to utilize a powerful integrative approach to knowledge as a tool for social engagement in order to better address social concerns. Think also of interdisciplinary fields with a wide integrative scope, such as environmental sciences or global health, that have urged the combination of insights from natural sciences and social sciences to analyze and understand complex socioecological systems (Wernli et al. 2016). Sustainability inevitably requires an interdisciplinary approach. Going back to the Club of Rome’s influential Limits to Growth study (Meadows et al. 1972), an integrative view was strongly advocated. The authors indicated that there was a set of closely interconnected problems, political, economic, social, cultural, psychological, technological, and environmental, that characterized our times and which cannot be

1001

dealt with separately because of their systemic nature. Similarly, the Brundtland Report of 1987, which introduced the notion of sustainable development on the international stage, saw interconnectivity as a starting principle (WCED 1987). The Brundtland report’s definition of sustainable development linked profit, planet, and people; it also connected sustainability in the North with sustainability in the South, as it also matched today’s generations with future ones. As sustainability issues have risen further up the national and international agendas, the systemic links between (say) energy consumption, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and poverty became more evident, as became the need for multiple perspectives and integrative approaches. A team of British researchers (Nowotny et al. 2001) have examined the broad social setting in which science and society interact. They argue that public issues and social concerns on the one hand and scientific work on the other hand are increasingly interdependent. In fact, they see evidence that the near-hegemonic role of science in the past is weakened by a range of social, cultural, economic, and political issues. These authors call for “rich contextualised, socially-robust and epistemologically eclectic” knowledge without abandoning “the basic conditions which have underpinned the production of reliable knowledge” (Aram 2004), which indeed pleads for interdisciplinary cooperation. Even though there is a slight tendency to associate interdisciplinary research mainly with problem-focused applied research, interdisciplinarity is also relevant for academically oriented basic research. While problem-focused applied research aims to address questions of societal relevance, academically oriented basic research is to generate knowledge for its own sake. These two modes should not be conceived as antagonistic activities but as a continuum of research activities, given the role of universities to produce new knowledge, helping to translate the knowledge produced into societal applications and contributing to solve societal problems (Wernli et al. 2016). If scientists doing “basic research” initiate interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues from another discipline, this might lead to new

I

1002

fields. Examples in sciences are biochemistry, neuroscience, and bioinformatics. From interdisciplinary collaboration between nanotechnologies (N), biotechnologies (B), information technologies (I), and cognitive science (C), synergies – known by the acronym NBIC – can arise. In the humanities and social sciences, fields such as cultural studies, located at the interface of sociology, anthropology, philosophy, art, and literature, illustrate the need for transversal approaches to study cultural phenomena. Area studies covering political, cultural, or geographical regions are also inherently interdisciplinary. Think of, for example, centers for Middle East Studies (Wernli et al. 2016).

Conditions for Successful Interdisciplinary Research Three elements need to get sufficient attention during the course of an interdisciplinary project, as they are necessary conditions to come to successful knowledge integration. Hereafter, these three conditions are discussed: (a) the joint problem definition and definition of research questions, (b) finding a common language, and (c) good management of interdisciplinary research projects. Joint Problem Definition and Definition of Research Questions In order to promote mutual understanding and fruitful cooperation, scientists have to build bridges to one another’s knowledge. This starts as early as the stages of problem definition, the formulation of the research question, and the pinning research objectives. The start of good cooperation lies in sharing the perception that there is a problem. Coming to terms on the actual definition of the problem is the first step. The second step is the joint formulation of the research questions. Participants have to come up with common questions and to research what these questions can contribute to the total project of interdisciplinary collaboration. In the third step, it is important not to have x different objectives which relate to separate disciplines but a cohesive set of objectives

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

from which emerges that the interdisciplinary research teams want common products. It is important in an interdisciplinary project that sufficient time is taken to come to common definitions, questions, and objectives. If necessary, more time has to be devoted to this. If one allows oneself some (extra) time for this, it most probably leads to better integration and acceptance of the different disciplines. Finding common ground often turns out to be a continuous process. During the course of the interdisciplinary collaboration, it may happen that new dialogues are needed on the problem definition, the research questions, and the objectives. Taking the time to (again) come to terms is beneficial, as – from the dialogue – people can learn to understand one another’s concepts, reference frameworks, methods, and limitations better. It is important to underline that striving for the greatest common denominator should not be the purpose, but rather maintaining the potency of one’s own knowledge. Finding a Common Language Not everybody is convinced that scientists working in interdisciplinary partnerships can come to fully understanding the key concepts of the different participating disciplines. They state that it is hard to avoid talking at cross-purposes. Others react to these types of statements by underlining the need for a “common language.” On how to find such a common language, not everyone is in agreement (de Boer et al. 2006). According to some, the collaboration between scientists in interdisciplinary partnerships is a question of teaching one another. Particularly in the initial phase of building a common research strategy, an opportunity could be made to acquire mutual understanding of one another’s discipline. For example, in writing the research proposal, researchers could take the time to discuss and learn from each other the most important definitions of concepts. According to others, it is important to have “bridge builders” in interdisciplinary projects, whereby he/she can be a “translator” of specialist jargon (de Boer et al. 2006). There are sometimes concepts which sound identical but where the

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

meaning differs with different disciplines. For example, both the hydrologist and the psychologist know the term water consumption, but for the hydrologist, the term means evaporation and for the psychologist water usage by households. But even when investing in learning activities and supporting bridge builders, some are skeptical and state that a real understanding is not possible: scientists pick up a certain amount of knowledge while researching concepts and methods of other disciplines, but it is still difficult to assess to what extent they really understand one another. In that respect, previous experience with interdisciplinarity can be important in terms of understanding one another’s language. Conscious efforts to develop a common conceptual framework can take many different forms. The development of a glossary of terms could be useful, but it can also be that the use of particular central concepts can help to achieve integration of knowledge. For example, the concept of vulnerability works as a kind of link between different disciplines. Further, there is – particularly in the environmental science – a common vocabulary where the origin is sometimes unclear. Something similar applies for terminology from the ecological and evolutionary discipline such as resilience, selection, etc. These words are increasingly being used within social sciences. Developing a common vocabulary can be important in order to reduce communication barriers which are typical of interdisciplinary research. As the importance of creating and nurturing an environment that allows researchers to communicate across disciplines cannot be overemphasized, establishing “rules” like avoiding disciplinary jargon and cultivating mutual respect is key to build trust (Wernli et al. 2016). Good Management of Interdisciplinary Research Projects Well designing interdisciplinarity in scientific terms and well arranging in organizational terms are of equal importance: Organizational aspects create the conditions, methodological aspects are necessary to shape the research, epistemological aspects relate to the content or the meaning of the knowledge and personal

1003 competencies are the lubricant or the ‘enabling factor’ of interdisciplinary research. (de Boer et al. 2006.

Hereafter, we go into organizational conditions for effective interdisciplinary research, including the role and competences of the researchers who direct interdisciplinary projects and the role and competence of the individual researchers belonging to different disciplines. Good leadership is essential to the success of interdisciplinary projects. The following indicators for good leadership are derived from the elements discussed in de Boer et al. (2006). • Leaders should have charisma, because they have to get the researchers to cooperate well. • Leaders should be free-thinking. If it turns out that the interdisciplinary research program is too ambitious, they have to be prepared to make the necessary interim adjustments. Dogmatic or inflexible leaders can cause a project to fail. • Leaders should be both organizational leaders and intellectual leaders. Interdisciplinary team leaders should on the one hand ensure cognitive integration (being able to look beyond the borders of disciplines) and on the other hand see that the project runs well in organizational terms. • Leaders should understand that an interdisciplinary project is a learning process, in which communication is very important. In addition to communication, reflectiveness is crucial: the ability to consider what has taken place in a particular situation or between people. Further, leaders should pay attention to elements such as ambiance, attitude, culture, and team-feeling to facilitate the learning process. The success of interdisciplinary projects also depends to a big extent to the quality of the researchers, who should be able to implement the integration of knowledge from different disciplines themselves or at least are able to keep an overview and to estimate what different chunks of knowledge are needed to achieve the required end result (de Boer et al. 2006).

I

1004

Good interdisciplinary scientists should in principle have a sound monodisciplinary depth which they are able to put into practice with interdisciplinary issues. Conversely a broad training and then specializing often cause problems. Individuals trained in monodisciplinarity are in a particular way skilled in analysis, while broadly trained people can often remain very superficial in their analyses. However, not only knowledge matters. Also interpersonal skills and motivation are vital competencies (Wernli et al. 2016). In addition to a willingness to contribute to the project, relevant qualities are scientific curiosity, openness to pluralism and other disciplines, tolerance for ambiguity, and a mind that comprehends nuances and contexts (Darbellay et al. 2014). The confluence of these qualities among team members shapes the potential for scientific creativity and innovation. Others also underline the importance of good communication skills and an open and flexible mind. Interdisciplinary researchers have to be sufficiently self-assured to admit that they do not always know everything. Respect for the other discipline is inherent in this, but in practice it is sometimes difficult to achieve. Everyone at times has particular prejudices against others. The only way of avoiding this is to work together (de Boer et al. 2006).

Opportunities and Obstacles Hereafter, we discuss the added value of interdisciplinary research and identify some important obstacles for achieving interdisciplinary research. Added Value of Interdisciplinarity According to de Boer (de Boer et al. 2006), interdisciplinary research has added value in at least four different respects: societal impact, scientific innovation, spin-off research, and personal development. Societal impact. Interdisciplinarity is particularly appropriate when resolutions are sought for complex societal problems. In these instances, considerable policy relevance is often attributed to interdisciplinary research. It might even be

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

said that there is sometimes more social interest in interdisciplinary research than in monodisciplinary research (de Boer et al. 2006). Cooperation between different disciplines is particularly required for such issues as climate research, as the causes, consequences, and responses to climate change need to be researched by several disciplines, ideally in interdisciplinary cooperation. Scientific innovation. Although it is by no means a firm rule, interdisciplinary cooperation can lead to new concepts, new models, and new methods. Taking into account that the aim of interdisciplinary research is to integrate disciplinary insights, successful interdisciplinary research ideally feeds the disciplines with new concepts, methods, and perspectives. Some even state that communication between disciplines is a fundamental driver of progress in the creation of disciplinary knowledge. Interdisciplinarity is a way of questioning the potential, limits, and margin of progression of the disciplines. The confrontation of ideas between disciplines might trigger progression within the individual disciplines. Sometimes, changes are such that they impact the organization of knowledge. A paradigm shift, a transformation of a discipline, and the emergence of a new discipline, especially in basic research, are possible outcomes, as happened with the emergence of neurosciences in the second half of the twentieth century (Wernli et al. 2016). While scientific innovation is often presented as an aim of interdisciplinary research, it is also questionable whether innovation is always necessary. The scientific added value of interdisciplinary cooperation may lie elsewhere. For example, the combination of perspectives from natural and social sciences is very valuable, but it can be seen more as a compilation of insights and not really as an innovation. Sometimes the innovation of interdisciplinary projects also lies not in the creation of something new but in making smart combinations of knowledge. The ideal situation is when one discipline literally complements the other, if one discipline can “offer” the explanatory variable needed by another discipline. For example, physical geography specialists explain “runoff” using

Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development

vegetation cover, and biologists explain vegetation based on the characteristics of the soil. When feedback mechanisms are considered, you have to be able to combine these fields of expertise in order to make progress. In such an instance, there is a scientific interest, and not just a societal interest, to arrive at new combinations of knowledge. Spin-off research. De Boer et al. (2006) state that some researchers have the experience of interdisciplinary projects that lead to new (interdisciplinary) projects; one project will precipitate another. For some researchers, interdisciplinary projects may primarily present a route toward new research financing. Researchers who have had experience of interdisciplinary cooperation more often go on to other interdisciplinary projects, whereas previously they had to revert to relying on monodisciplinary research funding. There is a further type of spin-off: The more experience researchers gain in interdisciplinary work, the better the quality of such work becomes. Researchers build up experience which can be reapplied (de Boer et al. 2006). Personal development. At the individual level, interdisciplinary research is often felt as a strong experience. This experience can be frustrating when collaboration does not really take off or misunderstanding persists, but it generally allows individuals to progress in their quest for new knowledge and to develop their research skills (Wernli et al. 2016). “In this type of research, it is primarily the personal competences of the researcher which are enhanced. You are challenged to use your social and communicative skills” is stated in de Boer et al. (2006). Obstacles for Interdisciplinary Working Interdisciplinary research is often hindered by the lack of “structures” that provide a facilitative and supportive institutional environment for interdisciplinarity (Wernli et al. 2016). While progress has been achieved, the current academic system remains primarily made for discipline-based research and education, hindering the establishment of interdisciplinarity as a sustainable mode of knowledge production (Wernli et al. 2016).

1005

Disciplines tend to have an inward social dynamic that constrains the choice of questions that can be asked and restricts enquiry to preferred theories and dominant explanatory schemes. A consequence is that knowledge that does not fit into established disciplines tends to be neglected (Wernli et al. 2016). Because of the lack of academic prestige associated with interdisciplinary research, researchers committed to work in interdisciplinary projects are confronted with a lack of (university) funding and sometimes have lower career opportunities. This can be explained by the fact that universities, as autonomous organizations, have the power to create their own rules and criteria to value “good academic work.” Funding mechanisms and promotion criteria tend to be conservative and mainly reward research proposals and candidates that fit the profile of disciplinary excellence. An often-heard obstacle for interdisciplinary research is the difficulty to publish. This makes interdisciplinary research riskier for researchers than disciplinary research. However, current evidence shows encouraging results regarding the pattern of citations of interdisciplinary research (Wernli et al. 2016). While very narrow or broad interdisciplinarity may reduce citation impact (Yegros-Yegros et al. 2015), work by others on large numbers of papers found that atypical combinations of knowledge and “long-distance” interdisciplinarity are more likely to lead to high impact in terms of bibliometrics (Larivière et al. 2015; Uzzi et al. 2013). As Uzzi et al. notes, “the balance between extending science with atypical combinations of knowledge while maintaining the advantages of conventional domain-level thinking is critical to the link between innovativeness and impact” (Uzzi et al. 2013).

References Ackers A, De Vries N (2004) Evaluatie NWO/Novem stimuleringsprogramma energieonderzoek. Bosch en Duin Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (1972) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. OECD, Paris Aram JD (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Hum Relat 57:379–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043 893

I

1006 Darbellay F (2015) Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures 65:163–174 Darbellay F, Moody Z, Sedooka A, Steffen G (2014) Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creat Res J 26:1–10 de Boer Y, de Gier A, Verschuur M, de Wit B (2006) Building bridges. Researchers on their experiences with interdisciplinary research in the Netherlands. RMNO, The Hague Filemyr A (1999) Interdisciplinarity as commitment to social change. Netw: Issues Ideas 16:8–13 Fiore S (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res 39:251–277 Franks D, Dale P, Hindmarsh R, Fellows C, Buckridge M, Cybinski P (2007) Interdisciplinary foundations: reflecting on interdisciplinarity and three decades of teaching and research at Griffith University, Australia. Stud High Educ 32:167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070701267228 Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Am J Prev Med 35:S116–S123 Larivière V, Haustein S, Börner K (2015) Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLoS One 10:e0122565 Lattuca LR (2003) Creating interdisciplinarity: Grounded definitions from college and university faculty. History of Intellectual Culture 3:1–20 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) Limits to growth. Universe Books, New York Nissani M (1995) Fruits, salads, and smoothies: a working definition of interdisciplinarity. J Educ Thought 29:121–128 Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Oxford Piaget J (1972) L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires. In: L’interdisciplinarité Problèmes d’enseignement et de Recherche Dans Les Université. OECD, Paris Rosenfield PL (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med 35:1343–1357 Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008) The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35:S96–S115 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342: 468–472 WCED (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Wernli D, Darbellay F, Maes K (2016) Interdisciplinarity and the 21st century research-intensive university. LERU position paper Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P (2015) Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS One 10:e0135095

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development Vincent T. Law School of Professional and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Definition The concept of intergenerational development is the process of associating different generations which are interrelated. The notion of sustainable development has been defined in various ways (Toman et al. 1995). It was commonly defined as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” by the Brundtland Report Our Common Future (WCED 1987).

Introduction Generations of human beings persist and conflicts exist between generations. The notion of sustainable development has been capturing academic and business attention since the Brundtland Report Our Common Future which defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). However, sustainable development is a contested concept without an authoritative definition. Nevertheless, the notion of sustainable development embodies practicality and can be conceptualized as the triple bottom line (TBL) – economy, environment, and society. In societal perspectives, the concept of sustainable development can be applied to promote both intragenerational justice and intergenerational justice. Relating intergenerational development with sustainable development may help sustain the society to persist over generations.

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

Intergenerational Development The notion of intergenerational development has been developing and attracts growing research interests. While the notion is related to different generations and their interrelationship, it is also related to justice and sustainability. Generation and Generativity The concept of intergenerational development builds on generations, and generations are not isolated from one another. Generation can be defined in terms of age or line of thinking. Based on birth years, Westerman and Yamamura (2007) defined a generation as a group which shares the same birth years and significant life events. Instead of age, Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) defined generation based on worldviews in which a generation is a group with similar worldviews grounded in defining social or historical events. Values, attitudes, and preferences may vary with generations and thus result in intergenerational misunderstanding (Shaw and Fairhurst 2008). Conflicts between generations have been foreseen. Friedman envisages the clash of generations in his famous quote: “When the Cold War ended, we thought we were going to have a clash of civilizations. Turns out we’re having a clash of generations” (Friedman 2011). Aging may lead to more conflicts between generations over issues such as financial resources and employment. Hence it is necessary to establish and guide the next generation (Erikson 1963). The notion of generation can be expressed at either family level or community level (Villar and Serrat 2014). Generativity is associated with variables such as life satisfaction (Villar et al. 2013), personality traits, and emotional stability (de St. Aubin and McAdams 1995), and it can be classified into biological, parental, technical, and cultural generativity (Kotre 1984). Justice and Equity Baumgärtner et al. (2012) view justice as a mixed normative idea about the quality of relationships among members of society. Rawls (1971) affirms that justice would arise between contracting

1007

parties under moderate scarcity and limited generosity. People must imagine themselves as members of an ongoing society enduring over time (Freeman 2007). From the standpoint of impartiality, members of a community may mutually claim on one another for fairness (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Justice can be commonly classified into two categories: intragenerational justice is the justice between currently living persons, and intergenerational justice is that between members of present and future generations (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). The world is unequal where there is disparity in equity between generations. Based on an equity perspective, human development depends on the expression of generational, intergenerational, and interspecies justice (Borim-de-Souza et al. 2015). While equity within the current generation includes equality between men and women (Coulson et al. 2015), UN Women (2013) realizes that women bear a disproportionate burden of the impact of social and environmental inequalities. Intragenerational Equity Intragenerational justice refers to the justice between currently living persons (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Some (e.g., Dobson 1999; Jacobs 1999) view intragenerational equity as concerning with issues such as the elimination of poverty. While Lessmann and Rauschmayer (2014) adopt a capacity approach to achieve intragenerational justice, Frazier (1997) views such achievement can be done by immediate adjustments in power and wealth by the current generation. Intergenerational Equity Intergenerational justice is the justice between members of present and future generations (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). The interaction of cultural demand and inner desire propels a conscious concern for the next generation (Villar and Serrat 2014). While some (e.g., Watene 2014) doubt whether the current generation ought to think in terms of the capabilities for future generations, Harding (2006) regards the present generation is obliged to maintain and enhance the health, diversity, and productivity for the benefit of future generations. The current generation

I

1008

has various impacts on the future generations (Scholtes 2010), such as affecting the lives of future generations and future social, political, economic, and environmental circumstances (Watene 2014). The current generation faces tough decisions since resources are limited but whether today’s decisions bring good outcomes is uncertain (Watene 2014). Intergenerational equity is affected by various factors. First, the built environment influences intergenerational interaction (Melville 2014). Second, healthy adults become more concerned with intergenerational relationships (McAdams 2013). Third, the social and economic structures of the current generation may affect the future generations. Anand and Sen (2000) view nourishment and better education of the current generation as a beneficial investment for future generations. However, as people age, the achievable returns by incremental investments in human capitals are lower (Heckman 2006). Hence one way to achieve intergenerational equity is to invest in early children development (ECD) (Sachs 2015). ECD measures include providing children of poor families with adequate health care, nutrition, and enriched environment (Sachs 2015). Sachs (2015) advocates strong investment in ECD would pave the success of children to become productive citizens in the future. Fourth, intergenerational equity is affected by social disparity. Based on a study of 13 highincome countries which included the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, Corak (2013) found that the higher the Gini coefficient, the higher the inequality, and thus lower social mobility. Intergenerational Development Intergenerational development is the process of relating different generations. Development is the process of expanding real freedoms that people enjoy (Sen 1999). Development thought must incorporate environmental concerns so as to achieve long-term success in improving human well-being (Carr et al. 2007). Intergenerational development is promoted by generativity and intergenerativity. Generativity may enhance a sense of attachment to

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

communities so as to leave a valued legacy for succeeding generations (Wiles and Jayasinha 2013). The concept of intergenerativity is multidimensional, and it is related to various domains in living (George et al. 2011). It involves the interaction between people of different ages while changing their competences, attitudes, and behavioral repertoires (Villar and Serrat 2014). Intergenerativity gives opportunity for development (Villar and Serrat 2014), as well as sustaining and connecting persons of past, present, and future generations (George et al. 2011). Human being would be committed to generative action if they place hope in the advancement and betterment of human life in succeeding generations (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992). Indeed, adults play pivotal roles in promoting intergenerational development. Zucker et al. (2002) find the transition from young adulthood to middle adulthood generative interests and behaviors which persist in older age. Healthy adults begin to contribute back to the society by promoting the development of future generations (Villar and Serrat 2014). Generative adults are life examples and models for their children. They are also valuable resources to guide development and foster generative concerns in succeeding generations (Villar and Serrat 2014). McAdams (2001) shows how adults come to behave generatively. In particular, middle-aged adults also play a role in reinforcing social institutions, enriching social networks, and ensuring continuity across generations (Villar 2012). Midlife adults provide support to younger generations as parents, mentors, teachers, leaders, or volunteers (McAdams 2001). Parents and grandparents play an important role in intergenerational development. Highly generative parents are more satisfied and more committed to parenting (Abrantes and Matos 2010). Generativity in grandparents perceived child care tasks as a contribution to their families and specifically as an expression of good parenting (Villar et al. 2012). Furthermore, Villar and Serrat (2014) see the possibility to enhance intergenerational, generative activities from both individual and social community perspectives. First, individually,

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

training or educational programs that facilitate people to participate in intergenerational interactions can be provided. Second, at the community level, structures can be built to facilitate citizen participation and social contributions. The success of changing human behaviors depends on how the society organizes learning, integrates knowledge, and promotes collective wisdom through generations (George et al. 2011). It can be optimistically envisaged that unprecedented results can be achieved if intergenerational relationships and collaborations are established (VanderVen and Schneider-Munoz 2012). Intergenerational Programs Research on intergenerational programs has gained momentum recently (Jarrott 2011). Programs that involve intergenerational contacts and engagement may encourage generative thoughts and feelings (Pratt 2013). In Europe, a program called “Big Foot: Crossing Generations, Crossing Mountains” was launched to reduce marginalization of vulnerable groups and bridge generational gap of those living in rural, mountainous areas (Big Foot Project 2018). Intergenerational shared sites (IGSS) were developed in many countries to serve the needs of multiple generations (Melville 2014).

Sustainable Development The notions of sustainability and sustainable development have been defined, interpreted, and analyzed in various ways (Toman et al. 1995). It is necessary to understand these two notions and delineate their roles in intergenerational development. Sustainability Sustainability is a contested concept (Lélé 1991; Harding 2006; Hahn et al. 2010) which cannot be defined in specific terms without controversy (Wu and Wu 2012). Khan and Gray (2013) see sustainability as a floating concept, perhaps an empty signifier. It is also difficult to operationalize sustainability (Hahn et al. 2010).

1009

Sustainability can also be viewed in various perspectives. For example, Coulson et al. (2015) view the notion as involving the interaction of financial, natural, human, and social capitals. Borim-de-Souza et al. (2015) view sustainability as the capacity to maintain diverse social systems functioning which aim at promoting sustainable development. Nogaard (1988) views sustainability as combining natural resources, social expectations, and economic concerns via a human-logic approach. Sustainability is related to the interaction between economic development, social development, environmental quality, as well as equity (Hoepner et al. 2016). There is an intimate link between wealth, measured by an adjusted measure of net (genuine) saving, and sustainability (Pearce and Atkinson 1993; Pezzey 2004). Sustainability Development Sustainable Development Is a Contested Concept

Sustainable development is an overarching concept under which an array of research takes place (Bebbington and Larrinaga 2014). However, sustainable development is a vague (Pesqueux 2009) and contested concept (Harding 2006; Hahn et al. 2010). There is hardly a clear or basic definition of either “sustainable” or “development.” While it is necessary to address what is being sustained (Hamilton and Naikal 2014) or developed, why does it need to be sustained should also be examined (Frazier 1997). Jacobs (1999) argues that the complex and normative nature of sustainable development leads to political struggle. This is in line with BoehmerChristiansen (2002) that the “meaning” of sustainable development is political. The notion of sustainability also lends itself to a nearly unlimited range of action principles: sustainable tourism, sustainable consumption, etc. (Allemand 2006). It is also difficult to define what sustainable development means in an organizational context (Gray and Milne 2004). Definitions of Sustainable Development

The famous Brundtland Report Our Common Future defined sustainable development as

I

1010

“development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). This WCED definition is probably the most widely stated expression of sustainable development (Tregidga et al. 2013). In 2002, the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) viewed the integration of the three components of sustainable development, i.e., economic development, social development, and environmental protection, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars (WSSD 2002). Both the WCED and WSSD definitions arouse diversified discussion on the context and impacts of sustainable development. However, Sen (2014) argues that the Brundtland’s way of understanding the problem is incomplete; in particular, the Brundtland’s consideration on “needs” and their “fulfilment” are imprecise. Emerging references view sustainable development in relation to future generations and concerns about equity issues (Milne et al. 2009). For example, Frazier (1997) views sustainable development as an enabling tool for the poor to be developed into human capital for enterprises. Crabtree (2014) views sustainable development as the process of expanding the real freedoms that people value in accordance with uncontested principles. Sachs (2015) defined sustainable development as the way to understand the world as a complex interaction of economic, social, environmental, and political systems. Pesqueux (2009) sees a development feature (social and economic) and a strictly environmental feature within sustainable development. Broadly speaking, sustainable development is multifaceted and touches the country, industry, and consumer levels (Pesqueux 2009).

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

The notion of sustainable development is also closely related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Simionescu 2015). CSR refers to voluntary codes or declarations of sustainable development and includes the TBL of economic development, environmental quality, and social justice (Haalboom 2012). The emergence of CSR is partly contributed by increasing societal awareness and acceptance of sustainability as contemporary discourse related to long-term development (Ruwhiu and Carter 2016). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) are developed to serve as new global goals that guide the world’s future economic diplomacy (Sachs 2015), but they can only be largely met with clear and enforceable policies (Williams and Dair 2007). Approaches to Sustainability Development

Within the organizational discourse, sustainable development will be effected through continuous improvement (Tregidga et al. 2013). Approaches to sustainability can be viewed along a spectrum of sociopolitical change, ranging from maintaining the status quo to transformation (Hopwood et al. 2005). van den Bergh (2014) promote the measurement of sustainable development via different indicators such as (1) ecological versus physical indicators, (2) stock (capital) versus flow indicators, (3) source versus effect indicators, (4) monetary versus other indicators, and (5) sustainability (environmental pressure) versus progress indicators (green/sustainable welfare). Sustainable indicators provide information on the state, dynamics, and underlying drivers of human-environmental systems (Wu and Wu 2012). However, various barriers such as cost, risk, time, and culture prevent sustainable development from being fully realized in practice (Brennan and Cotgrave 2014).

Roles of Sustainability Development

Sustainable development captures numerous issues that are faced by the contemporary societies (Loucks et al. 2010). Sustainable development embodies practicality (Bell and Morse 2008) and balance (Tregidga et al. 2013). It requires organizations to consider and conceptualize the TBL together (Tregidga et al. 2013).

Intergenerational Development and Sustainable Development The notions of sustainability and sustainable development are related to intergenerational development. Sustainability can be viewed as the potential of societies to meet the needs of the present without

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development

compromising the ability of the next generations to meet their needs (Hoepner et al. 2016). Sustainability is suggested to request intergenerational equity (Baur and Lagoarde-Segot 2016). Sustainable development must consider intergenerational justice (Sen 2014). As sustainable development has a global purview (Dryzek 2005), Gladwin et al. (1995) see the role of sustainable development in promoting human development with an inclusive, equitable, and prudent approach. Pesqueux (2009) views sustainable development as a notion that links together the social objectives of economic development, solidarity between present generations, as well as environmental conditionality of future generations. It is difficult to simultaneously address the two areas of sustainable development: the “development” area includes need satisfaction and intragenerational equity; the “sustainable” area includes ecological efficiency, ecological resilience, and intergenerational equity (Pesqueux 2009). Sustainable development can prompt the capabilities of present people without compromising capabilities of future generations (Sen 2014). Being sustainable can be construed as assuring intergenerational equity in access to resources (Frazier 1997). It is needed to sustain the freedom of future generations to live the way they like and to what they have reason to value (Sen 2014). To conclude, the ethical dimension of sustainable development is based on both intergenerational accountability (over time) and intragenerational accountability (through space) (Pesqueux 2009). Ecological sustainability is simultaneously concerned with the current and future generations of mankind (Borim-de-Souza et al. 2015). Tertiary institutions need to ensure that there is a generation of skilled young people trained in public policy and sustainable development (Sachs 2015). The overall societal goal of sustainability addresses both intragenerational justice and intergenerational justice; hence it is good to utilize scarce resources efficiently to attain intra- and intergenerational justice (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Overall speaking, a sustainable society can persist over generations and far-seeing (Ingman et al. 1999).

1011

References Abrantes D, Matos PM (2010) Parenting adolescents: relationship between generativity, parental satisfaction and attachment to parents. Psicologia Educacao Cultura 14(1):145–164 Allemand S (2006) Pre’face. In: Matagne P (ed) Les effets du de’veloppement durable. L’Harmattan, Paris Anand S, Sen A (2000) Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev 28(12):2029–2049 Baumgärtner S, Glotzbach S, Hoberg N, Quaas MF, Stumpf KH (2012) Economic analysis of trade-offs between justices. Intergener Justice Rev 1:4–9 Baur D, Lagoarde-Segot T (2016) The contradiction between the time value of money and sustainability. In: Finance and economy for society: integrating sustainability, pp 75–92. https://www.emeraldinsight. com/doi/book/10.1108/s2043-9059201711. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Bebbington J, Larrinaga C (2014) Accounting and sustainable development: an exploration. Acc Organ Soc 39(6):395–413 Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable? 2nd edn. Earthscan, London Big Foot Project (2018) http://www.bigfoot-project. eu/about-the-big-foot-project.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Boehmer-Christiansen S (2002) The geo-politics of sustainable development: bureaucracies and politicians in search of the holy grail. Geoforum 33:351–365 Borim-de-Souza R, Balbinot Z, Travis EF, Munck L, Takahashi ARW (2015) Sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory: proposing styles of reasoning for an unknown metropole. Cross Cult Manag 22(2):201–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM02-2013-0027 Brennan MC, Cotgrave AJ (2014) Sustainable development: a qualitative inquiry into the current state of the UK construction industry. Struct Surv 32(4):315–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-02-2014-0010 Carr ER, Wingard PM, Yorty SC, Thompson MC, Jensen NK, Roberson J (2007) Applying DPSIR to sustainable development. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 14:543–555 Corak M (2013) Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. J Econ Perspect 27(3):79–102 Coulson AB, Adams CA, Nugent MN, Haynes K (2015) Exploring metaphors of capitals and the framing of multiple capitals: challenges and opportunities for . Sustaina Account Manag Policy J 6(3):290–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-052015-0032 Crabtree A (2014) Sustainable development: does the capability approach have anything to offer? Outlining a legitimate freedom approach. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 39–56

I

1012 Crumpacker M, Crumpacker JD (2007) Succession planning and generational stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Pers Manag 36(4):349–369 de St. Aubin E, McAdams DP (1995) The relations of generative concern and generative action to personality traits, satisfaction/happiness with life, and ego development. J Adult Dev 2(2):99–112 Dobson A (1999) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York Dryzek J (2005) Environmentally benign growth: sustainable development. In: Dryzek JS (ed) The politics of the earth, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 145–161 Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society. Norton, New York Frazier JG (1997) Sustainable development: modern elixir or sack dress? Environ Conserv 24(2):182–193 Freeman S (2007) Rawls. Routledge, London Friedman T (2011, July 16) The clash of generations. Sunday Opinion. New York Times, p 5 George D, Whitehouse C, Whitehouse P (2011) A model of intergenerativity: how the intergenerational school is bringing the generations together to foster collective wisdom and community health. J Intergener Relationsh 9(4):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2011.619922 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907 Gray R, Milne M (2004) Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: mirages, methods and myths. In: Henriques A (ed) Triple bottom line: does it all add up?: assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. Earthscan Publications, London Haalboom B (2012) The intersection of corporate social responsibility guidelines and indigenous rights: examining neoliberal governance of a proposed mining project in Suriname. Geoforum 43(5):969–979 Hahn T, Figge F, Pinkse J, Preuss L (2010) Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and eat it. Bus Strateg Environ 19(4):217–229 Hamilton K, Naikal E (2014) Comprehensive wealth accounting and sustainable development. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, Neumayer E, Agarwala M (eds) Handbook of sustainable development, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 25–40 Harding R (2006) Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination 187(1–3):229–239 Heckman JJ (2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 31(5782):1900–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1128898 Hoepner A, Oikonomou I, Scholtens B, Schrödor M (2016) The effects of corporate and country sustainability characteristics on the cost of debt: an international investigation. J Bus Financ Acc

Intergenerational and Sustainable Development 43(1–2):158–190, January/February 2016, 0306-686X. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12183 Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13(1):38–52 Ingman S, Benjamin T, Lusky R (1999) The environment: the quintessential intergenerational challenge. Generations 22(4):68–71 Jacobs M (1999) Sustainable development as a contested concept. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 21–45 Jarrott SE (2011) Where have we been and where are we going? Content analysis of evaluation research of intergenerational programs. J Intergener Relationsh 9(1):37–52 Khan T, Gray R (2013) Accounting, identity, autopoiesis + sustainability: a comment, development and expansion on Lawrence, Botes, Collins and Roper. Meditari Account Res 24(1):36–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MEDAR-06-2015-0032 Kotre J (1984) Outliving the self: how we live on in future generations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Dev 19(6):607–621 Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (2014) Re-conceptualizing sustainable development on the basis of the capacity approach: a model and its difficulties. In Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability (pp. 94–113). Oxon: Routledge Loucks SE, Martens ML, Cho CH (2010) Engaging smalland medium-sized businesses in sustainability. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 1(2):178–200 McAdams DP (2001) Generativity in midlife. In: Lachman ME (ed) Handbook of midlife development. Wiley, New York, pp 395–443 McAdams DP (2013) The positive psychology of adult generativity: caring for the next generation and constructing a redemptive life. In: Sinnott JD (ed) Positive psychology: advances in understanding adult motivation. Springer, New York, pp 191–205 McAdams DP, de St. Aubin E (1992) A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(6):1003–1015 Melville J (2014) A critical reflection on the development of intergenerational shared sites: an essential and effective trend in the field? J Intergener Relationsh 12(3):295–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2014.930315 Milne MJ, Tregidga H, Walton S (2009) Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Account Audit Account J 22(8):1211–1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570 910999292 Nogaard RB (1988) Sustainable development: a coevolutionary view. Futures 20(6):606–620 Pearce DW, Atkinson G (1993) Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of weak sustainability’. Ecol Econ 8(2):103–108

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

1013

Pesqueux Y (2009) Sustainable development: a vague and ambiguous “theory”. Soc Bus Rev 4(3):231–245 Pezzey J (2004) One-sided sustainability tests with amenities, and changes in technology, trade and population’. J Environ Econ Manag 48(1):613–631 Pratt MW (2013) Erikson’s seventh stage: fostering adults’ generativity through intergenerational programs. J Intergener Relationsh 11(1):97–100 Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford Ruwhiu D, Carter L (2016) Negotiating “meaningful participation” for Indigenous peoples in the context of mining. Corp Gov 16(4):641–654. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/CG-10-2015-0138 Sachs JD (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press, New York Scholtes F (2010) Whose sustainability? Environmental domination and Sen’s capability approach. Oxf Dev Stud 38(3):289–307 Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford Sen A (2014) The ends and means of sustainability. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 5–19 Shaw S, Fairhurst D (2008) Engaging a new generation of graduates. Educ Train 50(2):366–378. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00400910810889057 Simionescu LN (2015) The relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development (SD). Intern Audit Risk Manage 10(2):179–190 Toman MA, Pezzey J, Krautkraemer J (1995) Neoclassical economic growth theory and sustainability. In: Bromley DW (ed) Handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Oxford Tregidga H, Kearins K, Milne M (2013) The politics of knowing “organizational sustainable development”. Organ Environ 26(1):102–129. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1086026612474957 UN Women (2013) A transformative stand-alone goal on achieving gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment: imperatives and key components. UN Women, New York van den Bergh JCJM (2014) Sustainable development in ecological economics. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, Neumayer E, Agarwala M (eds) Handbook of sustainable development, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 41–54 VanderVen K, Schneider-Munoz AJ (2012) As the world ages: Attaining a harmonious future world through intergenerational connections. J Intergener Relationsh 10(2):115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2012.673972 Villar F (2012) Successful ageing and development: the contribution of generativity in older age. Ageing Soc 32(7):1087–1105 Villar F, Serrat R (2014) A field in search of concepts: the relevance of generativity to understanding intergenerational relationships. J Intergener Relationsh 12(4):381–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014. 96035

Villar F, Celdrán M, Triadó C (2012) Grandmothers offering regular auxiliary care for their grandchildren: an expression of generativity in later life? J Women Aging 24(4):292–312 Villar F, López O, Celdrán M (2013) La generatividad en la vejez y su relación con el bienestar: Quién más contribuye es quien más se beneficia? [Generativity in older age and its relationship with well-being: Who contributes most is who benefits most?] Anales de Psicología 29(3):897–906 Watene K (2014) Nussbaum’s capability approach and future generations. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 20–38 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. http://www. un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Westerman JW, Yamamura JH (2007) Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes. Career Dev Int 12(2):150–161 Wiles JL, Jayasinha R (2013) Care for place: the contributions older people make to their communities. J Aging Stud 27(2):93–101 Williams K, Dair C (2007) What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustain Dev 15(3):135–147 World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) Plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development. http://www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_ PlanImpl.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Wu JG, Wu T (2012) Sustainability indicators and indices: an overview. In: Madu CN, Kuei C-h (eds) Handbook of sustainability management. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 65–86 Zucker AN, Ostrove JM, Stewart AJ (2002) Collegeeducated women’s personality development in adulthood: perceptions and age differences. Psychol Aging 17(2):236–244

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development Zita Tamašauskien_e Department of Economics, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania

Synonyms Correct externalities; Eliminate externalities; Neutralize externalities; Overcome externalities

I

1014

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

Definition

Internalization of Externalities: A Condition for Moving Towards Sustainable Development

Internalization of externalities refers to all measures (public or private) which guarantee that unpaid benefits or costs are taken into account in the composition of prices of goods and services (Ding et al. 2014). There are different measures for internalizing externalities: corrective taxes, emission standards, tradable permits, property rights to use resources, government subsidies, etc. Internalizing positive and negative externalities helps to achieve allocative efficiency, but not necessarily sustainability which aims also at more justice in the domain of human–nature relationships.

Introduction Internalization of externalities and sustainable development are closely related since sustainable development may be ensured by internalizing the complete costs of externalities and long-term stability of the environment. One essential step towards achieving sustainable development is internalization of externalities. The objective of this entry is to review the literature on internalization of externalities and its effect on sustainable development. First of all, the entry explains the concept of internalization of externalities and its interfaces with sustainable development. Later, the entry focuses on private market solutions of internalizing externalities (Coase Theorem) and problems which are met trying to apply market solutions for internalizing them. Attention is given to public sector’s remedies for internalizing externalities. The government may employ two types of instruments to internalize costs of externalities into price of goods and services: price policy, using taxes or subsidies, or quantity regulation, when it forces firms to produce the socially efficient quantity. Research of literature shows that internalizing externalities is a condition for sustainable development, yet, there is no consensus if their internalization in the traditional way can lead to sustainable development.

Many socio-ecological problems result from negative externalities of pollution, climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. Thus, in order to reduce those problems, to correct market failures and achieve optimal allocation of resources, which is important for sustainable development, these externalities should be internalized and taken into account in the economic system. Internalizing the externalities means shifting the external costs of a negative externality, such as pollution or traffic congestion, from outside to inside (external to internal). The purpose of internalizing an externality is to reduce the burden of a negative externality by getting business or people who are producing the externalities to pay for the negative effects and give the right signal for production in favor of environmentally friendlier goods. The rationale of internalization, is to make economic agents aware of the external costs they induce upon society and to encourage them to alter their behavior towards socially optimal production and consumption as well as to correct market failures caused by externalities. Externalities are internalized when a producer of an externality bears the full external cost or enjoys the full external benefit and the price paid for a commodity or service reflects the external costs/benefit of the externality. Firms in some industries may benefit due to negative externalities if they do not internalize the costs of these externalities in the prices of goods and services. When there is negative externality, the marginal external cost, such as downstream effects of the pollution of water by chemical pesticides, must be added to marginal private cost for internalization. When there is positive externality, the marginal external benefit must be added to marginal private benefit to internalize the externality. Internalization of externalities encourages buyers and sellers in the market to change their rational choices, produce or purchase quantities that are closer to the social optimum, and correct economic efficiency deviations which are caused by externalities. When these externalities are internalized, market prices change until they reflect full marginal social cost or benefit of a commodity.

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

1015

Internalization of external costs is an important tool for decision-makers in order to achieve more sustainable development of society and maximize well-being. Sustainable development is understood as a harmonious process of development, where ecological, social, and economic aspects are taken into account and long-term stability of environment is ensured. Sustainable development policy differs from traditional environmental policy because it seeks not only to internalize negative externalities but also to conserve nonrenewable resources for future generations. Internalization of externalities requires: to recognize them; to identify the “perpetrator” and the “victim” of externality; to evaluate costs and benefits of externality by each agent; and to assign costs and benefits of internalizing externality. Externalities arising from market failures should be internalized if gains in social welfare from correcting the externality outweigh the costs of doing so. Externalities are internalized when either private negotiations or government action lead the price to the agent to fully reflect the external costs or benefits of that agent’s actions. There are different methods which may be used by government for internalizing the costs of externalities into the prices of goods and services: establishing property rights to use resources, corrective (pollution) taxes, subsidies, and tradable permits. Internalizing negative externalities (complete costs of pollution) and ensuring longterm stability of environment help to ensure sustainable development. This action is used as a strategy to rebalance the social and environmental dimension with the purely economic one.

“B.” If property rights over air to which “A” emitted smoke were well defined, externality would not have arisen as “A” would have known consequences of his/her action. According to Coase (1960), neither the polluter nor the sufferer (victim) of the pollution is solely responsible for the costs of pollution and, therefore, they should be shared. Coase took the position that externalities can be internalized through a process of bargaining between the polluter and the victim. From his point of view, if the property rights are fully assigned and bargaining is costless, then regulatory body should not have to be involved, private bargaining can lead to economic efficiency in a market with an externality. Coase’s Theorem suggests a very particular and minimal role for the government in dealing with internalization of externalities: establishing property rights to use resources, when transaction costs of bargaining are zero. Property rights establish the legal owner of resources and specify the ways in which the renewable and nonrenewable resources may be used. The state takes a decision on property rights, but it is difficult to define and enforce these rights to the natural environment because nature is constantly on the move. Transaction costs are the costs of “doing business,” relating to time, communication, etc. Negotiations between the party creating the externality and the party affected by the externality help to find the lowest cost solution to correcting (internalizing) the externality and can bring about the socially optimal market quantity of output, which is important for sustainable development. In Coase’s view, the fundamental limitation to implementing privatesector solutions to externalities is poorly established property rights. If property rights are well defined, divisible and defendable, and negotiation costs are low, simply by assigning property right we can overcome or internalize externalities. Coase’s Theorem has an important second part: the efficient solutions to an internalization of externality do not depend on which party is initially assigned the property rights, as long as someone is assigned those rights. Though Coase’s Theorem suggests that the market can potentially solve externalities if

Private Market Solutions to Internalize Negative Externalities According to Ronald Coase’s insight, most externality problems are due to an inadequate specification of property rights and, consequently, an absence of markets in which trade can be used to internalize external costs or benefits. He explained the idea of externalities as a situation in which “A” burns coal resulting in emission of carbondioxide. This causes respiratory problems to

I

1016

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

property rights are clearly assigned and negotiation is feasible, its assumptions do not apply well in real-world situations. Some of the main obstacles to private market solutions are problems in defining property rights. In some cases, this is clearly impossible for individuals to internalize externalities, because of the assignment problem, when externalities affect many individuals. For example, airlines cannot realistically negotiate with individual homeowners for the rights to fly over their houses, even though these overflights do create externalities. It is also difficult to assign property rights for global warming. In reality, transaction costs are too high to make efficient deals for externalities through private actions due to a large number of the interested parties involved what causes the high costs in communication, when creating legally binding agreements, and time-consuming bargaining. Coasian solutions are likely to be more effective for small, localized externalities rather than for larger, more global externalities which involve a large number of people and firms. The Coasian approach ignores fundamental problem that it is hard to negotiate when there are large numbers of individuals on one or both sides of the negotiation. It will not help with large-scale, global externalities, where only the “government” can successfully aggregate the interests of all agents suffering from externality. There may also be difficulties in obtaining information on the relative source and size of the externalities and damages, and there may be asymmetric information where each individual does not know how much the other individual really values the marginal damage or marginal benefit. That is why it is also doubtful that the market may be able to internalize even some small-scale, localized externalities. Therefore, the Coase Theorem’s applicability caused an enormous amount of controversy and discussion mainly due to the fact that transaction costs in many situations are rarely low and information is asymmetric. In addition, the extortion problem was also central to the critiques of the Coase’s Theorem in the literature (Medema 2015). In practice, the applicability of Coase’s Theorem and private market solutions is

unlikely to solve internalization of many technical and pecuniary externalities that cause market failures.

Government Instruments for Internalizing Externalities Problems of such externalities as pollution, climate change, and environmental resource depletion are not adequately constrained or properly controlled by individual jurisdictions. Government policy should seek to internalize environmental costs and minimize externalities. Government has a various economic instruments for internalization of externalities and ensuring long-term stability of the environment, in other words, ensuring sustainable development. These instruments are: taxes and charges, tradable permits, and the use of public subsidies. State intervention is either through price policy using corrective tax or subsidy, equal to marginal damage or benefit per unit, or through regulation of quantity when “command and control” policy is used and government forces firms to produce the socially efficient quantity of output. Internalizing Externalities Through Price Policy In principle, a government should use tax or subsidy policies to internalize environmental externalities. Arthur Pigou, a well-recognized early twentieth-century British economist from Cambridge University, introduced the idea that taxation and subsidization could be used for controlling and internalizing externalities. Proposals today for a carbon tax are based on the Pigouvian Tax, first proposed in 1920 in Pigou’s work “The Economics of Welfare” Taxes intended to bring about an efficient level of output in the presence of externalities are called Pigouvian taxes. Pigouvian taxes discourage activities that impose external cost to an unrelated third agent. It means that by imposing this type of tax, government will reduce the market outcome of the externality to an amount that is considered efficient. The tax, called a Pigouvian tax, is considered to be equal to the value of the negative

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

1017

externalities; in other words, tax rate is equal to the marginal damage costs. Carbon tax is a prime example of Pigouvian taxes, that have been implemented in a number of European countries, e.g., Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Owen 2006), trying to internalize negative externalities. Other taxes are related to pollutants causing acid rains, e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The landfill tax aims to encourage producers to produce less waste and recover more value from the waste, for example, through recycling or composting, and to use the environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal. The congestion charge is designed to cut traffic congestion. Pigouvian or corrective tax is designed to adjust the marginal private cost of a commodity or service in such a way as to internalize the externality. To achieve this objective, the tax must be equal to the difference between the marginal private cost and the marginal social cost, i.e., the marginal external costs per unit of output. Actually, this tax is exactly like a charge for emitting waste. For example, the cost of the negative externality, such as dumping raw sewage into a lake, would be included in assessment of the costs of the production. A tax on raw sewage would be imposed so that private marginal costs would include the external costs and equal to social marginal benefits (i.e., the full costs of producing the last unit of output would be equal to the benefit from that unit of product). Imposition of Pigouvian tax forces businesses to pay for external costs, i.e., the negative externalities of pollution and climate change. This increases the price of goods and decreases the quantity purchased. Polluting goods become less attractive because their prices increase. Hereby, allocative efficiency, which is necessary condition for sustainable development, increases. Introducing a tax increases the private cost of production and should reduce demand and output for the goods that create negative externality. Some economists and environmentalists argue that the revenue from the pollution taxes should be allocated to projects that protect or enhance environment. For example, the money raised from

a congestion charge on vehicles entering busy urban roads might be allocated towards improving mass transport services. Nguyena et al. (2016) show that “apart from the externality caused by emissions, the increase in manufactured good production has been at the cost of unsustainable use of resources like land, water, fossil fuels, and minerals, the externality of which needs to be ‘corrected’ through taxes as well.” That is why it is important to improve monetization methods that may be used to measure negative externalities and unsustainable use of resources. It is also important to assess externalities at all stages of a production chain. Nguyena et al. (2016) illustrate how environmental externalities are valued and internalized through three European monetization models: EPS 2000, Ecotax, and Stepwise 2006. In theory, using Pigouvian taxes to correct market failures is simple; it helps to internalize negative externalities (e.g., pollution) and to eliminate the burden of the society caused by the externalities. Tax must be such that private cost will exactly equate with the social cost. However, in practice, using Pigouvian tax, trying to internalize externalities, is not without problems. The key problem often ignored by advocates of Pigouvian taxes is what might be called the “measurement problem” or the “knowledge problem.” It is recognized as the biggest drawback. Arthur Pigou himself accepted that measurement of Pigouvian tax has a deficiency. He claimed “It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of [the gaps between private and public costs] could interfere with individual choice” (Pigou 1954). In most instances, it is extremely hard to measure the external costs with any degree of accuracy, very difficult to use this tax when trying to calculate what level of tax would counterbalance the negative externalities and assign the right level of taxation. For example, if gas taxes should be raised purely to offset the social costs of gas use, how high those social costs must be? Another example is the external costs of pesticide use. These costs are the health risks and foregone production opportunities of downstream users of the polluted

I

1018

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

water. But it is very difficult and virtually impossible to measure either kind of these costs. Without substantiated evaluation of external costs, which are part of social costs, it is difficult for the government to select and apply an appropriate tax rate to pesticide use. Nguyena et al. (2016) compare two approaches for internalization of externalities in the price of products considering a life cycle perspective. The first approach is introducing a corrective tax, the second one is to apply reduced value added tax rates on green goods based on their relatively low environmental impacts compared to conventional ones. The results when comparing the three monetization methods show that the choice of used method can influence the monetary value of the externalities and marginal social costs of product. Their results also show that internalizing externalities by means of either a corrective tax or a reduced value added tax eliminates the price disadvantage of green products making them a preferable choice over cheap conventional ones. According to Nguyena et al. (2016), over the past 10 years, several studies have tried to estimate the social costs of alternative product systems. For instance, Goedecke et al. (2007) developed a model to calculate the societal life cycle costs, the consumer life cycle costs, and the tax for different vehicle technologies, the purpose of which was to help guide decisions towards optimality, which seeks to maximize social benefits taking into account other considerations such as costs and technological availability. It should be emphasized that when government set a Pigouvian tax on pollution to internalize the cost of pollution to the business – part of those external costs may be passed on to the consumers. The share of the cost of internalization that producers and consumers bear depends on the elasticity of demand for the product. If the demand for the product is inelastic, producers may pass on the tax to the consumers and, as a result, the tax may only have a small effect in reducing a demanded quantity. Another argument against the tax is that if pollution taxes are increased in one country, firms and companies may shift their business to other countries with lower taxes. In such a case,

global pollution will not decrease and new problems may be created (e.g., reduced investments, increased unemployment). An alternative to taxing activities that create negative externalities is to subsidize activities and promote firms and industries that are supposed to yield positive externalities. Pigou also proposed a Pigouvian subsidy for positive generated externalities. Corrective subsidy is payment made by government to either buyers or sellers so that the price paid by consumers is reduced. Subsidy should be equal to the exact difference between the private marginal benefit and social marginal benefit. Subsidy reduces the costs of production for suppliers, encourages a higher output, and helps to increase consumption of goods or services with positive externality. Government may subsidize state health care, public transport, or investment in new technology for schools and colleges to help spread knowledge and understanding, rebate offers for solar panels, give grants towards more efficient technologies. The primary weakness of taxation and subsidization remedies is informational – the government is typically in a poor position to understand the production technology of a firm, or how valuable the potential knowledge spillovers of research might be (Tumlinson 2018). When the government reduces negative externalities (and boosts positive externalities), the question arises which level or extent of externalities is optimal. Reducing pollution accruing from the production of market goods to zero would in many cases mean that the production of these goods would also be reduced to zero, which probably would be not optimal for society (Ahlheim 2018). In contrast to Pigou’s desire for accurately accounting the true and actual cost of externalities, Kraft and Furlong (2015) argue that the desire for accuracy creates a hindrance for those wishing to impose accurate costs on externalities and creates an unresolvable dilemma. Hawken (2010, p. 82) proposes, “Trying to measure negative costs is preferable to ignoring them altogether, that it is better to be approximately right than completely wrong.” Daly (2009) in the “Encyclopaedia of Earth” proposes taxing polluting activities, resource extraction, and resource

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

1019

depletion, all without connecting the precise cost of these activities to the tax. Another recent paper by Beeks and Lambert (2018) proposes imprecise externality factor system to address and internalize all of our externalities, inclusively, albeit not with the precision economists are used to striving for. For this purpose, they identify several externality categories covering our negative and positive externalities.

If firm that wishes to emit more pollution than allowed by its existing permits, it can purchase permits from other firms or the government and pay more money for more pollution. The trading system has some advantages. Trading of pollution rights provides firms with flexibility to reduce emissions and promote technological innovations, and allows firms to meet the requirements of Environmental Protection Agency at lower costs. Issuing a fixed number of tradable permits, regulatory authorities can strictly control emissions of wastes into the atmosphere or water. There are also other kinds of policies that help to internalize externalities. The government can simply use legal emission standards that do have explicit limits on output or/and emission of pollutant quantity. Using emission standards, government may set and enforce by law any politically desired emission level of pollution. In this sense, they are more efficient than taxes. In some cases, such command regulation may be easier to implement and monitor. But using emission standards is economically inefficient, because goals to reduce pollution and internalize externalities are not reached with a minimum social costs.

Internalizing Externalities Through Regulation of Quantity of Negative Externalities The government can internalize externalities by regulating quantities using legal emission standards or/and tradable permits. Such tradable permits are licenses to emit a certain amount of particular wastes per year. Tradable permits are used in the United States to regulate SO2 emissions, in the European Union to regulate SO2 emissions, and in several countries to regulate fisheries. The firm must own or purchase tradable permit if it wants to emit wastes (pollutants) into the atmosphere or water. The aim of tradable permits is to provide market incentives for firms to reduce pollution and decrease the external costs associated with it. When governments internalize externalities by issuing the fixed amount of tradable permits, the supply of these permits is absolutely inelastic and prices of these permits will depend on demand, which reflects the social marginal benefit of emitting wastes. Government may sell permits to firms in the initial auction or it may distribute them for free; each firm receives tradable permits based on the existing level of emissions. When government sells permits to firms in an initial auction, the price of permits reflects its scarcity, and if market is sufficiently competitive, the price of permits also equals firms’ marginal costs. In this case, tradable permits are equivalent to the tax. By selling these permits to firms, the government can increase revenue. But if the government gives permits to firms for free, this is like the tax plus large transfer to initial polluting firms. In this case, usually not all negative externalities are internalized. Firms purchasing tradable permits are free to sell them to other firms if they emit less pollution.

Can Internalization of Externalities Ensure (Lead to) Sustainable Development? In order to achieve sustainability, it is important not only to decrease and internalize negative externalities of environmental degradation but also to conserve resources for future generations. Negative externalities affect the well-being of current and future generations. Sustainable development may be ensured if externalities are internalized in such a way that environmental rights are maintained for current and future generations and people everywhere in the world. The well-being and sustainability of not only present but also of future generations is important for responsible government. Although there is consensus among scientists that internalization of externalities is a necessary condition for sustainable development, there is disagreement about the necessity for internalization of all

I

1020

Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development

existing externalities (especially the externality of intergenerational allocation of nonrenewable resources) if we want to ensure sustainable development. Van den Bergh (2010) concludes that sustainability is reconcilable with a positive level of externalities, defined by the assimilation capacity of the environment and the technological status. Bithas (2011) asserts that internalization of externalities in the traditional way cannot lead to sustainability. He argues sustainability can be ensured only if externalities are internalized in a very specific form that results in the preservation of environmental rights of future generations. Bithas (2011) shows that negative environmental externalities are global and dynamic that is why the internalization of externalities is inevitably incomplete because of a time span and spatial range effects inherent in individual variations. Therefore, in the real world, the internalization of externalities does not cause unsustainability to vanish. He argues that the internalization of externalities cannot be the sufficient condition for sustainable development, since existing methods used for assessing environmental externalities cannot adequately reflect the interests of future generations. These interests of future generations cannot be reflected in the estimation of current external environmental costs. The interests of future generations can be assured through the preservation of environmental rights. Bithas (2011) points out that traditional economic instruments, such as command and control, should be reconsidered and revaluated as “the right instrument for the problem.” He asserts that marketbased instruments should be reassessed in the light of the demand for sustainability and the preservation of environmental rights of future generations. Internalizing externalities (in the common understanding of both “externality” and “internalization”) achieves allocative efficiency, corrects market failure but not necessarily distributive justice which is also important for sustainable development. Therefore, it can be concluded that internalizing externalities, even in a form that results in the preservation of environmental rights for future generations, does not guarantee sustainable development.

Cross-References ▶ Economic Equity and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development ▶ Global Warming and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Welfare and Sustainability ▶ Wellbeing and Sustainability

References Ahlheim M (2018) Environmental economics, the bioeconomy and the role of government. In: Lewandowski I (ed) Bioeconomy. Springer, Cham Beeks JC, Lambert T (2018) Addressing externalities: an externality factor tax-subsidy proposal. Eur J Sustain Dev Res 2(2):1–19 Bithas K (2011) Sustainability and externalities: is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecol Econ 70(10):1703–1706 Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44 Daly (2009) From a failed growth economy to a steady state economy. The encyclopedia of Earth. http://www. eoearth.org/ Ding H, He M, Deng C (2014) Life cycle approach to assessing environmental friendly product project with internalizing environmental externality. J Clean Prod 66:128–138 Goedecke M, Therdthianwong S, Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle cost analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels in Thailand. Energy Policy 35(6):3236–3246 Hawken P (2010) The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability, 3rd edn. Harper Collins Business, New York Kraft ME, Furlong SR (2015) Assessing policy alternatives, Ch. 6. In: Public policy: politics, analysis, and alternatives, 5th edn. Sage/CQ Press, Thousand Oaks Medema SG (2015) A magnificent business prospect . . . the Coase theorem, the extortion problem, and the creation of Coase theorem worlds. J Inst Econ 11:353–378 Nguyena TLT, Laratte B, Guillaumeb B, Huab A (2016) Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:13–23 Owen A (2006) Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 34(5):632–642 Pigou AC (1954) Some aspects of the welfare state. Diogenes 2(7):1–11 Tumlinson J (2018) Externality. In: Augier M, Teece DJ (eds) The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave Macmillan, London van den Bergh J (2010) Externality or sustainability economics? Ecol Econ 69:2047–2052

International Networks and Sustainable Development

International Collaboration ▶ International Development

Networks

and

Sustainable

International Networks and Sustainable Development Issa Ibrahim Berchin, Ana Valquiria Jonck and José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

Synonyms Global network; International collaboration; International partnership; Transnational collaboration; Transnational network

Introduction Worldwide environmental, economic, and social changes are putting pressure on natural resources and jeopardizing the ability of adaptation and social development, particularly of poor and developing countries (Curran-Cournane et al. 2014; Headey and Jayne 2014; Gulati et al. 2013). Therefore, international networks and cooperation emerge as key strategies in promoting sustainable development, through technological transfers, financial aid, and capacitation, while also providing exchange of data, information, communication, and knowledge about the specific needs and challenges of communities, enabling joint actions to solve them (Pattberg and Widerberg 2016; Berchin et al. 2018; Haselip et al. 2017; Huang and Quibria 2015). Since 1972, the United Nations has urged for the establishment of an international network among communities, organizations, research centers, universities, states, and United Nations’

1021

agencies to promote worldwide sustainable development. This claim is stated in the main conferences and documents of the United Nations, such as the Stockholm Declaration (United Nations 1972), the Brundtland Report (United Nations 1987), the Agenda 21 from Eco 92 (United Nations 1992), the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations 2000), the Rio +10 (United Nations 2002), the Rio +20 (United Nations 2012), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015b). According to all the sustainability challenges identified by the international community, and recently translated into the SDGs, global partnerships are required to establish a comprehensive network for foreign aid toward an inclusive, equitable, and fair sustainable development (Huang and Quibria 2015). At some level, all SDGs urge for international networks, partnerships, and cooperation for development. Particularly Goal 17 aims to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (United Nations 2015a). The main targets and indicators of SDG 17 are organized in five categories, namely, finance, to increase global cooperation toward raising finance and investments from multiple sources, especially to support the least developed countries, helping to reduce financial debts; technology, to support a broader access to science, technology, and innovation, enhancing knowledge sharing, capacity building, and the use of information and communication technologies; capacity building, to support the implementation of all 17 SDGs; trade, to promote a fair international trade system, with clear rules; and, lastly, systemic issues, to “enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries” and to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships” as well as assist with data research, monitoring, and accountability (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform 2017).

I

1022

Conceptualizing International Networks for Sustainable Development In 2003 the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) defined international partnerships as “voluntary, multistakeholder initiatives aimed at implementing sustainable development” (UNCSD 2017). The increasing interconnection between the local and global spheres is supported and influenced by the development and improvement of information and communication technologies, causing both negative and positive consequences, particularly in cities, requiring stronger networks between peers to share knowledge, information, experiences of best practices, and solutions to their problems (Keiner and Kim 2007). These networks for collaboration and communication emerge when the agents have common goals or face a common challenge, contributing to facilitate the achievement of their objectives, therefore creating value in an innovative environment (CamarinhaMatos 2009; Betsill and Bulkeley 2004). Accordingly, the concept of “collaborative network” refers to the required collaboration and communication among many agents (multiple stakeholders and/or multidisciplinary approaches) with different methods, capacities, experiences, and backgrounds, to solve the sustainability challenges, in which the joint capacities of the network’s agents exceed the individual capacities of the individuals (Camarinha-Matos 2009; Keiner and Kim 2007; Haselip et al. 2017). Thus, considering the increase of information and communication technologies, the world is increasingly interconnected, characterizing a social transition toward a network society, which aligned with digital networking technologies, helps overcome boundaries and geographical limits, enabling more flexible, adaptive, and decentralized operations (Castells 2005). In the context of international networks, and focusing on sustainability, Betsill and Bulkeley (2004) propose two other terms: global environmental governance and transnational networks. Global environmental governance is defined as where agreements are made between states in the international scenario, transferring the engaged terms to the

International Networks and Sustainable Development

national stance. Transnational networks act simultaneously between multiple areas; this type of network is extremely important for the accordance of norms and interests between multiple agents of society in various scales (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004). International networks are mainly structured by the agents that integrate the network and the linkages between them. Therefore, the activities that connect the actors is the networking practice, which aim at sharing knowledge, information, and experiences of best practices and/or at producing new information and solutions to a challenge (Keiner and Kim 2007). Despite the existence of networks managed in a decentralized way (MejíaDugand et al. 2016), in order to be more operational and efficient, networks must establish a communication system and have a central administration through a leader or manager to keep the ties between partners and organize the network’s agenda (Keiner and Kim 2007; Haselip et al. 2017).

Partnerships Areas International or transnational networks integrate several agents to mobilize information, knowledge, and values aiming to achieve a common goal. In this regard, Betsill and Bulkeley (2004) analyze international networks between state and non-state agents to promote a global environmental governance, considering transnational networks as extremely important for the accordance of norms and interests between different agents of society in multiple scales. Therefore, publicprivate partnerships provide collective goods to society (Beisheim 2012; Haselip et al. 2017). These partnerships emerge in several areas, such as knowledge networks, standard-setting partnerships, service partnerships, public policy networks, and commodity networks (Beisheim 2012; Haselip et al. 2017; Oosterveer 2015; Caniglia et al. 2017; Berchin et al. 2018), which will be deepened below. Knowledge networks or learning platforms work to transfer knowledge, to elaborate proposals to better implement solutions for development, and to allow business to share information between them and with other stakeholders (Beisheim 2012).

International Networks and Sustainable Development

Standard-setting partnerships develop codes of conduct mainly in areas that are not yet under regulations or goals. That is extremely important among activities with low sustainability status. Standard-setting partnerships occur where actors make commitments to attend sustainability goals (such as to reduce emissions and responsible resource use) and combat unhealthy practices. These types of partnerships also work with verification and certification systems (Beisheim 2012). As for service partnerships, they are focused on financing multiple types of projects. Financing can act in many phases of projects, from research to development and implementation. The funds related to this category of partnership can come from public and/or private sectors (Beisheim 2012). Public policy networks are a type of normative transnational network which in some cases helps members to influence policymaking and regulations (Haselip et al. 2017). Commodity networks act in regulatory contexts between local and national governments, institutions, and private sector agents in order to develop governance arrangements through network analysis (Oosterveer 2015). Accordingly, there are many areas where partnerships and networks may occur, with different goals, settings, and organization. These also include communities of practice; informal social organizations composed by multiple stakeholders, which are oriented toward problem-solving goals, creating collective learning networks (Dentoni and Bitzer 2015; Li et al. 2009); and the university networks.

University Networks As its nomenclature suggests, university networks are partnerships, collaborative projects, and initiatives between higher education institutions. They mostly happen in the research level between two or more universities (Caniglia et al. 2017). But as will be seen further in this section, there are many other forms universities can collaborate together and produce benefits for society. University networks can be characterized as spin-offs, the establishment of technology transfer mechanisms. The Silicon Valley was created in a

1023

university spin-off – network – experience, today being one of the world’s largest creation and innovation pole (Nicolaou and Birley 2003; Soetanto and Van Geenhuizen 2015). Another important role of university networks is to create a bridge between businesses and universities. Through this type of interorganizational network, many benefits can emerge, the companies can come up with the capital to finance research done by universities, and the final product is an improvement for the business, but overall for society, as the creation of jobs (Chen et al. 2017; Lam 2007). This network is also very profitable in campuses’ initiatives. A campus initiative from one university can be applied in a partner university, providing innovation through collaboration. That drifts a little from research partnerships and reaches all students, enlarging the effects of the partnership and the students’ perceptions over academia (McKeown et al. 2008; Dagiliūt_e et al. 2018). This type of academic partnership can be a double roadway though, at the same time that stimulates knowledge sharing, it can also stimulate “minds” diaspora, meaning researchers and academics may want to leave their countries or regions in order to go to a partner university elsewhere, which has better conditions and/or more opportunities than the one they are in. Although people may change university and leave their regions, knowledge will eventually come back to all the institutions due to their commitment to that network (Larner 2015). Finally, university networks can help immensely to cope with one of the world’s biggest problem: climate change. Several universities have gathered to work with risk management and reduction, as well as promoting awareness to their communities (Abedin and Shaw 2015).

Ongoing Models of International Networks Currently, the United Nations and its agencies comprise the main forum for international dialogue, agreement, and cooperation, creating an

I

1024

environment that enables countries and civil society to expose their positions toward multiple themes, such as sustainable development (Mert 2009). The creation of international networks for sustainable development is necessary to influence national and international decision-making, policies’ development, and practices toward a sustainable future (Creech and Willard 2001; Haselip et al. 2017). These networks also establish multisector/multi-stakeholder and transdisciplinary working groups for research, education, development, dialogue, data and technology sharing, and international funding for sustainable innovations and initiatives, engaging governmental agents, civil society (including nongovernmental organizations), for-profit organizations, and universities (Haselip et al. 2017; Keiner and Kim 2007). A model network to be followed would be the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a global initiative of the United Nations, which aims to promote collective learning for sustainable development. Its main agents are the United Nations agencies as well as civil society stakeholders, such as universities (SDSN 2017). Another innovative example of existing international networks for sustainable development would be international conferences on sustainable development in higher education institutions, which are a way of promoting engagement and knowledge sharing in a bottom-up approach (Berchin et al. 2018). In this particular case, the establishment and maintenance of an international network for sustainable development in academia enable the exchange of data, methods, technologies, experiences, good practices, and research results, facilitating the process toward sustainable development (Berchin et al. 2018; Keeler et al. 2016). International networks also leverage universities to promote the local and global sustainable development by implementing sustainability practices in their campuses and engaging stakeholders, also using the network to develop and adopt solutions to the challenges of sustainability (Keeler et al. 2016). Another example is the international networks of cities. Considering that most of the world’s population will be living in cities in the coming years, the

International Networks and Sustainable Development

current challenges faced by cities around the world, such as lack of water, energy, and food resources, poor air quality, urban sprawl, bad waste management, increasing slums, and population intensification, will be intensified, requiring greater efforts to increase awareness, knowledge, human skills, and resource development and efficiency (Keiner and Kim 2007; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016). Therefore, one of the main solutions implemented by cities was establishing an international network to share knowledge and experiences, and find new solutions to their challenges, also sharing technologies and innovations to sustainable development (Keiner and Kim 2007; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016). Due to the many developmental challenges imposed by global economic, social, and environmental changes, communication for sustainable development is not enough, requiring active international network and engagement to reach sustainable development. Therefore, through organizations and governments, people become partners to develop new ideas and solutions (Creech and Willard 2001). Strong global partnerships enable an international collective action, improving the process toward sustainable development (Huang and Quibria 2015; Haselip et al. 2017; Caniglia et al. 2017). Some possibilities for creating an international network for sustainable development would be the establishment of a common definition for sustainability in order to avoid confusion, improve comprehension, and settle a standard to make sustainable development initiatives easier to be designed and implemented (Broman and Robèrt 2017). Therefore, among the benefits of international networks are global proactivity among partner stakeholders; access to new methods, materials, products, and services from other partners; multi-stakeholder engagement; access to experiences and best practices from peers facing similar challenges; multidisciplinary collaboration; and support for environmental education toward sustainable development, addressing an international effort to solve sustainability and climate change challenges (Broman and Robèrt 2017; Haselip et al. 2017; Ena et al. 2016). An international network for sustainable development would facilitate problem-solving skills and practices, especially those concerning

International Networks and Sustainable Development

sustainable governance (Mert 2009). These networks can also be an innovative and efficient method to implement projects, especially considering a multi-stakeholders’ approach, contributing to find holistic solutions to a challenge, enabling the exchange of experiences and knowledge, facilitating the raise of funding, and integrating local problems in a global network to find solutions (Beisheim 2012; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016; Oosterveer 2015).

Challenges and Opportunities of International Networks Even though the world has been experiencing increasing initiatives for international cooperation, it is important to remember that nations and communities still present many levels of development with different needs and challenges. This could be a barrier for the establishment of international networks for sustainable development. For example, there are still countries and leaders that refuse to acknowledge that climate change exists, also demonstrating skepticism toward sustainability (Creech and Willard 2001). More criticism is exposed by Beisheim (2012): this type of initiative is struck off as one which idealizes actors as non-selfish agents who do not praise their interests above those of the community; it overlooks the causes of the problems focusing only on the symptoms (short-term solutions); reports written in a vague language; doubts concerning legitimacy of the partnerships; lack of transparency; responsibilities that are not equally shared; fake partnerships which are actually trade agreements between agents; non-binding initiative; and potential to destabilize weak governments. Other challenge for the implementation of international networks for sustainable development is policy challenges, considering divergent normative contexts in different countries; intercultural challenges, due to different languages, cultures, and values; the lack of value system models; limited funding; excessive regulation and bureaucracy; low interest of partners; and communication problems (Caniglia et al. 2017; Camarinha-Matos

1025

2009; Ena et al. 2016; Keiner and Kim 2007). Thus, other factors compromising international collaborations and networks are the internal challenges of partners, such as resistance to change, lack of commitment, unclear goals of the partner, lack of accountability and insufficient capabilities of the partners, and lack of priority and enthusiasm (Caniglia et al. 2017). Therefore, global partnerships should be orchestrated in an inclusive and comprehensive way, which can be accomplished through clear communication between partners, multidisciplinary approaches, and different perspectives, in order to reinforce commitments of the international community and enhance its applicability nationally (Biermann et al. 2017; Camarinha-Matos 2009; Caniglia et al. 2017). Accordingly, among the strategies to facilitate international networks and collaborations are the development of pilot projects, effective communication between partners, and organizational flexibility (Caniglia et al. 2017). International networks represent a transition from a traditional system of individual agents to an innovative one. Regarding global environmental issues, international cooperation is increasingly important, since this network can influence the actions of states toward the sustainability challenges, due to the collective nature of environmental problems and the limited action of state agents. Through these global networks, it is possible to disseminate knowledge in an innovative and inclusive way, contributing to a sustainable future (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Pattberg and Widerberg 2016; Caniglia et al. 2017). Therefore, international networks benefit from information and communication technologies, reducing barriers among multiple stakeholders, sectors, and scales, contributing to a holistic and inclusive sustainable development, raising local knowledge, and sharing it internationally.

References Abedin MA, Shaw R (2015) The role of university networks in disaster risk reduction: perspective from coastal Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 13:381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.001

I

1026 Beisheim M (2012) Partnerships for sustainable development: why and how Rio+ 20 must improve the framework for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, German Institute for International and Security Affairs. https://www.swp-berlin.org/ fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2012_ RP03_bsh.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017 Berchin II, Sima M, de Lima MA, Biesel S, dos Santos LP, Ferreira RV, Guerra JBSOA, Ceci F (2018) The importance of international conferences on sustainable development as higher education institutions’ strategies to promote sustainability: a case study in Brazil. J Clean Prod 171:756–772. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.042 Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q 48(2):471–493. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00310.x Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE (2017) Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 Broman GI, Robèrt KH (2017) A framework for strategic sustainable development. J Clean Prod 140:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121 Camarinha-Matos LM (2009) Collaborative networks contribution to sustainable development. IFAC Proc 42(25):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-159619_1 Caniglia G, Luederitz C, Groß M, Muhr M, John B, Keeler LW, von Wehrden H, Laubichler M, Wiek A, Lang D (2017) Transnational collaboration for sustainability in higher education: lessons from a systematic review. J Clean Prod 168:764–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.07.256 Castells M (2005) The network society: from knowledge to policy. In: Castells M, Cardoso G (eds) The network society from knowledge to policy. Center for transatlantic relations, Hopkins https://www.umass.edu/ digitalcenter/research/pdfs/JF_NetworkSociety.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2017 Chen K, Zhang Y, Zhu G, Mu R (2017) Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities? Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2017.10.005 Creech H, Willard T (2001) Strategic intentions: managing knowledge networks for sustainable development. https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2001/networks_strategic_ intentions.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017 Curran-Cournane F, Vaughan M, Memon A, Fredrickson C (2014) Trade-offs between high class land and development: recent and future pressures on Auckland’s valuable soil resources. Land Use Policy 39:146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.020 Dagiliūt_e R, Liobikien_e G, Minelgait_e A (2018) Sustainability at universities: students’ perceptions from green and non-green universities. J Clean Prod 181:473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.213

International Networks and Sustainable Development Dentoni D, Bitzer V (2015) The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multistakeholder initiatives. J Clean Prod 106:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.050 Ena OV, Chulok AA, Shashnov SA (2016) Networking for sustainable foresight: a Russian study. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 119:268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techfore.2016.05.014 Gulati M, Jacobs I, Jooste A, Naidoo D, Fakir S (2013) The water–energy–food security Nexus: challenges and opportunities for food security in South Africa. Aquatic Procedia 1:150–164. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.013 Haselip JA, Larsen TH, Ackom EK, Mackenzie GA, Christensen JM (2017) Reflections on experience with the global network on energy for sustainable development as a south–south global knowledge network. Energy Sustain Dev 36:37–43. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.esd.2016.11.002 Headey DD, Jayne TS (2014) Adaptation to land constraints: is Africa different? Food Policy 48:18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.005 Huang Y, Quibria MG (2015) The global partnership for sustainable development. Nat Res Forum 39:157–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12068 Keeler LW, Wiek A, Lang DJ, Yokohari M, van Breda J, Olsson L et al (2016) Utilizing international networks for accelerating research and learning in transformational sustainability science. Sustain Sci 11(5): 749–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0364-6 Keiner M, Kim A (2007) Transnational city networks for sustainability. Eur Plan Stud 15(10):1369–1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701550843 Lam A (2007) Knowledge networks and careers: academic scientists in industry–university links. J Manag Stud 44(6):993–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486. 2007.00696.x Larner W (2015) Globalising knowledge networks: universities, diaspora strategies, and academic intermediaries. Geoforum 59:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoforum.2014.10.006 Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte P, Graham ID (2009) Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implement Sci 4(11):1–8. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11 McKeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, Parulkar G, Peterson L, Rexford J, Shenker S, Turner J (2008) OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 38(2):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1355734.1355746 Mejía-Dugand S, Kanda W, Hjelm O (2016) Analyzing international city networks for sustainability: a study of five major Swedish cities. J Clean Prod 134(Part A):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2015.09.093 Mert A (2009) Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: shifts in discourses of environment and democracy. Forest Policy Econ 11(5):326–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.003

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0883-9026(02)00118-0 Oosterveer P (2015) Promoting sustainable palm oil: viewed from a global networks and flows perspective. J Clean Prod 107:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.01.019 Pattberg P, Widerberg O (2016) Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45:42–51. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-015-0684-2 SDSN (2017) Vision and Organization. http://unsdsn.org/ about-us/vision-and-organization/. Accessed 10 Nov 2017 Soetanto D, Van Geenhuizen M (2015) Getting the right balance: university networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation 36:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014. 10.008 Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (2017) Sustainable Development Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 16 Nov 2017 UNCSD (2017) UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development: About. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/dsd/dsd_ aofw_par/par_about.shtml. Accessed 09 Nov 2017 United Nations (1972) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. http://www.undocuments.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment & Development: Agenda 21. http://www.undocuments.net/agenda21.htm. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2000) The Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_ MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July% 201).pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. http://www.un-documents. net/jburgdec.htm. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2012) The Future We Want: Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/ 733FutureWeWant.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2015a) Sustainable Development Goal 17. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 09 Nov 2017 United Nations (2015b) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainable development.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 07 Nov 2017

1027

International Networks of HEIs ▶ Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development

International Partnership ▶ International Development

Networks

and

Sustainable

Internship

I

▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Intractable ▶ Wicked Problems Development

and

Sustainable

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Junlong Mi, Xingxing Chen and Xianzhong Song Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

Definition There is no clear and definitive definition of the investment policy statement in response to crossborder investment, which is essentially a policy constraint on national strategic considerations and

1028

is associated with international prevailing investment policies. In the latest investment policy statements, investment policies include foreign investment legislation in domestic law and in international law (International Investment Treaty practice), in which the main contents are agreements between capital-exporting countries and capital-importing countries. Traditional international investment polices mainly focus on the IIAs (World Investment Report 2012). In recent years, the concept or principle of sustainable development has been universally accepted by the international community as the general principle of economic and social development and has become the general principle of international investment policy. In the context of international investment policy, sustainable development can be a “win-win” goal for all parties involved in international investment activities. Contents that are put forward by the Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD) mainly cover the environment, social development, and corporate social responsibility (Brown 1981). It stressed that foreign investment should be integrated into the sustainable development strategy of host countries and advocates all countries to sign “Sustainable Development Friendly.”

Introduction For developing countries, transnational investment can promote their economic development. Due to the imbalance of the “interests” between investors and host countries in the traditional international investment trade agreements and the neglect of sustainable development issues, the international policy framework for sustainable development investment has been gradually formed. Countries have issued new investment policy statements one after another and have considered the position of the relevant international investment agreements (IIAs) based on the principle of sustainable development. The core principles of the investment policy statement for sustainable development include the promotion of inclusive growth and sustainable development investment, the full balance of rights and

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

obligations between investors and host countries, and the integration principle of protection of foreign investment and regulation of foreign investment.

Sustainable Development Promotes Investment Policy Change Transnational investment is an important way in international economic intercourse. Investment will have a great impact on the economy and environment in host countries, while economy and environment are very important in sustainable development. Sustainable development requires the transformation of the economic structure, which is mainly generated by investment in new energy production, transportation, and manufacturing. Developing host countries receiving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) will implement certain investment policies so that they can achieve the expected development goals. From the perspective of sustainable development, its focus is not only on the quantity of investment but also on its quality. Therefore, it is urgent for some countries to maintain this focus and attract investment to promote their sustainable development (Chen 2007). However, traditional international investment policies are created by developed capital-exporting countries and serve its foreign economic policies. With the emergence of the economic policy under neoliberalism around the world, the foreign capital policies and international investment agreement of various countries have shown a great deal of attention to the investment liberalization and ignore the coordinated interaction between protection of international investment and the realization of the objectives of sustainable development. Firstly, the foreign investment policies of all countries just emphasized the permanent sovereignty over natural resources, but loosened the regulation of transnational corporations to attract foreign investment, which lead to the neglection of the investment environment protection. Many developing countries often adopt a vicious “race to the bottom” (Muchlinski 2002), such as lowering environmental regulations, health standards, labor right issues,

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

tax rates, and public welfares to attract foreign investment. Secondly, IIAs, as the main international legal mechanism for the adjustment of international investment relations, has a significant functional bias, that is, focusing on the protection of foreign investors and their interests while neglecting the function of foreign investment in promoting sustainable development of host countries. IIAs all focuses on the protection of the interests of foreign investors. However, there is a lack of regulation on the foreign investors’ responsibilities and obligations in the realization of sustainable economic and social development in host countries. The rights and obligations of foreign investors are seriously unbalanced. Finally, the mechanism between investors and international investment arbitration, which is generally stipulated in existing IIAs, severely inhibits the ability of host countries to achieve sustainable development. Under this mechanism, only foreign investors enjoy the right to initiate arbitration proceedings unilaterally. For the host countries, measures must be taken as far as possible to protect the interests of foreign investors; otherwise they would face the judgment of the international arbitration tribunal. In recent years, there have been a surge of international investment arbitration cases involving foreign investors directly challenging the host country’s control measures in the public interest in protecting the environment, health, human rights, and security. The traditional international investment policy with such “imbalance” has faced severe challenges and even faced with legitimacy or legitimate crisis because of its serious deviation from the economic sovereignty, fair and mutual benefit, and cooperative development principle generally accepted by the international community. In April 2011, Australia issued a trade policy statement declaring that it would no longer accept “Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)” terms in IIAs to be signed in the future. The reason is that the provision gives foreign enterprises a higher legal right than their domestic enterprises and restricts the government’s ability to make public decisions (e.g., formulation and implementation of social, environmental, and economic laws) (World Investment Report 2012). Host countries

1029

have recognized that it is unwise and inappropriate to attract and encourage investment at the expense of domestic health, environment, and security. The world needs a feasible sustainable development framework to regulate all key players in each country (national and local governments, civil society, business community, scientific community, and academia), to make them move toward sustainable development. The existing development model shows that current international coordination and cooperation are unsuccessful, and the policies of developed and developing countries in achieving sustainable development are insufficient. International investment treaties should emphasize sustainable development in two aspects. First, for host countries, an appropriate investment policy statement should be developed to make sustainable development investment policy as a national development strategy. In addition, foreign investors should be responsible for investments, and their investment criteria should meet international standards. Fortunately, specific to the sustainable development crisis of IIAs, the G8 Summit Declaration in 2009 stressed that FDI was an important source of financing and could drive economic growth and integration for sustainable development. Similarly, the G20 in 2009 elaborated on the core values of sustainable economic activities, namely, the establishment of a sustainable and balanced global economic partnership, emphasizing broad and equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth. In 2012, the “World Investment Report 2012” of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled “Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies” established the Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD), which shows that the international community has not only reached a preliminary consensus on the common path of international investment policy but also reflects the latest development trend of international investment policies. The Sustainable Development Goals developed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in 2015 once again stated that IIAs could play an important role in making international investment activities more conducive to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (World

I

1030

Investment Report 2016). The “Group of Twenty” (G20) Hangzhou Summit in 2016 reached a “G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” which emphasized that global investment policies should promote inclusive economic growth and sustainable development. It can be said that the sustainable development reform of promoting and realizing IIAs has become a major policy choice and legal response to problems in the development of the contemporary international investment legal mechanism. With the promotion of many countries and international organizations, the concept or principle of sustainable development is increasingly being incorporated into the development of IIAs. First, at the national level, about 100 countries are reexamining their international investment policies, and about 60 countries have refurbished or created new models for negotiations on IIAs. For example, in 2009, South Africa completed its assessment of its bilateral investment agreement policies and stated that its future investment policies should not only protect the legitimate expectations of foreign investors but also consider domestic environmental protection, public health and safety, injustice, and public policy. According to a survey of the newly developed Bilateral Investment Agreements Models of ten countries by UNCTAD, these ten models adopted some reform measures in favor of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for example, the preface makes reference to sustainable development, defines the meaning of “investment,” and restricts the excessive application of international investment arbitration mechanisms between investors and nations. In addition, seven models clarified the meaning of fair and equitable treatment and newly incorporated the concept of corporate social responsibility. At the bilateral level, the percentage of Bilateral Investment Agreements (BITs) includes the provisions of a friendly and sustainable development that has been significantly increased, and the principles of sustainable development will have profound impact on international investment policies (Chaisse and Debashis 2014). There are 21 BITs with full texts available in 2015. Among these 21 BITs,

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

there are 14 BITs prescribing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the preface; there are 15 BITs clarifying the definition and scope of investment; there are 16 BITs abandoning provision on the space-constrained for public policies in the host country; there are 11 BITs providing for non-reduction provisions, which stipulated that contracting parties should not attract investment by means of relaxation of health, safety, and environmental standards; and there are 7 BITs stipulating the content of corporate social responsibility (World Investment Report 2016). The reform of IIAs at the regional levels can effectively expand the scope of application of the IIAs provisions and generate the demonstration effect, thus contributing to the consolidation of the existing IIA network. The EU Report on the Future International Investment Policies in Europe, released in March 2011, emphasizes that the future international investment agreement suggested by the EU should respect the necessary public affairs authority of the host country and clearly stipulates that the host country has the power to exercise control over the protection of safety, environment, health, labor, consumers, industrial policies, and cultural diversity. On February 4, 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, formally signed by 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, embodied Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including the concept of economic, social, and environmental responsibility. At present, investment in promoting sustainable development at the multilateral level is also actively carried out. However, it is too early to reach a unified multilateral agreement on international investment.

Core Principles of Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development The investment policy statement for sustainable development should demonstrate investment for sustainable development, which clearly shows that the primary objective of investment decision-making is to promote inclusive growth and investment in sustainable development. It should stipulate that investment promotion and

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

facilitation policies should meet the sustainable development objectives and should be designed to minimize the potential risk of investment competition. It mainly includes three aspects: first, formulating priority strategic investment and investment policies conforms to productive capacity building, including human resources development, infrastructure, technology diffusion, enterprise development policies, and investment policies for the protection of sensitive industries. Second, investment policies should be combined with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition to reflect the provisions to minimize the potential negative impact of investment, they are also reflected in the following aspects: (1) promoting responsible investment policies are in line with international core standards; (2) investment promotion and preferential policies promote inclusiveness and sustainable development; and (3) land access policies and relevant policies are combined with the principle of responsible agricultural investment. Third, the relevance and effectiveness of investment policies are assessed. It mainly includes public governance and institutional capacity building, the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy and the effectiveness of specific measures, and the impact indicators involving quantitative investment (Zeng 2010). The investment policy statement of sustainable development also needs to fully balance the rights and obligations between investors and host countries. The concept of “balance” can be embodied in different levels: First, “balance” can be embodied in the relationship between parties or between a contracting party and a third party, including the power, rights, and responsibilities between the developed capital-exporting countries and the developing capital-importing countries, between public institutions and private interests, and between host countries and foreign investors. The “balance” particularly needs to be applied to the relationship between the developed and developing countries. Investing in each other, investing between two developed countries, or investing between two developing countries of comparable economic strength can be based on the concepts and principles of reciprocity and mutual protection (Jeswald et al. 2005). Second, the “balance”

1031

can also be reflected in the relationship between the objectives of investment policy, such as the relationship between protecting foreign capital and promoting foreign investment, between protecting foreign capital and foreign capital control, and between the economic objectives of the contracting parties and other public or social objectives. “Balance” is taken as a tool or embodiment of investment policy in combination with sustainable development objectives, such as the design of specific investment policies and regulations, which not only stipulates the establishment and operation of investment, the treatment and protection of investment, and the promotion and facilitation of investment but also the responsibility of investors. To take another example, the purpose of developing specific guidelines is to minimize the potential negatives impacts of investment, such as avoiding tax evasion, preventing anti-competitive behavior, exploiting labor standards, and minimizing the environmental impact. Promoting sustainable development and substantial growth through investment, maximizing the positive impact of investment, and eliminating the negative effects of investment all require balance investment promotion and investment control. The investment policy statement of sustainable development also needs to consider the integration principle of protecting foreign capital and controlling foreign capital. Traditionally, the two efforts are to protect foreign investment and regulate foreign investment. The law protecting foreign capital is legally binding regardless of domestic legislation or international treaties. However, the international norms on governing foreign investment are mostly regarded as “soft law” that has achieved little success (He 2008). In the context of international investment policy, the concept of “integration” is completely new. It serves different purposes, especially in terms of substance and form. First, it implies a combination of the host country’s investment protection and the responsibility of foreign investors, to redress the one-sided emphasis on the protection of foreign investors without imposing the necessary responsibilities on them. Second,

I

1032

domestic and international policies relating to foreign investment need to be considered as a whole, both need to be coordinated and developed according to the changing situation in the country. The concept of “integration” emphasizes the close connection between IIAs and domestic laws. Third, given the close relationship between domestic policies on foreign investment and other economic and social policies, the concept of “integration” requires that domestic foreign investment policies should be integrated into the national strategy of sustainable development. Finally, at the technical and legislative level, the concept of “integration” implies a structural reform of the international investment policy document that includes norms for the protection of foreign investment and foreign investment control in IIAs and domestic legislation and in particular the regulation of both host country and foreign investor rights and responsibilities. In the investment policy statement, foreign investment policy should be emphasized as an integral part of national development strategy. Its main contents include the following: (1) In the aspect of foreign capital and sustainable development strategy, foreign capital should be combined with the national sustainable development strategy, to maximize the contribution of foreign capital to productive capacity building and international competition. (2) In the aspect of control and promotion of foreign capital, design-specific foreign investment policies, it involves establishment and operation of foreign capital, treatment and protection of foreign capital, and responsibility and facilitation of investors. (3) Foreign investment policies ensure its consistency with other policy areas, including trade, taxation, intellectual property rights, competition, labor market management, land acquisition, corporate responsibility and governance, environmental protection, infrastructure, and public-private relations. (4) The effectiveness of foreign capital policies establish effective public institutions to implement foreign investment policies, evaluate the effectiveness of foreign investment policies, and draw experience from the feedback for the new round of decision-making (OCED 2008).

Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

Final Remarks This brief overview, combined with different types of research results, introduces the investment policy statement of sustainable development. The main background of the investment policy statement of sustainable development is the challenge faced by the traditional investment policy itself and the recognition of the core value of sustainable development by all countries. At present, there is no uniform standard for the investment policy statement of sustainable development. With some policies and promotion of international organizations, its core principles are becoming clearer and promoting international investment toward achieving sustainable development objectives.

Cross-References ▶ Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development

References Brown LR (1981) Building a sustainable society. W. W. Norton, New York Chaisse J, Debashis C (2014) The evolving and multilayered EU–India investment relations – regulatory issues and policy conjectures. Eur Law J 20(3):385–422 Chen A (2007) New practice of bilateral investment treaty in the new development of International Investment Law. Fudan University Press, Shanghai He ZP (2008) From the new international economic order to sustainable development. J Int Econ Law 15(3):168–189 Jeswald W et al (2005) Do BITs really work? An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their grand bargain. Harv Int Law J 77:67–131 Muchlinski PT (2002) Attempts to extend the accountability of transnational corporations: the role of UNCTAD. In: Liability of multinational corporations under International Law. Kluwer Law International, Hague OECD (2008) International investment law, understanding concepts and tracking innovations, companion volume to international investment perspectives. OECD 611 UNCTAD (2012) World Investment Report 2012: towards a new generation of investment policies. United Nations, Hague UNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report 2016. United Nations, Hague Zeng HQ (2010) On the practice of bilateral investment treaties ‘Imbalance’ and innovation. Jiangxi Soc Sci 6:7–15

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability Yang Zhao, Junlong Mi and Jingyan Fu Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

Definition Combined with existing research, investor activism can be considered as investors through positive action and taking appropriate measures to intervene in corporate affairs, usually referring to an active state. Stephen (2005) defines investor activism as investors’ monitoring and intervening corporate policies and practices. Investor activism can be divided into two categories, namely, individual investor activism and institutional investor activism. Individual investor activism is based on the individual level, while institutional investor activism refers to investor activism based on funds companies, insurance companies, and trust companies. The institution refers to institutional investors. Therefore, institutional investor activism is also known as institutional investor activism. Similarly, investor activism for sustainability refers to the investor through positive and active behavior to promote enterprises to perform better in social responsibility and to achieve sustainable investment behavior.

Introduction It is an indisputable fact that more investors actively intervene in corporate governance. The purpose of investor activism towards sustainability is to encourage organizations to better fulfill their social responsibilities and to realize the sustainable development and their investment behavior. The difference between traditional investment behaviors and investor activism lies in the fact that the investment concept gradually moves from simply pursuing capital appreciation to consider the influence of environment and

1033

society. Investor activism will actively exercise the rights of investors’ right to know and to propose rights and proxy solicitation, and organizations promote organizations to practice their social responsibilities consciously.

Investor Activism and Corporate Social Responsibility The development of investor activism embodies the development of investor activism. Investor activism has gradually arisen the extensive concern in academia since the 1970s. Peter (1976) published the paper “The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America,” which opens the prelude to this upsurge of concern, and analyzes the revolutionary changes and the rapid development of pension funds. Investors in western countries, such as the USA and Britain, are also slowly pursuing investor activism. On one hand, investors with professional insight and advanced financial analysis tools select the most valued companies to invest (Guercio and Hawkins 1999). On the other hand, investors take private negotiations, investor proposals (Barnett and Salomon 2002), solicitation of cumulative voting (Gillan and Starks 2000), and other methods to monitor management decision-making and actively intervene the governance of shareholding companies. According to Brent (2002), more public funds have tended to initiate, participate in investor proposals or solicit voting proxies since 2001 to strengthen participation in corporate governance. Gillan and Starks (2000) also found that institutional investors, such as investor proposals, take a higher rate of support. Active participation in corporate governance is much higher than the cost of supervision. Therefore, investor’s activism plays an important monitoring role in corporate governance. Investor activism can be considered as an investor, especially an institutional investor, who proactively monitors and intervenes with corporate management through the share voting rights in order to achieve the shareholding objective of improving corporate performance. When the company’s decision does not meet the interests

I

1034

of all investors, investors generally have three strategies to express their dissatisfaction with the company’s management: the first strategy is to vote with your feet, that is, to sell the shares of its investment; the second strategy is to vote by hand, that is, not immediately sell the shares held, but by means of a variety of formal or nontechnical means to influence management in order to enhance corporate performance; the third strategy is to vote neither by foot nor by hand, just to continue holding shares and remain silent. The three strategies are known as exit, speaking, and loyalty (Gillan and Starks 2000). But the former investor activism is generally in the form of individual investor activism, and this stage of institutional investors is mostly in passive and silent roles. Individual investors are concerned not only with the company’s own operational problems but also with social and environmental issues. Individual investors, who are actively concerned about corporate affairs, have indeed added a lot of trouble to investors, so they are also called “Gadfly.” Individual investors tend to be weak as they do not actively promote corporate governance (Useem 1996). Before 1984, majority of investor proposals were initiated by individuals or social organizations, with only a handful of institutional investors focused on corporate governance. In the process of capital market development in western developed countries, with the increasing of the shareholding ratio in listed companies, institutional investors have replaced individual investors as the main investment subject of capital market. The total market value of US institutional investors holding shares of listed companies’ rose to 55% in 2003 and more than two-thirds of all large American companies had institutional investors. At the end of 1998, institutional investors, such as pension funds and mutual funds, accounted for more than 50% of the total assets. Institutional investors have been active in the exercise of investor rights, and actively pursued investor activism, which has become an important part of corporate governance since 1980s. They slowly abandoned the “Wall Street rules,” and began to play an active role in intervention, constantly to strengthen the supervision of managers in order to prevent moral

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability

hazard (Shleifer and Vishny 1986) and to curb the “free-rider” problem in corporate governance (Maug 1996). Institutional investors in the USA have adopted investor proposals since 1984, and the number of investor proposals was more than 1000 in 1986 (Guercio and Hawkins 1999). Institutional investors have more resources and more capacity to influence the corporate management than the dispersed individual investors and the board of directors with small holdings (Shleifer and Vishny 1986). Due to the large and concentrated shareholding, institutional investors have to vote after the active intervention in corporate governance (Feng et al. 2010), financial performance, market value, and corporate social performance (Petersen and Vredenburg 2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) was first proposed by Sheldon in 1924. Sheldon (1924) believed that companies should link corporate social responsibility with the various responsibilities that business owners meet consumer needs and promote community interests. Academics have examined the studies on corporate social responsibility, so the society began to accept the view that enterprises should take their social responsibilities. Davis (1960) suggested that most of the businessmen are only interested in economic performance or technological benefit. He believed that some socially responsible business decisions could bring long-term economic benefits to the company. This view of “long-term economic interest” was widely acknowledged at the end of the twentieth century. However, there is clear definition of corporate social responsibility. In different historical periods, scholars of different periods have different understandings and the meaning and understanding of corporate social responsibility due to the different political, economic, legal, and social factors. For example, as the deterioration of the global environment, active participation in environmental protection is increasingly recognized as one of the core components of corporate social responsibility. At the global level, less than 50% of Fortune 500 companies mentioned social responsibility at the end of the 1970s. However, about 90% of companies regard social responsibility as a core component of a company’s goals

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability

by the late 1990s. Besides, the emergence of NGOs seeking to promote more ethical and socially responsible business practices is beginning to cause substantial changes in corporate management, strategy, and governance. Both long-term interest theory and strategic management theory support the necessary relationship between corporate social responsibility and business development and the sustainability of investment behavior. The long-term interest theory divides the interests of enterprises into short-term benefits and long-term benefits, and believes that the corporate social responsibility is conducive to maximize the long-term interests of enterprises. After this theory was proposed, the research focus of corporate social responsibility in the 1970s was no longer whether the enterprise should assume social responsibility, but what kind of social responsibility should be assumed and how to shoulder social responsibility. The strategic management theory combines the theory of strategic management with corporate social responsibility and enterprises can gain competitive advantage by integrating social responsibilities as a part of corporate strategy. As mentioned earlier, investors are increasingly concerned about the companies’ sustainable value and act as an improving role in corporate governance. Sustainable investment behavior is related to corporate social responsibility, so it can understand its content from the perspective of social responsibility investors. As an organic part of corporate governance, corporate social responsibility has also received more attention from investor activism (Petersen and Vredenburg 2009). Investors are aware that long-term interests depend on effective management and good interaction with different stakeholders, which provide the resources that companies need to maintain competitive advantage (Jones and Murrell 2001). In addition to the traditional financial performance, investors in investment decision-making process pay more attention to the long-term development of the company. Investors tend to integrate social, environmental, ethical concerns into the company. At the same time, investment through the change of ownership influence corporate behaviors, including corporate social

1035

responsibility. In 1970, a regulation on social issues became important to draw investors’ attention to corporate social responsibility. Investors began to focus on corporate social responsibility, especially in the annual investors’ meeting, where a large number of social and environmental issues, including human rights and labor standards, climate issues, and apartheid in South Africa, Therefore, investor activism can help investors to effectively monitor the corporate social responsibility, improve the company’s social, environmental, and ethical performance, and then promote the fulfillment of CSR by the investors’ right. More and more investors take socially responsible investing (SRI) into consideration when doing investing decisions. SRI is an investment approach that uses both financial and nonfinancial criteria to determine which assets to purchase but whose distinguishing characteristic is the latter (Guay et al. 2004). SRI possesses ethical dimensions explicitly and has become an increasingly popular investment approach across advanced industrialized countries. Shareholder activism is a mix of SRI, corporate governance, and stakeholder capitalism (Guay et al. 2004). Activists play a role in corporate governance by many ways, such as using SRI, writing letters, and filing shareholder resolutions about social, environmental, and governance issues at corporate annual meetings. The financial market is gradually being used as an important tool to influence corporate social responsibility and environmental management. Shareholders are owners of the corporations, so they have incentives to optimize their values. The values contain not only traditional financial values but also social and environmental values. Shareholders have an interest in the company and have a right to participate in corporate affairs, including choosing company directors to act in the best interest of shareholders. Shareholder activism occurs when disgruntled shareholders loudly complain that management is not acting in the best interests of shareholders and threaten to do something about it (Guay et al. 2004). Shareholders could use their ownership position to have impact on companies’ policies as well

I

1036

as practices. Shareholder activism could be exerted through lots of forms, including dialogue with company management or the board, raising questions at general meetings, writing formal shareholder proposals, and so on. There is a growing body of research of investor activism. However, the research related to investor activism for corporate social responsibility is limited. Actually, with the development of international economy and increased public environmental awareness, there are more and more investors pay close attention to issues about corporate social responsibility and environmental management in practice. Investors try to explore effective ways to achieve sustainable investment.

The Approach of Investors to Achieve Sustainable Investment Investors can actively exercise investor rights to promote enterprises to carry out social responsibility and sustainable investment. There are three basic approaches: (1) investor’s right to know, (2) investor’s proposal, (3) proxy solicitation. Investor’s right to know is the right of investors to understand company information. The investor’s right to know is an important legal tool for social responsibility investors. First of all, social responsibility investors through the exercise of the negative right to know, such as reading the corporate social responsibility report, to understand the corporate practice on social responsibility. Second, social responsibility investors can also exercise the right to examine how corporations disclose human rights protection, environmental management, and ethical issues. Once again, socially responsible investors can ask the corporate performance on social responsibility to obtain more specific information. Acquiring company-related information through the right to know is the basis of follow-up action of social responsibility investors, management dialogue, and proposing proposals. Investor proposal right refers to the practical experience of investors to propose social responsibility to the general meeting of investors that is the most effective way to promote corporate social responsibility. Although socially responsible

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability

investors hold fewer shares, such limited shares are hard to get majority support at investors’ meetings. The fact is that management has consistently reacted to such proposals by two. The first is to communicate with the sponsors before the meeting of the investors, making a certain advance commitment to meet the latter’s full and partial requirements in return for its withdrawal. McDonald, for example, has agreed to study the use of substitutes in exchange for the withdrawal of proposals by the church group, when it is critical of the church group’s proposal for a “Synthetic Styrofoam” meal box. Second, although this kind of proposal does not get the majority pass, but the company under the pressure of all parties will take the initiative in subsequent business decision-making partial content. For example, the well-known consumer advocates, GM President Candidate Nader launched the General Motors program in 1970, the success of the following two issues during the General Motors annual general meeting vote: winning the company’s board members to diversify the report and strengthening the vehicle carbon emission standards report. Despite the failure to vote on two issues, public concern has led the company to elect Leon Sullivan, an AfricanAmerican pastor from Philadelphia, as a director of the company, and to push the company through a policy of gradual tightening of vehicle carbon emission standards. There are roughly three reasons why corporate management has responded so positively. First, management is willing to do and does not consider before. After the investors put forward, they are certainly willing to accept it and may make a corresponding commitment before the proposal is formally submitted in exchange for the withdrawal of investors in order to reduce the cost of convening the investors’ general meeting. Second, once these kinds of proposals have been proposed, they will arouse great attention from the media and the public at large, and their contents are mostly the reasonable expectation of the public to the company. Under “all eyes and ears,” it is very hard for management to turn a deaf ear to the proposal. If it is rejected, it may lead to serious negative consequences such as the opposition from the media and the public as well as the consumer boycott. Third, socially responsible investors can encourage senior management to focus on such

Investor Activism Towards Sustainability

social issues. Practice has shown that voting at investors’ annual meeting always draws attention from senior managers. The threat of making a proposal is enough to motivate senior management to act quickly in order to comforting investors and not confronting religious groups. Perhaps, issues raised in the resolution will be submitted to the board of directors for further discussion. They wrote investors’ authorized letters, to let senior management feel pressure from both the upper and lower levels. Therefore, the proposal does not need voting support to achieve the intended outcome. In practice, when a socially responsible investor submits a proposal to the general meeting of investors, it will usually issue a proxy letter of attorney to the other investors to obtain the latter’s authorization. Socially responsible investors usually hold fewer shares. Only with the support of a large number of other investors could reach the required share. Most investors will not actually participate in the investors’ meeting, so that they cannot vote on social responsibility proposals suggested by socially responsible investors. Therefore, social responsibility investors through proxy solicitation to enhance the possibility of the proposal or increase the attention of the bill, it can be seen that proxy solicitation is a useful tool to realize investors’ proposal right.

Final Remarks This brief overview introduced investor activism towards sustainability. When analyzing investor activism, however, it followed the evolution of individual investor activism and institutional investor activism. Investor activism is that investors pay more attention to corporate social responsibility that is an important issue in the modern business world. Investor activism is also related to corporate sustainability and responsible investment. Institutional investors have a greater impact on corporate behavior, and thus most research is based on the activism of institutional investors.

1037

Cross-References ▶ Corporate Governance ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility ▶ Investor Activism Towards Sustainability ▶ Socially Responsible Investment

References Barnett ML, Salomon RM (2002) Unpacking social responsibility: the curvilinear relationship between social and financial performance. Acad Manag Proc 2002:B1–B6 Brent A (2002) Some Funds try Shareholder Activism, Mutual Fund Market News 10 (No. 25, June 24), 1–3 Davis K (1960) Can business afford to ignore Social Responsibilities. California Management Review 2 (3):70–76 Feng Z et al (2010) Institutional monitoring and REIT CEO compensation. J Real Estate Financ Econ 40(4):446–479 Gillan S, Starks L (2000) Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: the role of institutional investor. J Financ Econ 57:275–305 Guay T, Doh JP, Sinclair G (2004) Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: ethical, strategic, and governance implications. J Bus Ethics 52(1):125–139 Guercio DD, Hawkins J (1999) The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. J Financ Econ 52:293–340 Jones R, Murrell A (2001) Signaling positive corporate social performance. Bus Soc 40(1):59–78 Maug E (1996) Corporate control and the market for managerial labour: on the decision to go public. Eur Econ Rev 40(3):1049–1056 Peter FD (1976) The unseen revolution: how pension fund socialism came to America. Harper and Row, New York Petersen N, Vredenburg H (2009) Morals or economics? Institutional investor preferences for corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 90(1):1–14 Sheldon O (1924) The Philosophy of Management, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd: London, England. 70–99 Shleifer A, Vishny R (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J Polit Econ 94(3):461–488 Stephen M (2005) Shareholder activism and institutional investors. CLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research paper no. 38:05–20 Useem M (1996) Investor capitalism: how money managers are changing the face of corporate. Basic Book, New York

I

K

Knowledge ▶ How Worldview Development Influences Knowledge and Beliefs About Sustainability

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development Pascal Frank Faculty of Sustainability, Working Group Sustainable Consumption and Sustainability Communication, Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication (INFU), Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Introduction This entry sketches the relation between knowledge generation (KG) and sustainable development (SD) as it appears within the realm of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD). The suggestion is to distinguish three forms of appearances: The first relation can be called a passive relation. In this appearance, KG for SD is mainly undertaken by (academic) experts whose results and methods are conveyed to students in forms of canonical knowledge within HESD. The students’ role in KG processes is hence the role of passive recipients of this

canonical knowledge. Opposed to this appearance is the active relation. Here, students (and other social actors) are directly included in the process of KG in order to craft applicable solutions to concrete challenges for SD. Moreover, KG is not restricted to the acquisition of explicit knowledge. It also includes the development of tacit forms of knowledge that are deemed important for the prospective professional activities of students. Nevertheless, both the passive and active relation share an external orientation of KG processes, meaning that their matter of interest is neither the participants themselves nor the way they produce new knowledge. The third appearance, in contrast, primarily construes KG as a subjective process in which new information concerning SD is translated into new knowledge representations. It can be called reflexive appearance, because it aims to obtain awareness of the subjective process of KG, thereby laying the grounds for constructive KG processes for SD in the passive and active sense. The entry suggests to roughly depict these three appearances in a progressive way. The passive form has strongly shaped HESD since the beginning of its existence. However, a transition toward the active form can be observed during the last years, inspired by a broader trend within Higher Education to actively engage students in KG and thereby shift educational practice from “teaching to learning.” This transition within HESD is strongly propelled by sustainability

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

1040

science, in which the understanding of KG as a transdisciplinary, context-sensitive, and integrative process is widespread (Miller 2013). The reflexive relation is suggested as the prospective development stage of HESD. Although it has been largely neglected within Higher Education so far, there is emerging awareness for the importance for such a reflexive approach toward KG, as recent scientific publications and teaching programs indicate (e.g., Frank and Fischer 2018; Wamsler 2018). Sections “Phase I: Knowledge Generation as Practice of Scientific Experts,” “Phase II: Toward Integrative and Transdisciplinary Knowledge Generation,” and “Phase III: The Reflexive Turn of Knowledge Generation for Sustainable Development” provide a detailed description of the three stages. The description is based on a brief outline of the intertwinement between KG, SD, and HESD in section “Knowledge Generation, Sustainable Development, and Higher Education: An Inextricable Liaison.” The entry closes with some reflexive words concerning the perspective and scope on the matter of KG and SD within Higher Education.

Knowledge Generation, Sustainable Development, and Higher Education: An Inextricable Liaison The emergence of sustainable development as a global political program is inextricably linked to the practice of knowledge generation. The United Nations Stockholm Conference in 1972 is often deemed the political initiation of SD (Michelsen 2016). The conference was a reaction to growing environmental and socioeconomic concerns, which cast doubt on the then predominant ideals of progress, development, and economic growth as means to provide wealth and prosperity to humankind (Du Pisani 2006). Scientific knowledge took a paradox role in this matter. On the one hand, the advancement of the scientific knowledge substantially contributed to the appearance of unprecedented social inequalities and poverty, the depletion of natural resources, and ecological crises (Beck 1986). On the other hand, many of

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

these problems were only able to become common knowledge because of scientific inquiry. The latter role of KG might also explain why both scholars and political leaders were still convinced that the ideal of human development was not yet to be abandoned, despite the global ecological and socioeconomic situation (Du Pisani 2006): As a result of the Stockholm Conference, it was held that “through fuller knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes...” (UN 1972). Science would play a particularly important role in bringing such a development forward, through identifying and contributing to the solution of the pressing yet complex social and environmental challenges. Since the term “sustainable development” was officially coined and set as a global leitmotif within the Brundtland report in 1987, this important role remains unshaken throughout the progression of SD and its milestones (UN 1993, 2015). The establishment of sustainability science in the beginning of the twenty-first century as a research field explicitly dedicated to the enterprise of SD further illustrates the strong intertwinement between KG and SD (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003). Similarly germane for the enterprise of SD is education. Environment-related education programs – as a response to the growing ecological challenges – have received increasing attention already in the 1960s (Hume and Barry 2015). First conferences on the topic of environmental education were held in Belgrade (1975) and Tbilisi (1977), exploring ways to “to develop a world population with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations and commitment to work individually and collectively towards solution to current problems and the prevention of any new ones” (Belgrade 1975, p. 3). Seventeen years later, the importance of education for SD was brought forward through the Agenda 21 in 1992, when the UN declared that it “is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues” (UN 1993, chapter 36, 3). A systematic conceptualization of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) was

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

advanced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002 (Johannesburg 2002), followed by the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) from 2005 to 2015. The UNs’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, UN 2015) further cemented the relevance of ESD, recently acknowledged by the UN General Assembly as the “key enabler” (UN 2017) for achieving the SDGs. It represents an educational program allowing people to “develop knowledge, skills, values and behaviours needed for sustainable development” (UNESCO 2018a).The Global Action Program on ESD (UNESCO 2018b) is the UNs’ latest project in pursuing this endeavor. Universities combine both KG and education and have therefore been quickly identified as pivotal actors of SD (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011). As Leal Filho (2015) points out, they majorly contribute to the understanding of the challenges for SD as well as the identification of their possible solutions while also being responsible for the education of future sustainability researchers and other professional actors within the field of sustainability. The latter role was officially embraced by the International Association of Universities (IAU) within the IAU Kyoto Declaration (1993) under the term Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD). It is this double role of universities – to generate and transfer knowledge – which is crucial for the understanding of the relation between KG and SD within Higher Education. It means that the knowledge produced on the topic of sustainability, its related methods as well as its inherent epistemological and methodological assumptions, equally dominate the contents of educational programs for SD. In other words, HESD “‘translates’ research outcomes of sustainability science into educational practices” (Barth et al. 2015, p. 1). And even though it would be too hasty to equate the practice of sustainability science with HESD, their historical convergence and systematic interlocking are well documented (Mochizuki and Yarime 2016). In particular, sustainability science deals with the question of how to convey the “knowledge, skills, values and behaviors” in a

1041

way such that they allow people to promote a transition toward sustainable development, turning (H)ESD in an object of sustainability research on its own (Barth et al. 2015). Therefore, if one aims to understand the relation between KG and SD within Higher Education, an analysis of the practice and development of sustainability science is indispensable. The following sections draw upon such an analysis when discussing the three suggested appearances of KG within HESD and their historical progression.

Phase I: Knowledge Generation as Practice of Scientific Experts In line with the broader societal perception of science and scientific experts, knowledge generation within HESD was – and partly still is – depicted as a practice of scientific experts, whose methods and results are conveyed within educational programs. This this a passive relation between KG and SD, because the audience of such educational programs are not actively involved in the process of KG, but rather passively receive already existing knowledge. As mentioned above, science played a crucial role for the agenda of SD from the very beginning. This is not to say that SD exclusively relies on scientific KG. On the contrary, already the Brundtland report explicitly highlights the importance of “community knowledge” and “public participation” (UN 1983; chapter 2, pg. 77). It also pointed out the varying relevance of knowledge in different areas and ecosystems around the globe (e.g., UN 1983; chapter 4, pg. 66). In addition, sustainability science always emphasized the importance to integrate “stakeholders, advocates, active citizens and users of knowledge [...] to transform knowledge claims into trustworthy, socially-robust, usable knowledge” (Kates et al. 2001, p. 3). However, scientific KG was accorded a prerogative within the agenda of SD. Its evidence-based, methodically controlled approach toward the understanding of the social, economic, and environmental problems and its causes were often deemed superior to traditional forms of knowledge. For example,

K

1042

within the Agenda 21, it is hold that many “traditional beliefs [. . .] provided by a conventional education [. . .] remain ignorant about ways in which they could improve traditional production practices and better protect the natural resource base. Education should therefore provide comprehensive knowledge, encompassing and cutting across the social and natural sciences and the humanities” (UN 1993, chapter 4, pg. 67). Therefore, the conveyance of scientific findings on these matters was considered an essential part in promoting SD in general and within the framework of Higher Education in particular (UN 1983, 1993, 2015; OECD 2007). The justification for this predominance of scientific KG is simple: human-environmental interactions and the emerging socioeconomic and environmental challenges are extremely complex phenomena (Marten 2001). Understanding these phenomena requires a considerable amount of theoretical, technological, and methodical expertise in itself. Without such expertise, sustainability-related topics remain largely obscure and incomprehensible as the case of anthropogenic climate change clearly exemplifies (Hulme 2009). Many laypeople lack the necessary knowledge to sufficiently penetrate these subjects (Sezen-Barrie et al. 2017), leaving scientific experts at the frontline in defining and promoting SD (Oreskes 2004). In this regard, the scientific community behind SD can be construed as a mode I society in the sense of philosopher of science Michael Gibbons and colleagues (1994), defined as a form of KG led by academic experts discovering objective facts while working within distinct scientific disciplines. This form of KG is also reflected within HESD. During the last decades, sustainability research has produced a range of quasicanonical knowledge that constitutes the basis for making the next generation of sustainability experts. In forms of numerous handbooks, lectures, and seminars conveying fundamental theories, concepts, and methods deemed important for understanding sustainability-related topics, this knowledge has found access into curricula of Higher Education. Sustainability researchers

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

Armin Wiek and Daniel Lang hold, for example, that “systems thinking and modeling, applied to past, current, and future sustainability problems” (32) constitute a dominant methodological approach in sustainability research that is hence conveyed within HESD. Also, natural sciences, particularly ecology and chemistry, as well as quantitative statistical methods, play an important role in sustainability curricula. Admittedly, contemporary research on HESD seems to agree that the exclusive conveyance of such canonical knowledge is neither sufficient nor pedagogically wise in order to prepare future generations for bringing forward a transition to sustainable development (e.g., Barth et al. 2015; Brundiers and Wiek 2017). It echoes a long-lasting discourse avowing the limits of scientific research within disciplinary boundaries, the necessity to open sustainability research to other forms of KG, and stronger consideration of building skills and competencies within ESD (e.g., Brundiers et al. 2010; Prain 2011; the next section will come back to this matter). Nonetheless, there is also emphasis on the relevance of canonical content in academic curricula and expert knowledge on SD that needs to be transferred to students (Tytler 2011; Thorén and Breian 2016). In fact, it is not least the continuous claims to transform HESD toward a participative, inter- and transdisciplinary, skills- and competence-oriented enterprise that reflects the continuing widespread status quo of expert-made content knowledge within HESD (Brundiers and Wiek 2017). In sum, the passive relation between KG and SD has always played – and still plays – an important role within HESD, even though it seems to stand in contrast to certain core ideas of (E)SD and is strongly disputed within research on HESD. Critics stemming from sustainability science repeatedly emphasize that the conveyance of scientific theories, concepts, and methods is not sufficient for empowering students to propel SD. In particular, real-world sustainability challenges are considered too complex as to restrict their solution to monodisciplinary scientific thinking. What is suggested instead is nothing less but a transformation of knowledge generation within the framework of SD.

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

Phase II: Toward Integrative and Transdisciplinary Knowledge Generation In their book The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research and contemporary science (1994), Gibbons and colleagues construed the aforementioned mode I knowledge generation society as opposed to another, more evolved form of KG they called mode II society. The latter form of KG differs from the first in at least five aspects (Martens 2006): KG in mode I society mainly is an academic practice, led by experts with monodisciplinary backgrounds producing epistemically certain knowledge with a predictive potential for future developments. In contrast to that, in a mode II society, knowledge is generated in a participative process including social actors from inter- and transdisciplinary contexts. Its aim is less predictive but rather exploratory, looking for socially robust (e.g., Nowotny 2003) solutions to real-world challenges instead of striving for epistemic certainty. The idea of mode II KG was constitutive for the genesis of sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001; Martens 2006). Not only was the inter- and transdisciplinary approach toward the solution of real-world sustainability challenges an explicit conceptual part of sustainability science, it also reflected in the actual research practice. Scholars construed this practice as a “mutual learning process” (Scholz 2001) in which different knowledge systems are reconciled and merged into a more complete understanding of complex sustainability-related issues. Of course, such an approach posed challenges to the various actors involved, thereby adding further complexity to KG processes: for example, not all participants might possess the same level of problem awareness, it is unclear what exactly legitimizes actors to participate in concrete KG processes, and a constructive integration of different knowledge backgrounds is far from being trivial (Lang et al. 2011). However, given both the complexity and urgency of the social, economic, and environmental problems humanity is facing in the twenty-first century, this mode of KG seemed to be without alternative. Besides, its application turned out to be quite promising (Cash et al. 2003), especially when experience with

1043

transdisciplinary, mutual learning processes grew and related difficulties could be systematically avoided (Vilsmaier et al. 2015; Clark et al. 2016). In line with this development is the integration of previously neglected forms of knowledge and a reconsideration of the concept of knowledge itself. While knowledge in mode I society is largely reduced to an epistemic dimension and needs to be explicable in order to guarantee its intersubjectively comprehensible endeavor, transdisciplinary sustainability research is guided by a more differentiated understanding of knowledge. The distinction between systems, target, and transformation knowledge has been particularly influential within sustainability science (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007), referring to knowledge about the genesis and prospective development of real-world problems (systems knowledge), ideas of better practices and alternatives (target knowledge), and knowledge about the means to realize these ideas (transformation knowledge). Obviously, such a distinction allows to take knowledge systems into account that do not (necessarily) accomplish with scientific knowledge criteria, such as indigenous (Dixon 2005) or tacit knowledge (Curry and Kirwan 2014). As a consequence, actors possessing such knowledge become a valuable resource for KG processes. The shift in the conception of KG from mode I to mode II effected the HESD in two different ways. For one, students were not seen as bare recipients of allegedly canonical knowledge, but were considered as active participants in the process of KG, holding useful expertise in the solution of concrete sustainability-related challenges (Brundiers and Wiek 2011). For another, passive conveyance was not considered as an adequate preparation for future sustainability professionals in order to take their responsibility as sustainability promoters anymore. (H)ESD thereby reacted to a broader paradigm shift from “Teaching to learning” within the Western (especially academic) educational system (Barr and Tagg 1995). This shift considered the pure conveyance of input knowledge ineffective. Instead, an orientation toward the output of learning, especially the obtainment of skills and competences, as the overall aim of education was focused. For ESD, this paradigm shift

K

1044

turned out to be particularly relevant, as many existing educational programs in this field could not equip students with the required skills for their work as sustainability professionals (MacDonald and Shriberg 2016). Against this backdrop, the development of skills and competences, the generation of tacit knowledge, was emphasized within HESD, again moving students into an active role in the process of KG. Real-world problem-based learning scenarios became particularly promising in this regard, as they combined students’ active role in crafting usable knowledge while at the same time allowing them to acquire the tacit knowledge needed in professional sustainability work (Brundiers et al. 2010). Many scholars still advance the shift toward the active relation between KG and SD in Higher Education (e.g., Brundiers and Wiek 2017). Notwithstanding this tendency, it would be wrong to assume that the active relation is entirely replacing the passive relation between KG and SD in Higher Education. As mentioned before, canonical content knowledge is still an important part of HESD programs (Tytler 2011). Some scholars also explicitly raise doubts concerning mode II knowledge production and point to the limits of transdisciplinary KG (Miller 2013; Thorén and Breian 2016). Wiek and Lang (2016) suggest that the field of sustainability science can roughly be differentiated into two distinct research streams: “a ‘descriptive-analytical’ and a ‘transformational’ one” (p. 31). While the descriptive-analytical stream rather represents the passive relation between KG and SD in Higher Education, the transformational stream more strongly epitomizes its active relation. The argument here is that in the last years, the predominance of the passive form of KG with HESD has been steadily shifted toward a stronger consideration of the active form, while still leaving the first as an important constituent of HESD.

Phase III: The Reflexive Turn of Knowledge Generation for Sustainable Development While the debate on how to conceptualize KG within HESD goes on, voices have recently been

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

raised that inter- and transdisciplinary thinking and the focus on (professional) skills and competencies are not sufficient to provide the aspired transformation toward SD. The sustainability challenges humanity is facing are indeed greater and more complicated than ever before, and (H) ESD has so far failed to counteract this tendency on a substantial level (Sol and Wals 2015; Wamsler et al. 2017). What is recommended is a reflexive turn within sustainability-related knowledge production and Higher Education programs and the inclusion of contemplative (especially mindfulness) practices to initiate this turn (e.g., Frank and Fischer 2018; Wamsler 2018). The recommendation is based on the observation that the aforementioned understandings of knowledge generation have somewhat omitted to take the individual cognitive part of KG processes into account. In regard to the passive relation between KG and SD, it is presupposed that students can undistortedly obtain content knowledge deemed important for their professional education. When actors come to allegedly wrong beliefs, as, for example, climate change denial, this is explained as a lack of relevant content knowledge (Sezen-Barrie et al. 2017). In case of the active relation, the situation is similar. On the one hand, the orientation toward skills, competences, and tacit knowledge considers an individual dimension of KG. On the other hand, however, the challenge of integrating various forms of knowledge in mutual learning processes is mainly described as a problem of different methodological backgrounds and epistemic standards that need to be reconciled through internal facilitation and mediation as well as a continuous discourse and understanding on such processes (see, e.g., Lang et al. 2011). The way individuals perceive these processes, how they deal with the exchanged information, and what factors influence these dealings are not explicitly elaborated. Against this backdrop, the reflexive turn is a reminder that both forms of KG described above always imply an individual dimension of knowledge production, the process in which an individual is confronted with external information and translates this information into new knowledge representations (Strube and Wender 1993). It

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

claims that both the passive and the active relation between KG and SD heavily rely on rational, discursive knowledge processing, although nonrational factors, such as emotions, motivations, and unconscious assumptions, play a crucial part in individual KG and strongly influence the way we deal with explicit forms of knowledge, such as facts, arguments, etc. Evidence from different disciplines support this claim. The concept of cognitive biases, the theories of situated cognition and epistemic contextualism, or the work on personal epistemology constitute three well-researched examples. Cognitive biases describe the phenomenon that “individuals draw inferences or adopt beliefs where the evidence for doing so in a logically sound manner is either insufficient or absent” (Haselton et al. 2005, p. 725). Several cognitive biases have been proposed to explicate how nonrational factors distort our reasoning and beliefshaping processes (see Pohl 2004 for an overview), among which the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), defense motivations (Masterson and Crawford 1982), the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm 1966), or the confirmation bias (Nickerson 1998) represent some popular appearances. According to the defenders of situated cognition, knowledge must be viewed as contextually and as “fundamentally influenced by the activity, context, and culture in which it is used” (McLellan 1996, p. 6). In opposition to the still common idea that attitudes, beliefs, and the like represent some sort of stable personality trait, situated cognition argues that such representations are contextsensitive (Robbins and Aydede 2008). Furthermore, the discourse built on these cognitions can change from one situation to another, underlining the importance of contextual factors in real-life interactive knowledge formation and information exchange (van Dijk 2009). Such factors potentially include mutable practical interests, affects, and emotions (e.g., Smith and Semin 2007). The theory of epistemic contextualism adds to this observation that the epistemic normativity (Stanley 2005) varies with different social contexts. In other words, the conditions of what counts as knowledge differ from one situation to another. A third body of evidence concerning the relevance of nonrational factors

1045

stems from research on personal epistemology. Several scholars (for an overview see Hofer and Pintrich 2002) argued that the way people develop knowledge directly depends on the beliefs these people hold about what knowledge is. In other words, epistemic assumptions guide the assimilation of new information we face. The lack of consideration of the influence of nonrational components on KG within HESD is particularly surprising, because they seem to be especially relevant for SD. This becomes particularly pertinent concerning consumer behavior: Several scholars have pointed out that affectivemotivational factors play an important role both on individuals’ consumer behavior and their dealings with information on consumption (e.g., Schütte and Gregory-Smith 2015; Power et al. 2017). There is strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that facing the current and prospective consequences of contemporary western consumption prompts negative emotions among consumers, leading to cognitive dissonances, neutralizations, or other distortive mechanisms allowing to avoid a confrontation with such negative emotions (Chatzidakis et al. 2007; Sommer 2007; Frank 2017). More generally, educational psychologist Krista Muis et al. (2015) demonstrate how epistemic assumptions and emotions unconsciously effect the way people perceive texts on climate change, leading to the acceptance or refusal of related statements independently of their epistemic quality. This evidence explains further findings that a purely rational discursive approach toward strongly emotional topics, such as sustainable consumption, is not conducive (Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004) and can even entail the stabilization of non-sustainable beliefs (Haidt 2001). To the given moment, however, a systematic consideration of nonrational components influencing individual KG within HESD remains scarce. To address this gap, some scholars have recently introduced the reflexive relation between KG and SD. Instead of producing knowledge deemed relevant for fostering SD, this relation focuses on the way individuals produce sustainability-related knowledge and how they assimilate new information on the topic. Of special interest in this matter are factors influencing the individual KG process

K

1046

that usually remain unconscious (Haidt 2001). By increasing the awareness of such factors, such as emotions, motivations, or unconscious assumptions, they can be made transparent and addressed (Gibson and Wisner 2016), thereby improving the individual’s self-determination in dealing with new information and hence improving the conditions for mutual learning processes. Contemplative practices, especially mindfulness practices as the most prominent and most intensively researched, have turned out to be particularly promising to increase the awareness of such factors (Dorjee 2016). They describe a practice of cultivating “unbiased awareness that emerges through intentionally and continuously paying attention to subjective momentary experience with an open, accepting, benevolent, and compassionate attitude” (Böhme et al. 2016, p. 6). In recent years, these practices have been sporadically introduced into HESD contexts in general (Wamsler et al. 2017) and as a tool to reflect KG processes in particular (Gibson and Wisner 2016; Frank and Fischer 2018; Wamsler 2018). Sustainability researchers Pascal Frank and colleagues provide first evidence that the systematic reflection of individual knowledge production through mindfulness training can indeed enable students to improve their awareness for personal knowledge generation processes, allowing them to deal with new and especially opposing arguments and opinions in a more open and empathic way (Frank and Fischer 2018; Frank et al. forthcoming). Summarizing, the reflexive relation between KG and SD is still at the very beginning. Nevertheless, a growing body of research emphasizes the importance of undertaking the reflexive turn within (H)ESD. Current studies indicate that such a reflexive orientation toward knowledge production is promising and in some cases even indispensable for promoting sustainable development, as it lays the grounds for more constructive mutual learning processes. Furthermore, the explicit inclusion of nonrational factors in HESD is a further step toward fulfilling the increasing demand for the adoption of a holistic educational approach, combining professional education “with personal development and growth” through accounting for “cognitive, affective, and psychomotor dimensions of learning” (Brundiers and Wiek 2017, p. 2).

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

Concluding Remarks This entry has sketched the relation between knowledge generation and sustainable development as it is experienced by students within HESD. It was suggested that three appearances of this relation can be distinguished, namely, a passive, an active, and a reflexive relation. In the passive relation, canonical content knowledge is conveyed to students, the process of KG thereby depicted as an activity requiring a theoretical and methodical expertise obtained through scientific education. The active relation includes students in KG processes. They actively participate in the solution of real-world, sustainability-related problems, which also allows them to build skills and competencies deemed relevant for their future professional life. The reflexive relation does not aim to – neither actively nor passively – build usable knowledge for sustainable development. It rather provides formats in which students observe their individual KG processes and obtain insights into the content-independent factors influencing these processes. These three appearances were described as phases of the relation between KG and SD: While the first appearance initially dominated, a clear tendency toward the second appearance can be observed. The third appearance was suggested as a prospective orientation within HESD. This does not imply, however, that the reflexive relation is per se more important or should hold some sort of prerogative within HESD. The statement is that this relation has been neglected so far, although accounting for the individual dimension of KG can lever both the passive and active relation and might sometimes even be a prerequisite to constructive knowledge production for sustainable development. All these relations are valuable for promoting SD and should therefore be represented within HESD. The here-presented distinction between the passive, active, and reflexive relation between KG and SD is an analytical one, providing a rough approximation on the matter rather than being a fully differentiated depiction of its complex reality. This entails that in practice, the described relations between KG and SD can intersect, and concrete formats within HESD might

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

encompass aspects of all of them. The practical value of their analytical distinction is to identify the dominant understanding within specific formats and to allow a systematic integration of other types of KG if this is envisaged. It is also worth noticing that much of this entry heavily relied on the predominant understanding of SD as it is outlined by the United Nations (UN 1972, 1983, 2015). This seems justified due to the incontestable impact of this understanding. Nonetheless, it should be considered that the concept sustainable development can be used in very different ways (Hopwood et al. 2005; Michelsen 2016), and alternatives to the UNs’ most recent sustainable development goals exist (see, e.g., Wackernagel et al. 2017). Within these alternatives, the relation between KG and SD might in fact appear quite differently from what was described here. For example, philosopher Arne Næss foresaw the integration of contemplative practices and an orientation toward holistic learning process already in 1972 when he founded his deep ecology. The idea of the reflexive relation hence even precedes the beginning of the global SD agenda. However, it is also true that these ideas have not dominated HESD until today, and describing the dominant development of KG and SD within Higher Education is the aim of this entry.

References Barr RB, Tagg J (1995) From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Chang Mag High Learn 27(6):12–26 Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) (2015) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Belgrade (1975) International workshop on environmental education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0002/ 000276/027608eb.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2018 Bettencourt LM, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. PNAS 108(49):19540–19545 Böhme T, Geiger SM, Grossman P, Stanszus L, Schrader U (2016) Arbeitsdefinition von Achtsamkeit im Projekt BiNKA, Technical paper. Technische Universität, Berlin Available from: http://achtsamkeit-und-konsum.de/ en/publications2/ Brehm JW (1966) Theory of psychological reactance. Academic, New York

1047 Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in realworld sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36(2):107–124 Brundiers K, Wiek A (2017) Beyond interpersonal competence: teaching and learning professional skills in sustainability. Educ Sci 7(39):1–18 Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CH (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324 Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091 Chatzidakis, Hibbert S, Smith AP (2007) Why people don‘t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: the role of neutralisation. J Bus Ethics 74:89–100 Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS 100(14):8059–8061 Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin C (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113(17):4570–4578 Curry N, Kirwan J (2014) The role of tacit knowledge in developing networks for sustainable agriculture. Sustain Agric 54(3):341–361 Dixon AB (2005) Wetland sustainability and the evolution of indigenous knowledge in Ethiopia. Geogr J 171(4):306–323 Dorjee D (2016) Defining contemplative science: the metacognitive self-regulatory capacity of the mind, context of meditation practice and modes of existential awareness. Front Psychol 7(1788):1–15 Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3(2):83–96 Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford Frank P (2017). Warum wir Tiere essen (obwohl wir sie mögen): Sozialpsychologische Erklärungsansätze für das Fleischparadox. Psychosozial 40(148):49–69 Frank P, Fischer D (2018) Introspektion und Bildung für nachhaltigen Konsum: Ein Lehr-Lern-Format zur systematischen Selbsterforschung in der Auseinandersetzung mit Argumenten zum Konsum tierischer Produkte – Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. In: Leal W (ed) Nachhaltigkeit in der Lehre: eine Herausforderung für Hochschulen. Springer, Wiesbaden Frank P, Sundermann A, Fischer D (forthcoming) Stimulating competence acquisition for sustainable consumption through cultivating introspection in mindfulness training in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research and contemporary science. Sage, Newbury Park Gibson T, Wisner B (2016) ‘Lets talk about you. . .’ – opening space for local experience, action and learning

K

1048 in disaster risk reduction. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 25(5):664–684 Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834 Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW (2005) The evolution of cognitive bias. In: Buss DM (ed) The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 724–746 Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13(1):38–52 Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Hume T, Barry J (2015) Environmental education and education for sustainable development. Int Encycl Soc Behav Sci 7:733–739 International Association of Universities (IAU). Kyoto declaration on sustainable development. http://www. iau-hesd.net/sites/default/files/documents/sustainable_ development_policy_statement.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2018 Johannesburg (2002) Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development. https://joburg.org.za/pdfs/johannes burgdeclaration.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018 Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, Hall J, Jaeger C et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642 Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2011) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(suppl. 1):25–43 Leal Filho W (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. Working across disciplines. Springer, Cham MacDonald L, Shriberg M (2016) Sustainability leadership programs in higher education: alumni outcomes and impacts. J Environ Stud Sci 6:360–370 Marten GG (2001) Human ecology – basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications, London Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41 Masterson FA, Crawford M (1982) The defense motivation system: a theory of avoidance behavior. Behav Brain Sci 5(4):661–675 McMellan H (1996) Situated learning: multiple perspectives. In: McMellan (ed) Situated learning perspectives. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 5–17 Michelsen G (2016) Sustainable development: Background and context. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds). (2016) Sustainability science. An introduction. Springer, Dordrecht, 5–29 Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development Mochizuki, Yarime (2016) In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds). (2015) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London Muis KR, Pekrun R, Sinatra GM, Azevedo R, Tevors G, Meier E, Heddy BC (2015) The curious case of climate change: testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learn Instr 39:168–183 Næss A (1972) Shallow and the deep. Inquiry, Oslo Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation Bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220 Nowotny H (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci Public Policy 30(3):151–156 Oreskes N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702):1686 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) Higher education for sustainable development. Final report of international action research project. https://www.oecd.org/education/ innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenviron mentscele/45575516.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018 Pohl R (ed) (2004) Cognitive illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press, London Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom, München Power N, Beattie G, McGuire L (2017) Mapping our underlying cognitions and emotions about good environmental behavior: why we fail to act despite the best of intentions. Semiotica 215:193–234 Prain V (2011) Acting on sustainability. Res Sci Educ 4(1):149–154 Robbins P, Aydede M (eds) (2008) The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Scholz RW (2001) The mutual learning sessions. In: Thompson Klein J, Häberli R, Scholz RW, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Springer, Basel, pp 117–129 Schütte L, Gregory-Smith D (2015) Neutralisation and mental accounting in ethical consumption: the case of sustainable holidays. Sustainability 7:7959–7972 Sezen-Barrie A, Shea N, Borman JH (2017) Probing into the sources of ignorance: science teachers’ practices of constructing arguments or rebuttals to denialism of climate change. Environ Educ Res 0–21. https://doi. org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1330949 Smith ER, Semin GR (2007) Situated social cognition. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16(3):132–135 Sol J, Wals AE (2015) Strengthening ecological mindfulness through hybrid learning in vital coalitions. Cult Stud Sci Educ 10(1):203–214 Sommer R (2007) Consumer’s mind: Die Psychologie des Verbrauchers. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt am Main Stanley J (2005) Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Strube G, Wender KF (eds) (1993) The cognitive psychology of knowledge. Advances in psychology, vol 103. New Holland, Amsterdam Tenbrunsel AE, Messick DM (2004) Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Soc Justice Res 17(2):223–236 Thorén H, Breian L (2016) Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56:71–81 Tytler R (2011) Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Scienc Education. Res Sci Educ 42:155–163 United Nations (UN) (1972) Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 16 June 1972. Available: http://www. unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID¼97& ArticleID¼1503. Accessed 4 Jan 2018 UN (1993) Agenda 21: the United Nations programme of action from Rio: Earth Summit. New York UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015. New York UN (2017) General assembly 11 December 2017: sustainable development: education for sustainable development. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ GEN/N17/435/17/PDF/N1743517.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 13 Feb 2018 UNESCO (1977) Tbilisi Declaration. https://www.gdrc. org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2018 UNESCO (2018a) Education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-deve lopment. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 UNESCO (2018b) Global action programme on education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/gap. Accessed 12 Jan 2018 van Dijk T (2009) Society and discourse: how social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Vilsmaier U, Engbers M, Luthardt P, Maas-Deipenbrock RM, Wunderlich S, Scholz RW (2015) Case-based Mutual Learning Sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain Sci 10:563–580 Wackernagel M, Hanscom L, Lin D (2017) Making the sustainable development goals consistent with sustainability. Front Energy Res 5:18–18 Wamsler C (2018) Mind the gap: the role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate change. Sustain Sci 13:1121–1135 Wamsler C, Brossmann J, Hendersson H, Kristjansdottir R, McDonald C, Scarampi P (2018) Mindfulness in sustainability science, practice, and teaching. Sustain Sci 13(1):143–162 Wiek A, Lang D (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds). (2016) Sustainability science. An introduction. Springer, Dordrecht

1049

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Jack Wu1, Man Fung Lo1 and Artie W. Ng2 1 School of Professional Education and Executive Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong 2 School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Definition Knowledge management can be broadly referred to as the process of creating, utilizing, sharing, storing, and managing knowledge and information within an organization to achieve its objectives. It draws upon interdisciplinary literature from business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences.

Introduction Dynamic external environments continue to evolve in various sectors, while the education sector is not immune from such rapid changes among the externalities that are concerned about sustainability. In the recent years, it is observed that higher education institutions have continued to develop in an unsustainable way and resisted to change (Lozano et al. 2013). Nowadays, these institutions face keen competitions from both local and overseas players, which raise a number of challenges like student enrollment, graduates’ employability, and research grant applications. Prior studies argue that knowledge management (KM) can play an important role in addressing the issue of sustainability and in turn enhancing institutional competitive advantage. This entry provides a critical review on how KM facilitates organizational sustainability. First, it reviews the contemporary development in KM and sustainability. Second, it discusses the role of leadership in KM and sustainable development. At the

K

1050

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

macro-level, the impact of leadership on human capitals and sustainability is analyzed. In addition, both transformational leadership and strategic leadership are reviewed at micro-level. Third, it presents the tacit and explicit knowledge for sustainability. In the era of information technology, it is important to look into the exploitation of technology for KM and sustainable development. And lastly, it provides a discussion on KM, innovation, and sustainability followed by the concluding remarks.

sustainability principles into practices, organizations can harvest their fruits – i.e., improving the overall organizational performance (Robinson et al. 2006). The aforementioned maturity roadmap by Robinson et al. (2006) was named as “STEPS,” and each letter represented a certain level of KM maturity (Start-up, Take-off, Expansion, Progressive, and Sustainability). For organizations with the highest maturity level (Sustainability stage), KM is integrated, diffused, and embedded into everywhere (objectives, culture, processes, behaviors, etc.). As a result, knowledge assets are wellmanaged and reported, resulting in better corporate governance (Robinson et al. 2006). In a subsequent study by Baumgartner and Ebner (2010), the relationship between KM and corporate sustainability is explored. At the micro-level, corporate sustainability was divided into three perspectives: economic, ecological, and social. According to this study, KM was classified as economic aspect, while the human capital was considered as the social dimension. With appropriate KM activities, individual and organizational knowledge can be kept properly and ultimately improve the organizational knowledge base. Organizations apply these knowledges to avoid making mistakes; as a result, they are relatively more prepared to sustain in the market for a longer time. Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) also point out that training, mentoring, and continuous professional development play a crucial role in human capital management. Human capital management equips organizations to face challenges or whatever may come. In the same vein, Jamal and Saif (2011, p. 58) put forward that human capital management enhances employees’ satisfaction which resulted in customer loyalty which in turn enhances financial performance. In higher education, if prestigious scholars and outstanding academics are offered with various kinds of development and research opportunities, their satisfaction are enhanced, and students can benefit from taking their courses. These higher education institutions can then develop in a sustainable way. Another perspective is about innovation. Ng and Chatzkel (2015) suggested that KM should be adopted to enhance long-term business

Contemporary Development of KM and Sustainability Over the past century, there have been studies around the theme of KM and sustainability. Contemporary studies argue that organizations lose competitive advantages if they do not practice sustainability principles. Sustainability requires organizations to accumulate extensive trial and error learning and to build up organizational knowledge base for problem-solving (Metcalf and Benn 2013). To promote the corporate sustainability, Robinson et al. (2006) proposed a maturity roadmap to facilitate the KM strategic implementation. The study considered knowledge and other tangible assets as the roots of organizations. Generally, the roots are classified into three categories: structural capital, human capital, and customer capital. In the context of higher education, quality research, patents, relevant tuition programs, culture, and technological support are some examples of structural capital (Kok 2007; Purgailis and Zaksa 2012). Moreover, human capital refers to the institutional ability to retain or attract staff of good caliber, well-qualified academics, and administrative professionals and the implementation of effective staff and student equity measures (Kok 2007; Wu et al. 2012). Furthermore, Kok (2007) listed that both the highly visible positive institutional image and the institutional ability to attract good students are considered as a sort of customer capital in higher education sector. Effective KM enabled organizations to leverage these roots so as to transform themselves into learning organizations. By putting

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

1051

performance. Captured knowledge, including mistakes and successful experience, facilitates systematic innovation and finally improves the corporate sustainability (Ng and Chatzkel 2015). In a later study by Lopes et al. (2017), authors argued that KM enhanced the ideas exchange among different stakeholders. With good absorptive capacity, organizations can transform creative ideas into sustainable innovations (Chen and Chang 2012; Lopes et al. 2017). With new products or processes, organizations can continue to survive or compete in the industry. In higher education, this concept is best illustrated with a study by Kaiser et al. (2016) that demonstrates the significance of KM in sustainability research.

“learning in context” facilitates principals to train up future leaders (Fullan 2002). Furthermore, principals play a larger role in training quality teachers. Without quality teachers, there will not be any quality educational leaders in the future. Such concept is aligned with the abovementioned human capital idea. Several recent studies were also conducted to examine leadership, KM, and sustainability (Dimmock and Tan 2013; Gloet 2006; Hannay et al. 2013). To support sustainability, Gloet (2006) advocates a framework – linking KM and HRM – to enhance the leadership development capability in organizations. The framework is composed of roles, relationships, strategic focus, and learning focus. First, the study puts forward that new HRM role included knowledge facilitators who emphasized on learning and development. HRM is also expected to develop sustaining organizational capabilities with different stakeholders (i.e., relationship). The strategic focus of new HRM would be placed on the management of human capital and knowledge. For the learning focus, new HRM plays a significant role in creating and sustaining learning environment for employee development. Hannay et al. (2013) utilize a case study to examine how educational leaders adopted KM for educational change in Canada. To cope with the changing expectations of stakeholders, educational leaders in one Canadian district would work together as knowledge leaders, implement KM initiatives, and transform the district into a learning organization. Such change management enabled schools to be more responsive to continual external changes (Hannay et al. 2013). Those knowledge leaders would effectively enhance the culture for sustainable school improvement. According to Crowther et al. (2002), contemporary educational leadership includes transformational leadership, strategic leadership, educative leadership, and organizational leadership. This paper draws on previous studies and puts the emphasis on transformational leadership and strategic leadership. First, a quantitative study was conducted by Noruzy et al. (2013), and the results proved that transformational leadership has positive impacts on KM, organizational

Role of Leadership in KM and Sustainable Development Sustainability can be achieved through effective KM strategy and initiatives. This section aims to examine the role of leadership in KM and its impact on human capital and sustainable development. Fullan (2002) argued that school principals played an important role in knowledge sharing and school sustainable development. The study discussed five sustainable leadership characteristics: moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation, and sharing and coherence making. Moral purpose is defined as the intention of making a positive difference in the (social) environment (Fullan 2002, p. 415). For instance, if a school principal develops measures to minimize the gap between high-performance students and lowperformance students, moral purpose is achieved and thus creates a sustainable system (i.e., a system that regenerate itself continuously). Fullan (2002) also emphasizes that knowledge sharing will not sustain without moral qualities. In the study, the second issue about leadership and sustainability is “learning in context.” Educational leaders should participate in leadership development, continue to improve their own school systems, and make them sustainable. As sustainability also depends on leaders at different levels (for instance, program level, subject level, etc.),

K

1052

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

learning, and organizational innovation. Transformational leaders possess the attributes of trust, charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration of employee (Bass and Avolio 2000). Noruzy et al. (2013) point out that transformational leaders are capable of integrating different processes and developed the learning organization. These leaders also actively motivate and inspire their followers to identify, share, acquire, and implement knowledge; therefore, innovation solutions could be developed. To sum up, transformational leaders play a crucial role in enhancing organizational innovation through KM and organizational learning. As mentioned in the previous section, innovation is one of the keys for organization to achieve sustainability. Further, transformational leadership is proven to be a significant factor of KM and organizational performance in Bahrain (Birasnav 2014). In an academic environment, Mahdi and Almsafir (2014) hypothesize that strategic leadership is a key antecedent of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic leaders should have a thorough understanding on both internal processes and external environment. As a result, these leaders are able to interact with multifaceted stakeholder groups, to provide strategic directions, and to position the institutions. Quantitative data were collected from private universities in Iraq, and the data showed that strategic leadership capabilities facilitate the development of both human capital and social capital and, in turn, enhance the sustainable competitive advantage.

knowledge generated and stored in the human mind through developing mental models of a particular domain which is difficult to be codified, formalized, and transferred (Nonaka 1991). Tacit knowledge is commonly managed using the personalization strategy and disseminated through face-to-face communications. Tacit knowledge is sometimes referred to as know-how (Kogut and Zander 1992; Nonaka 1991) which describes a process in practical situations. The characteristics of tacit knowledge enable it to be a source of sustainable advantage of organizations because of its immobility and inimitability (Ambrosini and Bowman 2001); it is also said to be “externally safe” (Hall and Andriani 2003) because competing organizations are difficult to comprehend and imitate. In higher education institutions, making the best use of individual’s tacit knowledge is one of the core tasks to develop a competitive advantage in the fast-changing environment (Palmer et al. 2010) in which the objective is to transfer the human capital into intellectual capital (Teh and Yong 2011). Higher education institutions should therefore provide an environment and culture which encourages knowledge sharing between different individuals, teams, and departments on a regular basis (Geromin 2015). Interdisciplinary communications are in particular important as they can stimulate the generation of novel ideas which originates from interactions of thoughts (i.e., tacit knowledge) in a variety of domains. In this regard, facilitating the flow of tacit knowledge should receive a higher attention than storing knowledge in databases and archives within an organization (Leistner 2010; Geromin 2015). However, since tacit knowledge exists in the individuals’ mind and is difficult to codify and duplicate, the loss of human capital (e.g., employee leave) will result in the loss of tacit knowledge, therefore making an organization “internally vulnerable” (Hall and Andriani 2003). On the other hand, explicit knowledge is managed using the codification strategy which makes knowledge easy to store, transfer, and communicate with others through electronic means. As everyone within the organization can easily access the knowledge stored in the databases, explicit knowledge is said to be “internally safe” (Hall

Tacit and Explicit Knowledge for Sustainability In a knowledge-based economy, the sustainability of an organization is dominantly determined by its ability to create, store, transfer, and manage knowledge (Nonaka 1994). The two types of knowledge, tacit and explicit, have been well studied in the literature (Polanyi 1967; Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Ambrosini and Bowman 2001; Jasimuddin 2004; Jasimuddin et al. 2005). Tacit knowledge refers to the

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

1053

and Andriani 2003). In higher education institutions, knowledge management systems utilizing information and communication technologies allow individuals to create knowledge through discussions, transfer knowledge through sharing of electronics documents, and discover knowledge through data mining techniques on the databases (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2015). For example, the adoption of learning management systems (Ellis 2009) and document repositories in centralized database servers can make the explicit knowledge readily available and reusable in an institution. However, the use of explicit knowledge requires the investment in information technology to build the electronic and computer infrastructure for the management of such knowledge. This approach is likely to incur a huge expenditure to the organization (Boiral 2002). Moreover, as explicit knowledge can be transferred and duplicated easily, there is a risk of being imitated by competitors. Hall and Andriani (2003) refer to explicit knowledge as “externally vulnerable.” The advantages and disadvantages of tacit and explicit knowledge are summarized thoroughly in Jasimuddin et al. (2005) which is shown below in Table 1. Jasimuddin et al. (2005) further put forward the symbiosis knowledge management strategy which solves disadvantages when using either tacit or explicit knowledge. The symbiosis strategy combines both tacit and explicit knowledge through the development of an organizational culture which makes the knowledge about sustainability internally explicit but externally tacit. The interrelationship between tacit and explicit knowledge, in particular the creation and conversion process, is studied by Nonaka and Konno (1998) in which the SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) model is developed to describe how knowledge (both tacit and explicit) is created, combined, converted, transferred, and shared. An exploratory framework is proposed by Ng and Chatzkel (2015) which illustrates the key elements for improving corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability in an organization based on the SECI model. In higher education institutions, according to Geromin (2015), socialization refers to the face-to-face communications and shared

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of tacit and explicit knowledge (Jasimuddin et al. 2005)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Tacit knowledge Low risk of imitation No investment in IT High rate of innovation Sense of ambiguity

Difficult to communicate Difficult to store Reluctant to share knowledge No protection through intellectual property rights Loss of knowledge due to labor turnover

Explicit knowledge No loss of knowledge due to labor turnover Can be protected through intellectual property rights Easy to communicate with others Easy to store in databases Huge investment in IT Large space to keep documents (hard copies) High risk of imitation by competitors

experiences among the colleagues in an institution; externalization refers to the combination of shared experiences in which tacit-to-explicit knowledge is happening; combination refers to the creation of prototypes such as training courses and education programs; internalization refers to the process of “learning by doing” in which the explicit knowledge is converted back to tacit knowledge again. The sustainable competitive advantage of an institution can be enhanced through the SECI cycle of knowledge creation and conversion.

Exploitation of Technology for KM and Sustainable Development There is an increasing awareness of using information technology (IT) in providing sustainable development (Van Der Meer and Sinnappan 2008). In this regard, sustainable development

K

1054

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

refers to not only the economic growth but also the social and environmental factors which together formed the triple bottom line (TBL) framework (Slaper and Hall 2011). The main goal of using IT in sustainable development is to maximize the efficiency of the business processes by utilizing the information generated through analyzing a large amount of data collected during the processes. According to Riege and Lindsay (2006), KM had been receiving attention for sustainable development because of its ability to (1) drive efficiencies, (2) develop new systems for easily accessible knowledge base, (3) improve accountability and mitigating risk by making informed decisions, and (4) deliver better and more cost-effective services. As for using IT for sustainability, Waage et al. (2003) argue that there is a high potential for IT to transform businesses into a more efficient, cyclical, networked, and sustainability-oriented system which satisfies the TBL framework. Their study identifies four strategies for achieving the goal using IT: (1) building a real e-company through dematerialization and digitization; (2) maximizing efficiency through sensors and computerized controls; (3) creating tools though the combination of database, software, the Internet, and sustainability ideas to manage the supply chain for minimal social and environmental impacts; and (4) redesigning products by using a smarter and more connected system which enables to build better businesses. Sheats (2000) suggests the use of Internet-enabled services for building new sustainable technologies and business models in developing countries. Although the future is bright in using IT to build better KM systems for sustainable development, Van Der Meer and Sinnappan (2008) point out the potential problem regarding the power consumption and heat production of IT equipment. To support the three fundamental processes of KM which are knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization (Alavi and Leidner 2001), sophisticated computing systems are required. As a result, organizations have to invest upfront the infrastructure (both hardware and software) for building KM systems. In the era of cloud computing which is an extension to grid

computing and the service-oriented architecture (Mell and Grance 2009), enterprises of various sizes can afford to develop and own their KM systems. With the service models in cloud computing (Mell and Grance 2009), (1) Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) in which to provide consumers the processing, storage, and network computing resources, (2) Platform as a Service (PaaS) in which to provide consumers the ability to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications, and (3) Software as a Service (SaaS) in which to provide consumers the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure, up-front investments are no longer required by the organizations. Organizations can pay only for what they actually use without the need for maintaining and monitoring the underlining infrastructure supporting the KM systems. This would greatly benefit organizations which cannot afford the huge up-front investment for KM systems (Aksoy and Algawiaz 2014). The flexibility and elasticity in cloud computing allow organizations to utilize compute resources in an on-demand basis to avoid over-/ underprovisioning of resources. However, there are security concerns in cloud environment in which users of KM systems and applications share resources (Aksoy and Algawiaz 2014). Studies (Mupa et al. 2011; Rosenberg and Foshay 2002) on using KM for sustainable development in the context of higher education institutions demonstrate that adopting KM systems for e-learning (e.g., using learning management systems) provides opportunities for institutions to transform in the fast-changing environment where instant revisions and distribution of classes through the network can be accomplished. Besides, KM systems can support the academic staff within an institution through regular workshops and seminars as the source of knowledge generation and transfer (Mupa et al. 2011).

KM, Innovation, and Sustainability Du Plessis (2007) provides a thorough review in the KM literature which shows that KM plays a key role in innovation within an organization. As

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

1055

Internet technologies advance and the business environment rapidly evolves with shortened product life cycles, the complexity of innovation is increased with the growth of knowledge available to the organizations. Innovation is defined as the creation of new knowledge and ideas for new business consequences (Du Plessis 2007). According to the previous sections, it is clear that KM can foster the creation of new knowledge within an organization (i.e., the SECI model in Nonaka and Konno (1998)), and KM systems are required to facilitate the creation, acquisition, sharing, and utilization of knowledge. Alvesson (2001) further identifies the benefits of using tacit knowledge in an organization in terms of its contribution to innovation. It should be obvious that there is a strong relationship between KM and innovation. Prior studies have continued to reveal that sustainability is a key drive for innovation (Leach et al. 2012; Seebode et al. 2012). Leach et al. (2012) examine the three dimensions in transforming innovation related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are the direction of change, diversity of change, and distribution of change. The direction of change refers to the clear objectives and principles which drive policy and innovation. Diversity refers to the nurturing of a variety forms of innovation (social as well as technological) which enables organizations to cope with uncertainty in the fast-changing environment. Lastly, distribution of change refers to the benefits and impacts different stakeholders will receive as a result of the innovations, as there are always trade-offs. The SDGs can be achieved only with these three dimensions of change being considered thoroughly by organizations and governments. Meanwhile, Seebode et al. (2012) provide a deepened understanding of the innovation management which is required because of the growing pressures and emerging opportunities in the SDGs agenda.

of leadership on human capitals and sustainability is analyzed at the macro-level, while issues with both transformational leadership and strategic leadership are reviewed at the micro-level. It suggests that strategic leadership capabilities facilitate the development of both human capital and social capital and, in turn, enhance both sustainability and competitive advantage of an organization. The two forms of knowledge, tacit and explicit, are presented, and such relationship with sustainability as revealed in prior studies is presented. Innovations in technology, especially cloud computing which allows the flexibility of provisioning compute resources from the cloud providers, are shown to have a large impact on sustainability development. Further, the relationship between KM and innovation and the relationship between innovation and sustainability are articulated. These three elements, which are closely interrelated, complementary with each other, require R&D activities through higher education institutions in collaboration with the private sector. Innovation in technology enhances the development of KM system capabilities for organizations of various sizes, while sustainability is becoming a keen drive for innovation under the agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) being endorsed by various governments. Such meaningful development activities can be operationalized by the higher education institutions that facilitate knowledge transfer in collaboration with various business organizations and other stakeholders around the world.

Cross-References ▶ Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

References Concluding Remarks To conclude, the entry reviews the contemporary development of KM and sustainability as well as the implications for institutions. The impact

Aksoy MS, Algawiaz D (2014) Knowledge management in the cloud: benefits and risks. Int J Comput Appl Technol Res 3(11):718–720 Alavi M, Leidner D (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25(1):107–136

K

1056

Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development

Alvesson M (2001) Knowledge work: ambiguity, image and identity. Hum Relat 54(7):863–896 Ambrosini V, Bowman C (2001) Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization. J Manag Stud 38(6):811–829 Bass B, Avolio BJ (2000) MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire technical report. Sage, Thousand Oaks Baumgartner RJ, Ebner D (2010) Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain Dev 18(2):76–89 Becerra-Fernandez I, Sabherwal R (2015) Knowledge management systems and processes. Routledge, New York Birasnav M (2014) Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: the role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. J Bus Res 67(8):1622–1629 Boiral O (2002) Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Plan 35:291–317 Chen ST, Chang BG (2012) The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on organizational innovation: a study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable. Contemp Manag Res 8(1):27 Crowther F, Ferguson M, Hann L (2002) Developing teacher leaders: how teacher leadership enhances school success, 1st edn. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks Dimmock C, Tan CY (2013) Educational leadership in Singapore: tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. J Educ Adm 51(3):320–340 Du Plessis M (2007) The role of knowledge management in innovation. J Knowl Manag 11(4):20–29 Ellis R (2009) A field guide to learning management systems. American Society of Training and Development, Alexandria Fullan M (2002) The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools. Teach Teach 8(3):409–419 Geromin M (2015) Tacit knowledge sharing at higher education institutions and its impact on the creation of competitive niches. University of Bath, PhD Thesis Gloet M (2006) Knowledge management and the links to HRM: developing leadership and management capabilities to support sustainability. Manag Res News 29(7):402–413 Hall R, Andriani P (2003) Managing knowledge associated with innovation. J Bus Res 56:145–152 Hannay L, Ben Jaafar S, Earl L (2013) A case study of district leadership using knowledge management for educational change. J Organ Change Manag 26(1): 64–82 Jamal W, Saif MI (2011) Impact of human capital management on organizational performance. Eur J Econ Finance Adm Sci 5(34):13309–13315 Jasimuddin SM (2004) Critical assessments of emerging theories of organizational knowledge. In: The 64th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans Jasimuddin SM, Klein JH, Connell C (2005) The paradox of using tacit and explicit knowledge: strategies to face dilemmas. Manag Decis 43(1):102–112

Kaiser DB, Köhler T, Weith T (2016) Knowledge management in sustainability research projects: concepts, effective models, and examples in a multistakeholder environment. Appl Environ Educ Commun 15(1):4–17 Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3:383–396 Kok A (2007) Intellectual capital management as part of knowledge management initiatives at institutions of higher learning. Electron J Knowl Manag 5(2):181–192 Leach M et al (2012) Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol Soc 17(2):11 Leistner F (2010) Mastering organizational knowledge flow. How to make knowledge sharing work. SAS Institute, Hoboken Lopes CM, Scavarda A, Hofmeister LF, Thomé AMT, Vaccaro GLR (2017) An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. J Clean Prod 142:476–488 Lozano R, Lozano FJ, Mulder K, Huisingh D, Waas T (2013) Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. J Clean Prod 48:3–9 Mahdi OR, Almsafir MK (2014) The role of strategic leadership in building sustainable competitive advantage in the academic environment. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 129:289–296 Mell P, Grance T (2009) Draft NIST working definition of cloud computing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg Metcalf L, Benn S (2013) Leadership for sustainability: an evolution of leadership ability. J Bus Ethics 112(3):369–384 Mupa P, Chabaya RA, Chiome C (2011) Knowledge management for sustainable growth and development: implications for higher education. Zimb Int J Open Dist Learn 1(2):99–106 Ng A, Chatzkel J (2015) Knowledge management for CSR and sustainability performance: renewing the business model through systematic innovation for value creation. In: International conference on intellectual capital and knowledge management and organisational learning, p 176 Nonaka I (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harv Bus Rev 69(6):96–104 Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37 Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manag Rev 40(3):40–54 Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press, Oxford Noruzy A, Dalfard VM, Azhdari B, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Rezazadeh A (2013) Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 64(5–8):1073–1085

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development Palmer PJ, Zajonc A, Scribner M (2010) The heart of higher education: a call to renewal. Transforming the academy through collegial conversations. JosseyBass, San Francisco Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London Purgailis M, Zaksa K (2012) The student loyalty as a part of higher education organization’s intellectual capital. New Challenges of Economic and Business Development, May 10–12. University of Latvia, Riga, pp 506–515 Riege A, Lindsay N (2006) Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. J Knowl Manag 10:24–39 Robinson HS, Anumba CJ, Carrillo PM, Al-Ghassani AM (2006) STEPS: a knowledge management maturity roadmap for corporate sustainability. Bus Process Manag J 12(6):793–808 Rosenberg MJ, Foshay R (2002) E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. Perform Improv 41(5):50–51 Seebode D, Jeanrenaud S, Bessant J (2012) Managing innovation for sustainability. R&D Manag 42(3):195–206 Sheats JR (2000) Information technology, sustainable development and developing nations. Greener Manag Int 32:33–42 Slaper TF, Hall TJ (2011) The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus Rev 86(1):4–8 Teh PL, Yong CC (2011) Knowledge sharing in is personnel: organizational behavior’s perspective. J Comput Inf Syst 51:11–21 Van Der Meer R, Sinnappan S (2008) The role of knowledge management in an organisation’s sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the knowledge management international conference, pp 1–6 Waage S, Shah R, Girshick S (2003) Information technology and sustainability: enabling the future. Int J Corp Sustain 10(4):6–7 Wu HY, Chen JK, Chen IS (2012) Ways to promote valuable innovation: intellectual capital assessment for higher education system. Qual Quant 46(5):1377–1391

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development Anette Oxenswärdh Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Quality Technology – Campus Gotland, Uppsala University, Visby, Sweden

Definition Knowledge sharing is an activity through which knowledge as information, skills, or expertise

1057

(both tacit and explicit) is exchanged among people, friends, families, communities or organizations (Serban and Luan 2002; Bukowitz and Williams 1999; Hasmath and Hsu 2016).

Introduction In an increasingly globalized and competitive world, with huge demands on sustainable solutions, we all have to face extremely a complex reality, rapidly changing technologies, and an exponential growth of knowledge. Against this background, it becomes more and more unlikely that a single individual, research group, or organization possesses all of the knowledge required (Howells et al. 2003). In this context, knowing and understanding the drivers and barriers of knowledge sharing becomes an absolute prerequisite for the success of any collaborative effort, particularly in regard to issues of sharing knowledge about and for sustainability. Information technology experts have developed highly sophisticated tools such as groupware, discretionary databases, intranets, knowledge management systems, and workflow technology to support the exchange of organizational insights across time and distance barriers. However, it has become clearer that technology is only one of the ingredients in successful knowledge exchange. The other, if possible even more important, requisite is that of a social and organizational environment which encourages or even enforces knowledge sharing. One important social environment is membership in any organizations and communities where people meet each other and learn both individually and collectively. There are, though, no two organizations that have undergone exactly the same history of learning experiences. Collective knowledge is hard to appropriate by third parties because of its supra-individual character. It is difficult to imitate because it is casually ambiguous, i.e., it is embedded in a complex network of formal and informal interpersonal relationships and in a shared and often unspoken system of norms and beliefs (Sanchez and Heene 1997).

K

1058

Dimensions of Knowledge The definition of data and knowledge has proved to be challenging and has manifested many different priorities (transfer and conversion, external and internal parties, and organizational levels) (Sveiby 1997; Hildreth and Kimble 2002; Wilson 2002; Beynon-Davies 2011). In previous studies, data and knowledge and related factors have often been considered fairly theoretically (Kolb 1984; Huber 1991; Nonaka 1994; Crossan et al. 1999; Cook and Brown 1999) and typing their occurrence or deposit formats (Blackler 1995; Boisot 1995) and the essence (explicit, implicit, tacit; Billett 1996; Nonaka and Konno 1998; Choo 1998; Cook and Brown 1999; Boisot 1998). The concept of knowledge has mostly been seen as quite a set of separate elements (data, knowledge, motives, processes, actors, levels of action) and from different perspectives. When examining the development of organizations’ competence maps, it has been recognized that they also require the evaluation of strategy criteria (what skills should be), personal tasks and qualifications (what are the skills), and technology (ICT, tools) assessment (Kim et al. 2003). Learning in organizations means the organization’s ability to recapture and develop its ways of working. Learning organization consists of a community whose members are constantly reflecting and renewing both their own and their community activities. Thus, the organization will learn and reform itself through its members (Senge 1990). Learning is required by the memory to which data and knowledge are stored. Organizational memory (OM) consists of the storage sites for data and knowledge to which they are stored for further exploitation, such as organizational culture, information systems, people, and operating models (Walsh and Ungson 1991; Robey et al. 2000; Cross and Baird 2000). The concept of competence is not unambiguous, but it often describes the data, skills, and capabilities acquired by different people (Väärälä 1995) and the overall behavior, attitudes, and values (Westerholm 2007). One of many organizational theories of knowledge has established a taxonomic distinction of organizational knowledge along two dimensions:

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

degree of articulation and degree of aggregation (see, e.g., Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Blackler 1995). Depending on how well it can be articulated, knowledge can be classified as tacit or explicit. Tacit knowledge includes hard-tocommunicate skills, know-how, or practical knowledge such as being able to ride a bicycle, sell a financial product, or build excellent cars. Explicit knowledge, on the contrary, refers to forms of knowledge that can easily be communicated to others (e.g., facts, concepts, frameworks). Speaking of aggregation, it can be distinguished between individual and collective forms of knowledge consisting of pieces of knowledge that are held by one person vs. knowledge that is embedded in the interactions among a group of people. The combination of two dimensions creates four classes of knowledge: individual-tacit (or embedded knowledge, according to Blackler 1995), individual-explicit (embrained knowledge), collective-explicit (encoded knowledge), or collective-tacit (encultured and embedded knowledge). According to Nonaka (1994), organizational knowledge emerges from a series of ongoing transformations. Among these different types of knowledge require that the ideas and skills of different individuals can be divulged and combined into collective routines and shared knowledge vases. This encoded knowledge be then internalized by individuals, and the individuals share their skills with one another. Other authors (see, e.g., Cook and Brown 1999; Blackler 1995) have defended alternative views of organizational knowledge that emphasize its situated, socially constructed, contextualized, and dynamic character. These views, depart from the somewhat disembodied timeless view +S, predominant in resource-based perspectives, may be there and appear to be a general consensus around the idea that collective knowledge emerges from interaction and dialogue among the members of a community or an organization (Wenger 1998). While the term “knowledge” is being frequently used in everyday life, it is almost impossible to find a simple and commonly accepted definition. The importance of distinguishing between these different terms is also pointed out

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

by Sveiby (1997) noting that the widespread but largely unconscious assumption that information is equal to knowledge and that the relationship between a computer and information is equivalent to the relationship between a human brain and human knowledge can lead to misunderstandings. First attempts to explore the nature of knowledge can already be found in the classical Greek period (e.g., Plato’s description of knowledge as true belief with an account (logos)). Since then, several disciplines (e.g., philosophy, sociology, pedagogics, economics, etc.) have approached the complex issue of knowledge from different points of view and have built their own definitions (Nonaka 1994). Against this background, it seems difficult to overcome the terminological ambiguity and find an all-encompassing definition. Still, some definition is needed in order to – at least – delineate knowledge from used synonymies as data and information. In this entry, the knowledge is seen as facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education: the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject (NE 1998).

Personal (Individual) and Social (Collective) Knowledge Another important element in the characterization of knowledge is the distinction between an individual’s knowledge and that of the organization (social or collective knowledge). While personal knowledge is only available to single individuals, social knowledge can be accessed by several persons at the same time. In this regard, the levels of personal, group, organizational, and network knowledge can be distinguished. These can further be linked to the tacit and explicit dimensions of knowledge. Furthermore, individuals possess a large amount of embodied knowledge (e.g., crafts, skills) that is not easily articulated. The same holds true for the ability to identify and solve problems, a process often based on heuristic search. Sharing this knowledge within groups requires sharing a common stock of already existing knowledge and frequent

1059

interaction between group members (Kogut and Zander 1992). Based on knowing the members of a group and their respective capabilities, a group can develop knowledge of how to organize further activities. While a common stock of knowledge and a shared language can be obtained in smaller groups, problems can arise when the group size is enlarged and professional boundaries are crossed. The identification with a professional orientation can in this case conflict with the need to integrate within the organizational setting (Kogut and Zander 1992). While dedicated individuals can act as boundary spanners in such a situation, the organization also needs to develop new principles of group coordination and knowledge sharing. Through these principles, an organization can exist as a community within which varieties of functional expertise can be communicated and combined by a common language and organizing principle. Knowledge has also been studied from the point of view of learning in the context of knowledge acquisition and knowledge creation (Crossan et al. 1999; Cook and Brown 1999, Kim et al. 2003, Kolb 1984; Cheetham and Chivers 2001; Oxenswärdh 2017a, b, c, 2018); Orlikowski 2000; Johannessen et al. 2001) but also from the perspective of business development and enhancement (Porter and Millar 1985). With appropriate training and education, IT systems can make it easier for organizations to acquire, store, or disseminate knowledge (Gurteen 1999). But before moving on to study the learning processes, two central concepts for sustainable development need to be explored: sustainability as a goal and responsibility as a tool.

Sustainability as a Goal and Responsibility as a Tool Sustainability is a well-used term, appearing almost daily in the media and increasingly in everyday conversation, often as something to strive for. Moving toward a more sustainable way of living will inevitably require some radical changes in attitudes, values, and behavior (Hahn et al. 2014; Gullikson and Holmgren 2015). And

K

1060

perhaps the best way to strive for sustainability is through organizational change initiative (Appelbaum et al. 2016a). In the past decades, it is undoubtedly so that environmental problems, e.g., pollution, deforestation, and desertification, have become real to us. The environmental threats are consequences of the exploitation of nature by man. Those threats together with structural changes in manufacturing and production of goods and services, i.e., how we live and consume, show that we still have environmental challenges ahead of us (Hahn et al. 2014; Gullikson and Holmgren 2015). There have been discussions about the definition of sustainable development (Dobson 2008; Rambaud and Richard 2015; Appelbaum et al. 2016a) and about how to interpret the concept in organizations and companies (Hahn et al. 2014; Appelbaum et al. 2016b). Also, research about how companies can create measures in order to get facts for decisions has been conducted. For instance, the triple bottom line (TBL), created by Elkington in the 1990s, is nowadays a wellknown concept that many organizations use (Slaper and Hall 2011). According to Naess (1995), the essential ideas informing an environmental worldview can be broadly shared without prescribing or predetermining ultimate premises or specific interpretations and actions. We are in need of plural interpretations and actions appropriate to local cultures and conditions – echoing the ecological principle of diversity in unity. Paradoxically, an environmental worldview yields many different views of the same thing and the same view of many different things. It is obvious that the result from the Brundtland Commission created challenges for countries and corporations. Corporate managers and other leaders in organizations have to make decisions in their companies and organizations with economic, environmental, and social considerations, which is to some extent paradoxical and difficult (Hahn et al. 2014). Responsibility is a word and a concept that is increasingly being mentioned in our society. Its importance is pointed out in any organizational context and to develop co-workers into responsible actors. In the scientific sense, the concept of

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

responsibility is first and foremost a philosophical question. Philosophy and responsibility are interconnected on the one hand in the general question of what responsibility possibly is and on the other side of the normative question: what responsibility should be? (Kernell 2002). Responsibility is so integral part of human relationship that in its various meanings and shadings it serves as a synonym for almost every important political word. (Wildavsky 1986, p. 1)

Responsibility is one of the major political concepts alongside freedom, equality, and solidarity that are easy to use but whose precise meaning often remains vague (Wildavsky 1986). In practice the talk of responsibility often meets an approach that has been called “Sunday concept.” This means that everyone using the word only in rhetorical sense as referring to responsibilities seems generally acceptable, and it causes no harm. Bovens (1998) points out, however, that responsibility is a real concept that is even known by everyone. It is hard to imagine that anyone would deny or ignore their responsibility or deliberately behave irresponsibly. At the same time, the term is used as a spiritual or emergency solution, e.g., within political and government programs. In fact, responsibility as a concept is understood in many ways and used for many different purposes: responsibility changes depending on the time, venue, and speakers (Bovens 1998). As a legal term, the concept of responsibility describes personal or financial penalties. In law and political science, it implies responsibilities that are consequences of an act or not acting. A person who commits a crime must take her responsibility by paying fines or by imprisonment. She is forced to face the consequences of her action. The law has been developed from the basic idea that one is free of choosing action alternatives, because otherwise it would be just as meaningless to ask people to be accountable as it is to punish machines (Mackie 1990; Permer and Permer 1994; Oxenswärdh 2011). In political science the terms political responsibility and civic responsibility are presented. To take active responsibility is an opportunity to free us from being held responsible/accountable.

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

Claiming responsibility does not automatically mean that you take your responsibility. But taking responsibility is an active act based on the individual’s free will. To be liable, however, is based on future requirements. But to be held responsible for an act must include that the actor has understood the responsibilities that the task/mission contains. Additionally, must the one who is held accountable had had the opportunity and own the ability to perform the task. Responsibility is a complicated concept, according to Ingarden (1970, 1983); it commits us to study its different dimensions together. Lucas (1995) claims that, before we can form a clear idea of what real responsibility includes, we must also consider the circumstances in which we are not responsible/accountable.

Understanding the Assignment and Responsibilities There is a certain dynamic between individuals, groups, and organizations. Broadly speaking, responsibility in any organizational context can be described as a relationship between the commissioner and the actor. Relations of responsibility constitute the arena where both the exaction and the assumption of responsibility can take place. Responsibility/accountability is a crucial question in all organizations working toward sustainability. Issues of accountability consequently have a direct relationship to professional development in organizations. An essential part of the organization’s assignment is to assume responsibility. Different actors can understand both, the assignment and the responsibility, in different ways. This can be described in terms of the understanding of assignment and responsibility. The actors’ understanding and interpretation of the assignment is significant for the way in which they assume responsibility for fulfilling what they are commissioned to do. The understanding includes both cognitive and psychological processes and shows in turn how the assumption of responsibility can be shaped (Abrahamsson and Andersen 2005; Oxenswärdh 2011).

1061

When the understanding of responsibility describes what happens to the professionals and in turn leads to heightened competence, the concept of responsibility can also be viewed as a pedagogical concept. The understanding of assignment and responsibility can thus be regarded as a learning process, which is in turn essential for active assumption of responsibility. This learning process is deemed to be an important part of an organization staff’s competence development and professional development. These processes of understanding can be seen as a part of process of knowledge sharing (Oxenswärdh 2011, 2017a, b, c). Process of understanding one’s responsibility is, however, a more unexplored concept – unlike understanding the mission – and it has to do with operator’s own approach in questioning the nature of the professional obligation to consider themselves obliged on assignment. To illustrate the difference between the terms, it would be quite possible finding cases where assignment understanding of a co-worker is high, i.e., it is a clear picture of the tasks they believe the decisionmaker expects to be implemented. Despite this understanding, responsibility taking can be low, i.e., a number of different – e.g., moral/ethical/ cultural – causes may hamper actor’s accountability to really carry out the assignment. One way to express the distinction between mission understanding and the responsibility of understanding is to assume that the former rests on the legal and the latter on legitimate grounds. Concepts of legality and legitimacy disclose relations’ between justice and morality. Legality focuses on social actions in a formal sense and is sanctioned by the state, e.g., by orders and rules of law. Legitimacy is more unspoken value system that has nothing to do with the formal legal system but instead rests on ethical foundations (Oxenswärdh 2011). At the core of mission understanding exists seemingly even understanding of responsibility. Responsibility understanding is formed in the core of actor’s competences. Thus, it is further emphasized that actors’ responsibilities also include understanding of the approach to change and development (Oxenswärdh 2011). But how can these concepts be linked to processes

K

1062

of learning? The following is a brief description of learning processes that could serve as a tool and an arena for sharing knowledge about and for sustainable development.

Joint Learning in Groups: Collective Learning Organizational learning is more complex and dynamic than a mere magnification of individual learning. The level of complexity increases tremendously in the change from a single individual to a large collection of diverse individuals. There is something paradoxical here because organizations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there are no organizations without such collections. Similarly, organizational learning is not merely individual learning, yet organizations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals (Argyris and Schön 1978). Collective, collaborative, and collegial learning are terms often used in the context of joint learning processes. Ohlsson (2004) describes learning as a social process through which the individual changes their way of thinking about something. Collaborative learning in turn, can be considered as a form of joint learning and as a special type of phenomenon, where the starting point is that all learning is based in social activities. Collaborative learning is a situation in which at least two people learn something together (Bruffee 1993; Dillenbourg 1999). Collaborative learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, joint problem solving, debates, study teams, and other activities. The approach is closely related to cooperative learning, which is the instructional use of small groups so that individuals work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson et al. 2008). The difference between collaborative and collective learning is still vague. But according to Granberg and Ohlsson (2016), collaborative learning refers to a group of individuals trying to learn something together but without specifying or clarifying the social context. In collective learning, however, it is decisive to try to achieve a common understanding. Collegial learning, however, often used when schools and teachers are discussed, is related to the

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

concept of collaborative learning. Collegial learning can be seen as a combination term for various forms of professional development where colleagues through structured cooperation acquire knowledge from a broad concept of knowledge, which also contains abilities and skills. The importance of the joint learning synergistic effect is often highlighted in the descriptions of the collective learning (Wilhelmson 1998; Döös et al. 2001; Döös and Wilhelmson 2011). Synergy means that collective processes based on interaction and communication lead to the new common beliefs that had not been possible for individuals to come up with on their own (Granberg 1997; Ohlsson 1996; Wilhelmson 1998; Döös and Wilhelmson 2005; Granberg and Ohlsson 2016). Wilhelmson (1998) also draws attention to the importance of symmetry between the participants in a dialogue. Symmetry means that all participants’ observations and opinions are given the same weight in the conversation and to recognize each other’s experiences as valid. An asymmetric situation means a situation where power positions and opinion consolidation and an evaluative approach prevent an open and common search for new opportunities. Symmetrical relationships can thus be seen as favorable to collective learning. Habermas (1996) argues that intersubjective founded collective agreement will not occur from the fact that someone has been manipulated or forced to a particular approach but requires certain symmetry between the participants. It is further important for the collective learning that the experiences are described in the collective so that the community can jointly problematize and reflect on the experience (Granberg 1997; Ohlsson 1996; Wilhelmson 1998; Larsson 2004). Ohlsson (1996) points out the learning dynamic character and the ongoing co-constructing of borders, for example, the permissible and the impermissible, are something which can be perceived as a condition for learning processes. There is a critical, emancipatory dimension of awareness rising of these unconscious conditions for learning. If the individual is unaware of its potential and limitations, the individual cannot respond fully to promote learning.

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development

Schön (1995) integrates values and beliefs in a theory on learning. According to Schön, cognition cannot be separated from values and beliefs, nor can cognition and action. It is of importance to illuminate the relationship between learning and action, that is, between thinking and doing by Schön (1995) sheds light on the nature of the changes that an innovative project must seek to provoke. Changes in so-called theories-in-use that often are tacit remain implicit and go unnoticed. In order to challenge them, they need to be brought to the surface: people will have to be made aware of their tacit rationalities and be tempted to reconsider them. A second relevant aspect of Schön’s insights is that, even though theories-in-use play a role in the actions of various actors in a similar way, they differ in terms of contents depending on professional training and experience, social background, upbringing, and so on. Because of their intrinsic and fundamental divergence, the theories-in-use that people from different professional and cultural backgrounds hold will influence the possibility for them to learn collectively.

Discussion and Conclusions The understanding of the goals for assignment and especially those toward sustainability has attained a greater role in organizations today. Even more important, if possible, however, is the understanding of the responsibility embedded in the assignment working toward sustainability. This understanding of responsibility may be viewed as a path, as a process to the active assumption of responsibility that is demanded of all the actors in organization working toward more sustainable solutions. Changes in professional competence do not take place without initiative. Reflection on the assignment engenders a better ability to assess reality, which in turn shapes a qualitative aspect of professional know-how. This shows a need to specialize by refining the language and to develop tools with which to handle the work better. The difficulties for managers and leaders and the need for changes in attitudes and values in general in our way of living generate the necessity of learning. Perhaps the best way to

1063

do it is, as Appelbaum et al. (2016a, b) suggest, through organizational change initiative and collective learning processes. Hence, the purpose of this entry was to discuss collective learning in organizational context as a tool for sharing knowledge and to create deeper understanding of sustainability as a concept and a goal. Any planned, directed change by individuals or collectives is built on knowledge sharing which is then received as learning. Learning can be defined more generally as the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, norms, values, or understanding through experience, imitation, observation, modelling, practice, or study; by being taught; or as a result of collaboration. This learning process activates several other processes: processes of understanding the assignment and its responsibilities and co-creation of values. Being able to develop one’s professional competence to match the practical needs is probably a viable path to learning where the motivation is greatest among professionals. In this light, the organizational and collective competence development measures alone are not sufficient. Highlighting and being able to discuss, reflect, and learn more about the profession-specific areas in sustainability issues, both individually and collectively, is of great significance for professional development. Based on this reasoning, the learning process provides the professionals with their knowledge and sharpens their tools. Organizations can thus be continuously improved through the professionals’ own power. This process as a model for enhancing aspects of the professionals’ competence can become an important part of their development, where professionals themselves shape and continuously revise their know-how in their work of issues of sustainability by relying on their own and their colleagues’ competence and professionalism. Responsibility issues are a part of the ethical competence in organization and a vital part in the work toward sustainable organization. Without ethical discussions at a deeper level, professionals deceive themselves and can deceive their counterparts. This leads to ethical stances being taken on unethical grounds. The balance between freedom on the one hand and responsibility on the other is disrupted, and the result is an organization like a

K

1064

stage with a nicely designed set but with a play that does not affect anyone. Organization development toward more sustainable activities can be regarded as a force whereby the diversity, through reflection and dialogue and knowledge sharing, results in new solutions that can be beneficial to everyone. Responsibility of the mission thus becomes a matter of debate among the professionals. Discussions intend to jointly interpret the responsibilities that the task for more sustainable development in the organizations contains.

References Abrahamsson B, Andersen JA (2005) Organisation: att beskriva och förstå organisationer. Liber-Hermods, Malmö Appelbaum SH, Calcagno R, Magarell SM, Saliba M (2016a) A relationship between corporate sustainability and organizational change (part two). Ind Commer Train 48(2):89–96 Appelbaum SH, Calcagno R, Magarelli SM, Saliba M (2016b) A relationship between corporate sustainability and organizational change (part three). Ind Commer Train 48(3):133–141 Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizationl learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison Wesley, Boston Beynon-Davies P (2011) Significance, exploring the nature of information, systems and technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. ISBN 978-0-230- 27519-5 Billet S (1996) Towards a model of workplace learning: The learning curriculum.Studies in Continuing Education 18(1):43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037960 180103 Blackler F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organ Stud 16(6):1021–1046 Boisot MH (1995) Information space: a framework for learning in organizations. Institutions and culture. Routledge, London. ISBN 0-415-11490-X Boisot MH (1998) Knowledge assets. Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-829607-X Bovens M (1998) The quest for responsibility. Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. University Press, Cambridge, UK Bruffee K (1993) Collaborative learning. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 28–51. Organisational change management: A Bukowitz WR, Williams RL (1999) The Knowledge Management Cheetham G, Chivers G (2001) How professionals learn in practice: an investigation of informal learning amongst people working in professions. J Eur Ind Train 25(5): 248–292

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development Choo CW (1998) Knowing organization. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-511012-9 Cook SDN, Brown JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organ Sci 10(4):381–400 Cross R, Baird L (2000) Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Manag Rev 41(3):69–78 Crossan M, Lane H, White R (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24(3):522–537 Dillenbourg P (1999) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Advances in learning and instruction series. Elsevier Science, New York Dobson A (2008) Nature (and politics). Environ Values 17:285–301 Döös M, Wilhelmson L (2005) Kollektivt lärande. Om betydelsen av interaktion i handling och gemensam handlingsarena. Pedagogisk forskning Sverige 10(3/4):209–226 Döös M, Wilhelmson L (2011) Collective learning: interaction and a shared action arena. J Work Learn 10:487–500 Döös M. Wilhelmson L, Backlund T (2001) Kollektivt lärande på individualitstiskt vis – ett lärdilemma för praktik och teori. In: T. Backlund, Hansson H (eds) Lärdilemman i arbetslivet, Studentlitteratur, Lund Granberg O (1997) Lärande i organisationer: professionella yrkesutövares strategier vid organisatorisk förändring. Pedagogiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet, Stockholm Granberg O, Ohlsson J (eds) (2016) Kollektivt lärande. Studentlitteratur, Lund Gullikson H, Holmgren U (2015) Hållbar utveckling: livskvalitet, beteende, teknik. Studentlitteratur, Lund Gurteen D (1999) Creating a knowledge sharing culture. Knowl Manag Mag 2(5) Habermas J (1996) Kommunikativt handlande. Texter om språk, rationalitet och samhälle. Daidalos, Gothenburg Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sense making with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad Manag Rev 39(4):463–487 Hasmath R, Hsu JYJ (2016) Communities of Practice and the NGO 28-July 1: 1. SSRN 2612686 Hildreth P, Kimble C (2002) The duality of knowledge. Inf Res 8(1): 8. October 2002. http://www.informationr. net/ir/8-1/paper144.html. 30 June 2005 Howells J, James A, Malik K (2003) The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Manag 33(4):395–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00306 Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature. Organ Sci 2(1):88–115 Ingarden R (1970) Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt, Bd. I, II/I, II/2. MaxNiemeyer, Tübingen Ingarden R (1983) Man and value. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC Johannessen J, Olaisen J, Olsen B (2001) Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge,

Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Development the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. Int J Inf Manag 21(1):3–20 Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Holubec E (2008) Cooperation in the classroom. Interaction Book Company, Edina Kernell L-Å (2002) Att hitta balanser. Studentlitteratur, Lund Kim S, Suh, Hwang H (2003) Building the knowledge map: an industrial case study. J Knowl Manag 7(2):34–45 Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organ Stud 3(3):383–397 Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Larsson P (2004) Förändringens villkor. En studie av organisatoriskt lärande och förändring inom skolan. Doktorsavhandling vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, Stockholm Lucas JR (1995) Responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford Mackie J (1990) Ethics. Penguin Books, London Naess A (1995) The deep ecological movement – some philosophical aspects. In: Sessions G (ed) Deep ecology for the 21st century. Shambala, Boston, pp 225–229 Nationalencyklopedin (NE) (1998) Multimedia CD-ROM. Höganäs Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(2):14–37 Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of “Ba”. Building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manag Rev 40(3):40–53 Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-509269-4 Ohlsson J (1996) Kollektivt lärande: lärande i arbetsgrupper inom barnomsorgen. Rapport/Seminariet om miljöpedagogik och kunskapsbildning, Pedagogiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet (Journal Article) Ohlsson J (ed) (2004) Arbetslag och lärande. Lärarens organiserande av samarbete i organisationspedagogisk belysning. Studentlitteratur, Lund Orlikowski W (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ Sci 11(4):404–428 Oxenswärdh A (2011) Relations of responsibility in school development. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm Oxenswärdh A (2017a) Processes for understanding sustainability as a goal and practice. J Geogr, Polit Soc 7(3):5–11. https://doi.org/10.4467/24512249JG.17.021.7177 Oxenswärdh A (2017b) Students’ learning processes for sustainable knowledge. Published in Millennium – Journal of Education, Technologies, and Health. Series 2(4), n. 4, p 33–43. Best paper award. https://doi.org/ 10.29352/mill0204.03.00153

1065 Oxenswärdh A (2017c) Collective learning towards sustainable tourism. An article in Studia Periegetica Journal nr 2(18)/2017. ISSN 1897-92 Oxenswärdh A (2018) Co-creation of values between some bed and breakfast providers and their guests. J Res Bus Manag 05(07):13–26. ISSN (Online): 2347–3002 Permer K, Permer L-G (1994) Begreppet ansvar: en litteraturgenomgång och en empirisk studie I skolan, Pedagogisk metodisk utveckling nr 128, Kristianstad Porter ME, Millar VE (1985) How information gives you competitive advantage. Harv Bus Rev 63(3):149–160 Rambaud A, Richard J (2015) ‘The triple Depreciation Line’ instead of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’: towards a genuine integrated reporting. Crit Perspect Account 33:92–116 Robey D, Boudreau M, Rose GM (2000) Information technology and organizational learning: a review and assessment of research. Account Manag Inform Technol 10:125–155 Sanchez R, Heene H (1997) Reinventing strategic management: new theory and practice for competence-based competition. Eur Manag J 15(3):303–317 Schön DA (1995) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Arena, Melbourne Serban AM, Luan J (2002) An Overview of Knowledge Management Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York. ISBN 0-385-26094-6 Slaper TF, Hall TJ (2011) The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus Rev 2011:4–9 Sveiby KE (1997) The new Organizational Wealth. Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. BerrettKoehler Publishers, San Francisco. ISBN 1-57675-014-0 Väärälä R (1995) Ammattikoulutus ja kvalifikaatiot. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 9. ISBN 951-634-434-8 Walsh JJ, Ungson GR (1991) Organizational memory. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):57–91 Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Westerholm H (2007) Tutkimusmatka pienyrittäjän työvalmiuksien ytimeen. Kirjallisuuteen ja DACUUM – analyysiin perustuva kartoitus. Jyväskylä studies in business and economics, vol 55. Jyväskylän yliopisto, Jyväskylä. ISBN 978-951-39- 2813-1 Wildavsky A (1986) Responsibilities are allocated by cultures. Mimeo, Berkley Wilhelmson L (1998) Lärande dialog. Samtalsmönster, perspektivförändring och lärande i gruppsamtal. Stockholm University, Stockholm Wilson TD (2002) The nonsense of “knowledge management”. Inf Res 8(1). http://www.informationr.net/ir/81/paper144.html. 30 June 2005

K

L

Leadership ▶ oikos, International Student Organization for Sustainability in Economics and Management Education

made connections between sustainability and leadership, with some key challenges presented. Finally, some implications for society and higher education of taking leadership for sustainability are considered, with the closing section providing a summary of the entry.

Leadership and Sustainability

The Context of Sustainability

Stephen Allen University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

To begin to consider leadership, we first need to appreciate, “leadership for what?” In this entry we are exploring the connections between leadership and sustainability, so the question of “leadership for what?” relates to sustainability. Sustainability continues to be a highly contested term, with ongoing and inevitable disagreement about the meanings and implications. However, the underlying challenges that have stimulated interest in the term can substantially be attributed to scientific analysis of climate change and degradation of global-local ecosystems. Some key studies include the work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), Steffen et al. (2015), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), and Meadows et al. (2005) which means that, in the broadest terms, sustainability involves sustaining the continuity of human societies within a biophysical habitat (the world) or, as Docherty et al. suggest, “protecting the richness of the world’s resources in such a way that their utilization does not destroy them, but rather leaves equal opportunity to future generations to benefit from

Definition Leadership and sustainability – when processes of connecting people, things, and places are attempted with the purpose of taking action to address socio-ecological issues (e.g., climate change and biodiversity loss).

Introduction The aim of this entry is to briefly review connections between ideas about leadership and sustainability and consider some possible implications in higher education. Firstly, the context for seeking to address sustainability issues is introduced. Next, ideas about leadership are considered by explaining three different perspectives. In the following section, literature is reviewed that has

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

1068

them as well” (2009, 3). However, how people understand the implications for leadership to become sustainable is dependent on their assumptions about the interrelations between people, organizations, society, and nature (Marcus et al. 2010). Assumptions are related to competing viewpoints such as neoclassical, ecological modernization and ecocentrism (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). These differing assumptions and associated viewpoints will inform how substantial (from radical to minimal) that it is envisaged the required changes are for human activity to become sustainable. When people in organizations hold competing viewpoints, there can be significant potential for personal and organizational conflict in relation to sustainability (e.g., Allen et al. 2015).

Leadership One classification of different types of leadership theory is to understand three perspectives: heroic, post-heroic, and critical. Heroic or leader-centric perspectives, also seen to be the “mainstream paradigm,” are explained as “focus[ing] on the primary question of what makes an effective leader” by considering leaders’ competencies, traits, and behaviors (Collinson 2011, 182). Approaches to studies in this perspective involve assumptions about individual leaders’ possessing inherent or essential characteristics, which require psychological analysis through the application of positivist methods, often involving large samples of quantitative data, such as questionnaires (Zaccaro et al. 2004). For example, transformational studies, which take a leader-centric approach, explore how leaders can “inspire followers to greater commitment by satisfying their needs, values and motivations,” which involves suggestions that cultivating leaders’ charisma is important to becoming seen as role models so that others will be inspired to emulate them (Collinson 2011, 182). Consequently, this perspective is termed “heroic” as the focus of leadership interest is overwhelmingly on the “top-down” actions of the individual leader (e.g., “great man”) with very limited attention to followers, who are assumed to

Leadership and Sustainability

be passively compliant, and so unimportant to understanding leadership. Approaches to studying and theorizing leadership associated with this perspective are frequently criticized as romanticizing the potential significance of individual positional leaders to organizational success (Bligh et al. 2011). The second perspective, post-heroic, encompasses approaches which attempt to address issues associated with leader-centrism. Post-heroic approaches understand leadership to be a less hierarchical concept with more focus on informal practices and shared responsibility and, significantly, appreciating followers as having a potentially crucial role, whereby leadership needs to be studied in conjunction with followership (Collinson 2011). The attention to followers has involved exploring the different ways people (understood as knowledgeable and proactive) can engage in followership and influence the performance of an organization (Riggio et al. 2008). However, while it is suggested that there are significant benefits from this perspective by decentring the leader and bringing attention to their interdependence with followers for enacting leadership, it is criticized for “remain[ing] confined within a main-stream managerial focus on followers’ contribution to organizational performance” and ignores the role of power relations between leaders and followers (Collinson 2011, 184). These Criticisms inform the third perspective. Critical leadership studies attempt to address the limitations associated with heroic and postheroic perspectives, by taking into account power dynamics involved in the practices of leading and following, as well as paying close attention to how leaders and followers are interpreted and portrayed. What this means is that there is a central interest on how leaders and followers become socially constructed, which relates to a tendency for critical leadership studies to be informed by qualitative and interpretative methods (Collinson 2011). Within this perspective there is particular attention to both how leaders can control, in negative ways, followers to conform, comply, and consent and how followers, in some cases, are able to disrupt and resist leader attempts at control (Collinson 2006). The

Leadership and Sustainability

critical perspective also involves exploring negative aspects of leading such as how leaders can inflict serious and enduring harm on followers, organizations, and societies (Padilla et al. 2007). In general, the critical perspective challenges assumptions that the leaders are always the people “in charge” and explores complex leadership dynamics between contexts, leaders, and followers with a particular attention to issues of power, authority, and control.

Connecting Leadership and Sustainability Sustainability issues, in particular relating to climate change and degradation of global-local ecosystems, have been of peripheral interest in studies of leadership. The attention of both the heroic and post-heroic perspectives has been substantially related to understanding leaders (and followers) in relation to organizational performance, where the overwhelming tendency is to understand ideas about and metrics for organizational performance from a “neoclassical viewpoint,” e.g., short-term profit maximization (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). However, within the enormous literature on organizational leadership, there are a few, and growing number of, studies which have attempted to make connections between leadership and sustainability. As will be explored in this entry, the tendency for leadership studies related to sustainability is to take a post-heroic perspective. However, some studies do take a leader-centered perspective by considering leaders’ characteristics in relation to environmental sustainability performance (e.g., Glass et al. 2016). Such studies tend to integrate sustainability performance as another variable with limited questioning of the purposes of organizations or leaders, suggesting that sustainability requires marginal changes within existing ways of working. Although, there are some writers who take a leader-centric approach, by suggesting leadership requires “leaders of extraordinary abilities,” who see sustainability as a systemic challenge requiring significant changes in organizations (Metcalf and Benn 2013, 370).

1069

However, most of the writing that has connected sustainability with leadership has taken a postheroic perspective. Back in 1999 it was suggested that “mechanistic” models of leadership were inadequate to respond to the dynamic, systemic, and global sustainability challenges (Allen et al. 1999). Allen et al. argued that: Leadership based on position and authority is inadequate for the challenges we face today. We need leadership which increases our capacity to learn new ways of understanding, defining, and solving the complex problems we are facing. ... Waiting for great individual leaders to guide and direct organizations as well as guarantee our safety and security is no longer possible. (1999, 63)

Their proposal for an ecological (post-heroic) approach, that “recognises the complexity of our world,” was that there was a key need to move away from the (heroic) idea of a leader working as a technician/manager fixing the machine/organization (Allen et al. 1999, 67). Four principles for an ecological approach to leadership were proposed: interdependence, where leadership is understood as a process which emerges from a web of relationships; open systems and feedback loops, so that leadership processes are guided by as many feedback loops to the organization as possible; cycling of resources, which enables the multitude of talent or capacities that exist within the organization to be harnessed, as well as the cycling of physical resources; and adaptation, where leadership is about ensuring that the greatest possible shared learning takes place in the organization to respond to challenges. Allen et al. suggest that an ecological approach requires a long-term orientation to the “evaluation of the individual actions and systemic forces out of which leadership emerges” which is about serving moral values and a harmonious relationship with nature (1999, 76). In this case the context of change to address sustainability challenges is that of more radical organizational or societal transformation. In more recent studies, Western develops ideas of “eco-leadership” which focuses on exploring and understanding the “reciprocal relationship between leadership and its environment” (2010, 36). He suggests that dominant ideas about

L

1070

business and organizational leadership have paid little attention “to the social-political-natural world except when it had an impact on business interests” (Western 2010, 37). Consequently, Western argues that activism from grassroots social movements that can lead to innovative change, and show eco-leadership, are overlooked. He suggests that eco-leadership involves “a radically distributed leadership – in an attempt to harness the energy and creativity in a whole system” by promoting diversity and interdependence within organizations (Western 2010, 44). Also, involved in Western’s concept of eco-leadership is a need for leaders in organizations to develop a critical appreciation of the logics under which they work, through questioning taken-for-granted aspects (such as rationalism and growth) to help to regain a sense of place and self. Western (2013) suggests that four qualities of eco-leadership are the following: connectivity and interdependence, both in relation to how societies can be understood as networked via communication technologies and the embeddedness of organizations within ecosystems; systemic ethics, which goes beyond company values and leader morality to acting ethically in the human realm and protecting the natural environment; leadership spirit, extends values beyond material gain by paying attention to unconscious and nonrational, creativity, and imagination; and organizational belonging, whereby eco-leaders are connected to the places and spaces, i.e., local habit and community, in which their organizations operate. From these qualities of leadership, although positioned within a post-heroic perspective on how leadership is understood, there is also some attention to individual leaders’ ethics and abilities. In another contribution to develop understanding of possible links between sustainability and leadership, Satterwhite (2010) draws upon ideas from cultural biology to promote ideas of “systemic leadership.” She suggests that cultural biology “helps establish our biological relationship and interdependence with our environment, as well as pushing us to consider what we choose to conserve together” (Satterwhite 2010, 239). Like other post-heroic approaches, she suggests that “systemic leadership disregards position and

Leadership and Sustainability

hierarchy, offering everyone a means by which to help organizations and social systems adapt while reinforcing the call to social as well as ecological sustainability” (Satterwhite 2010, 239). Wielkiewicz and Stelzner’s (2010) work connects to ideas of complex systems to consider ideas of leadership, whereby they suggest a need for leadership processes to engage with competing perspectives, in particular with views advocating environmental concerns versus industrial and commercial concerns as not doing so “threatens the long-term adaptability of the organization” (2010, 18). Once again in this work, the attention to context suggests that substantial change is required to leadership process in organizations to respond to ecological sustainability concerns. Additionally, a recurring theme is that our understandings of leadership need to be informed by ideas about natural processes. In other literature on leadership and sustainability, the need for radical change to practice and new forms and ways of leadership is also a strong theme. Marshall et al. suggest that “to respond adequately we need to acknowledge the enormity of the challenge, the uncertainties it brings, and discover and develop appropriate strategies and disciplines for living, now” (2011, 4). Their preference is connecting with other post-heroic notions of leadership for notions of “taking leadership for sustainability,” i.e., decentring positional leaders in processes of leadership. They explain this need is about going beyond conventional (leader-centric) notions of leadership because there is a necessity to “be able to step outside and challenge current formulations of society and business, and because sufficiently robust change means questioning the ground we stand on” (Marshall et al. 2011, 6). In their study they showcase the stories of people who have taken leadership for sustainability within the organizations in which they work and have sought to draw people and organizational resources together in ways that have attempted to and successfully created pathways toward becoming sustainable. In Marshall et al.’s (2011) approach to leadership, there are considerations which connect to critical perspectives on leadership as they bring close attention to contextual and power dynamics associated with taking leadership.

Leadership and Sustainability

In the most recent post-heroic and critically informed work on leadership and sustainability, the notion of “relational leadership” has been drawn upon and developed (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011; Nicholson and Kurucz 2017). Relational leadership is explained as being about “a way of viewing the world as intersubjective, emerging in our relationships with others, and about understanding the importance of the nature of our conversations” (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011, 1438). Such an approach pays close attention to takenfor-granted dynamics on how leadership, an element of an emergent network, is enacted with others to help to sensitive leaders to the impact of their interactions (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011). To achieve relational leadership involves creating “open dialogue” which avoids prejudgments where leaders accept responsibility for recognizing and addressing moments of difference. Or, as Nicholson and Kurucz suggest, relational leadership is about “co-creation within the complexity of multiple, often conflicting, perspectives” to address sustainability issues (2017, 4). In this view the purpose of leadership efforts is to encourage collaborative capacity whereby addressing sustainability requires a “focus on caring” with the output of leadership processes being social relations, community, and collective learning (Nicholson and Kurucz 2017). It is suggested that relational leadership for sustainability requires “replacing the fundamental assumption about effective leadership as an individual pursuit with the relational assumption of growth-in-connection” (Nicholson and Kurucz 2017, 3). In the writing about relational leadership, there doesn’t tend to be clear statements about a need for radical transformations in organizations or society to apprehend sustainability challenges, but the ethical focus infers significant change to how people relate with others and how we understand the purposes of organizations. From the literature on leadership and sustainability, some key leadership challenges can be understood to involve: • Opening spaces for conversation and inquiry into the complex challenges, competing viewpoints, and power dynamics related to sustainability

1071

• Helping people confront separations and contradictions between worrying about their family in the long term and keeping their job in the short term • Bringing together positive and enticing views of the future that can help navigate the multiple and pressing dimensions of sustainability – e.g., positive “approach goals” instead of negative “avoidance goals”

Images of Sustainability Leadership in Society and Higher Education As explored, in general the literature that connects leadership to sustainability fits within a postheroic perspective because it draws attention to the limits of individual selves (and positional leaders) and understands leadership to be mostly associated with processes and dynamic relationships between people and things (Grint 2005). However, within the sustainability literature in considering “leadership for what?,” there are some important images of societies and organizations that are presented as to what sustainability might entail and hence can inform what the results of taking leadership could be imagined to be. One long-standing idea is ‘industrial ecology’ (Tibbs 1993) or ‘ecology of commerce’ (Hawken 1993) where economy and industrial activity is reframed as needing to involve a continuous cyclic flow of materials. In close connection to this is the notion of ‘cradle-to-cradle’ (McDonough and Braungart 2002) where designing and making products and services needs to be done in ways to imitate nature’s systems of nutrient flow and metabolism, in which waste does not exist. Both of these images of sustainability draw closely on conceptualising nature’s complex webs of relations in ecosystems within society. Also, the notion of ‘biomimicry’ (Benyus 1997) connects with these themes to reimagine organizations, processes and products to reflect natural systems, by understanding nature as a model for product design that needs to be mimicked. Some desirable results of taking leadership for sustainability in higher education can be related to a number of key aspects including: making

L

1072

sustainability a core or overarching theme in curriculum, research and organizational administration (Sterling 2004); enabling students (and staff) to explore and question how their assumptions, values, emotions and identities are implicated in sense making and action around sustainability (Shrivastava 2010); situating students’ learning in practice through educational processes such as experiential learning and action research (Marshall et al. 2011); connecting curriculum and pedagogy with the operations of educational institutions to help open up the space for students to test new perspectives and practices (Blake et al. 2013); engaging students from different disciplines in collaborative tasks to design sustainable products (Welsh and Murray 2003); and, developing possibilities to learn from indigenous or traditional forms of knowledge, which embed sustainability as a community responsibility over the long term (Jolly et al. 2011).

Summary ‘Leadership for what?’ is contested, but sustainability is most frequently conceptualised as about preserving the richness of the world’s ecosystems so that they are available for future generations. How people understand what leadership for sustainability involves, and the degree of change required to address sustainability issues, will be highly dependent on their assumptions about the interrelations between people, organizations, society and nature. Leadership theory can be understood as involving three different perspectives: heroic, post-heroic and critical. Most of the literature which connects leadership and sustainability is from a post-heroic perspective, which focuses on leadership as about processes of connecting people, things and places; rather than about a person or organizational position. Images for what leadership for sustainability needs to achieve generally relates to developing organizations, businesses and economies which reflect principles of ecology so that human activities imitate nature’s systems of nutrient flow and metabolism.

Leadership and Sustainability

In higher education to take leadership for sustainability involves: understanding sustainability as core to organizational purpose; that students and staff have space for dialogue about their assumptions, values, and practices; and, embedding student learning in action.

Cross-References ▶ Reflective Actions for Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Responses to Sustainability

References Allen KE, Stelzner SP, Wielkiewicz RM (1999) The ecology of leadership: adapting to the challenges of a changing world. J Leadersh Organ Stud 5:62–82 Allen S, Marshall J, Easterby-Smith M (2015) Living with contradictions: the dynamics of senior managers’ identity tensions in relation to sustainability. Organ Environ 28:328–348 Benyus JM (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. Morrow, New York Blake J, Sterling S, Goodson I (2013) Transformative learning for a sustainable future: an exploration of pedagogies for change at an alternative college. Sustainability 5:5347–5372 Bligh MC, Kohles JC, Pillai R (2011) Romancing leadership: past, present, and future. Leadersh Q 22:1058–1077 Collinson D (2006) Rethinking followership: a poststructuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadersh Q 17:179–189 Collinson D (2011) Critical leadership studies. In: The SAGE handbook of leadership. Sage, London, pp 181–194 Cunliffe AL, Eriksen M (2011) Relational leadership. Hum Relat 64:1425–1449. Docherty P, Kira M, Shani AB (2009) What the world needs now is sustainable work systems. In: Docherty P, Kira M, Shani AB (eds) Creating sustainable work systems. Developing social sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 1–21 Glass C, Cook A, Ingersoll AR (2016) Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Bus Strateg Environ 25:495–511 Grint K (2005) Leadership: limits and possibilities. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Hawken P (1993) The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability. HarperBusiness, New York

League Tables and Sustainability Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Fifth assessment. IPCC, Geneva Jolly F, Whiteman G, Atkinson M, Radu I (2011) Managing and educating outside: a Cree hunter’s perspective on management education. J Manag Educ 35:27–50 Marcus J, Kurucz EC, Colbert BA (2010) Conceptions of the business-society-nature interface: implications for management scholarship. Bus Soc 49:402–438. Marshall J, Coleman G, Reason P (2011) Leadership for sustainability: an action research approach. Greenleaf, Sheffield McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York Meadows D, Randers J, Meadows D (2005) Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Earthscan, London Metcalf L, Benn S (2013) Leadership for sustainability: an evolution of leadership ability. J Bus Ethics 112:369–384 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Living beyond our means. Natural assets and human well-being. Island Press, Washington Nicholson J, Kurucz E (2017) Relational leadership for sustainability: building an ethical framework from the moral theory of ‘ethics of care. J Bus Ethics. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-017-3593-4 Padilla A, Hogan R, Kaiser RB (2007) The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadersh Q 18:176–194 Riggio RE, Chaleff I, Lipman-Blumen J (2008) The art of followership: how great followers create great leaders and organizations. Wiley, Hoboken Satterwhite R (2010) Deep systems leadership: a model for the 21st century. In: Redekop BW (ed) Leadership for environmental sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon Shrivastava P (2010) Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Acad Manag Learn Edu 9:443–455 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1259855 Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Springer, Netherlands, pp 49–70 Stubbs W, Cocklin C (2008) Teaching sustainability to business students: shifting mindsets. Int J Sustain High Educ 9:206–221 Tibbs H (1993) Industrial ecology: an environmental agenda for industry. Global Business Network, Emeryville Welsh MA, Murray DL (2003) The ecollaborative: teaching sustainability through critical pedagogy. J Manag Educ 27:220 Western S (2010) Eco-leadership: towards the development of a new paradigm. In: Redekop BW (ed) Leadership for environmental sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon

1073 Western S (2013) Leadership: a critical text. Sage, London Wielkiewicz RM and Stelzner SP (2010) An ecological perspective on leadership theory, research and practice. In: Redekop BW (ed) Leadership for environmental sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon Zaccaro SJ, Kemp C, Bader P (2004) Leader traits and attributes. In: Antonakis J, Cianciolo A, Sternberg R (eds) The nature of leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 124

Leading from the Emerging Future ▶ Mindfulness in Sustainability

League Tables and Sustainability Riri Fitri Sari, Nyoman Suwartha, Junaidi and Gunawan Tjahjono Universitas Indonesia, Office of UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, Depok, Indonesia

Synonyms Sustainability rankings

Definition League table of universities across the globe which have shown a strong commitment to achieve a green and sustainable campus, based on six indicators.

Introduction The UI GreenMetric was launched in October 2010 at Universitas Indonesia, one year after the university hosted the International Conference on World University Rankings on 16 April 2009. UI GreenMetric is an environmentally concerned ranking scheme aimed to encourage green campuses and sustainability in universities all over the world. It is believed that universities, as small cities, significantly contribute to the global

L

1074

greenhouse gas emissions during daily academicbased activities. It is expected that by drawing the attention of university leaders and stakeholders, more responsive action will be given to combating global climate change, such as generating renewable energy, conserving water, recycling waste, providing green transportation, and promoting sustainable development education. Since its development, the ranking has evolved into a major sustainable ranking for universities around the globe, both from developed and developing countries. Many positive responses and comments have been received from various universities. Most of them feel encouraged and proud to know their position in the ranking. Several improvements have also been implemented to the UI GreenMetric; for example, the number of categories, weighting of the indicators, the scoring system, and calculation method. The UI GreenMetric, as an established ranking, should be developed, evaluated, and improved from time to time to enhance the quality of the ranking performance, and to remain up to date with the latest trends. Globally, in the last couple of decades, a great deal has been written on sustainability assessment, sustainability in higher education, and the measurement and ranking of sustainability indicator performance. However, most of this is in national, regional, or local contexts or are case studies of a single university’s attempts to establish and measure sustainability. As we can see, many existing university rankings are mostly focused on academic-based performance evaluations. There are still relatively few sources in the literature on global sustainability rankings in higher education. On the basis of this gap, Universitas Indonesia, in 2010, initiated and developed a sustainability ranking called the “UI GreenMetric” as a tool to complement the World University Ranking in assessing universities policies on so-called green and sustainable campuses across the globe.

Sustainable Campus League Table Methods of the Ranking We selected criteria that are generally thought to be of importance by universities concerned with

League Tables and Sustainability

sustainability. These include the collection of a basic profile of the size of the university and its zoning profile: whether it is urban, suburban, or rural. Beyond this, we want to see the percentage of green space. The next category of information concerns electricity consumption and carbon emissions produced in the university. The evaluation of waste management, water conservation, green transportation, as well as education and research are also our major concerns. Beyond these indicators, we want to get a picture of how the university is responding to or dealing with the issue of sustainability through policies, actions, and communication (Suwartha and Sari 2013). In the first version (2010) of UI GreenMetric, five main criteria were determined based on information provided by respective universities that demonstrate a commitment to going green and being sustainable, namely, settings and infrastructure (SI), energy and climate change (EC), waste (WS), water (WR), and transportation (TR). However, from the third version (2014) onward, one criterion was added: education and research (ED). All of these criteria were chosen after we reviewed several established models on global sustainability rankings. The following sustainability evaluation instruments (or systems) were influential in shaping the first version of the UI GreenMetric ranking in terms of how they describe their sustainability frameworks, principles, goals, and sustainability assessment methods (Lauder et al. 2015): (1) The Holcim Awards; (2) GREENSHIP; (3) STARS; and (4) The College Sustainability Report Card. In order to evaluate the performance and quality of the UI GreenMetric ranking, we are benchmarked to the Berlin Principles, which are “a set of principles of quality and good practice in Higher Education Institution (HEI) rankings” (UNESCO-CEPES 2006). The last criterion (ED) was added because we think it plays a significant role for universities to implement their sustainability policies. In addition, it is very much related to the importance of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), which aims to reorient education systems towards sustainability through “transformative learning practices that are socially innovative and contribute to societal transformation” (Zinaida et al.

League Tables and Sustainability

2012). ESD is seen as a global challenge and is being promoted by UNESCO (McKeown et al. 2002; Tilbury et al. 2002; UNESCO 2005; Dawe et al. 2005). Category and Indicators

Each of the criteria was categorized in a general class of information results and, when we processed the results, the raw scores were weighted to produce a final calculation. Table 1 shows the present UI GreenMetric’s scoring and weighting of each indicator and criterium. Meanwhile, the questionnaire of the UI GreenMetric can be seen and freely downloaded from the website (http:// greenmetric.ui.ac.id/). The category of Energy and Climate Change (EC) has the maximum weighting (21%) because this category remains the major issue that we attempt to mitigate through real action of the universities’ sustainability policies. The points for each indicator was proportionally divided by normalizing the weightings with percentages (weighting100); for example, the total points for EC is 2100 (normalized 21  100), and so forth. These points have been adjusted to be comparable with each of the three other systems (GREENSHIP, STARS, and the College Sustainability Report Card.) Scoring System

Scoring for each item is numeric so that our data can be processed statistically. Scores are a simple count of responses on a scale. The detailed calculation (formula) for each indicator and criterium can be seen in the available Guidelines on the website under “Publication” on the menu bar. Through these Guidelines, each participating university can make a self-assessment based on their data.

1075 League Tables and Sustainability, Table 1 UI GreenMetric’s scoring and weighting mechanism (eighth version, 2018) No 1 SI 1 SI 2 SI 3

SI 4 SI 5

SI 6

2 EC 1 EC 2

EC 3

EC 4

EC 5

EC 6

EC 7

The Benefit and How to Apply

Universities participate in UI GreenMetric by submitting their data to be included in the ranking. These universities can expect to enjoy a number of benefits, particularly international recognition, increasing awareness of sustainability issues, social change and action, and networking. The other advantage is that there is no participation fee (free of charge) for being a member of the UI GreenMetric.

EC 8

3 WS 1 WS 2

Categories and indicators Setting and infrastructure (SI) The ratio of open space area towards total area Area on campus covered in forest Area on campus covered in planted vegetation Area on campus for water absorbance Ratio of open space area divided by campus population University budget for sustainability effort Total Energy and Climate Change (EC) Energy efficient appliances usage Smart building program implementation Number of renewable energy sources on campus The total electricity usage divided by total campus population The ratio of renewable energy production towards total energy usage per year Element of green building implementation Greenhouse gas emission reduction program The ratio of total carbon footprint divided by campus population Total Waste (WS) Recycling program for university waste

Points

Weighting 15%

300 200 300

200 300

200 1500 21% 200

L

300

300

300

200

300

200

300

2100 18% 300 300 (continued)

1076

League Tables and Sustainability

League Tables (continued) No

WS 3 WS 4 WS 5 WS 6 4 WR 1

WR 2

WR 3 WR 4

5 TR 1

TR 2 TR 3

TR 4

TR 5 TR 6

TR 7

and

Sustainability,

Categories and indicators Program to reduce the use of paper and plastic in campus Organic waste treatment Inorganic waste treatment Toxic waste treatment Sewage disposal Total Water (WR) Water conservation program implementation Water recycling program implementation The use of water efficient appliances Treated water consumed Total Transportation (TR) The ratio of total vehicles (cars and motorcycles) divided by total campus population Shuttle services Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) policy on campus The ratio of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) divided by total campus population Ratio of parking area to total campus area Transportation program designed to limit or decrease the parking area on campus for the last 3 years (from 2015 to 2017) Number of transportation initiatives to decrease private vehicles on campus

Points

Table

1

Weighting

League Tables (continued) No TR 8

300

6

300

ED 1

300 300 1800

ED 2 10%

300 ED 3 300

ED 4 ED 5

200

ED 6 ED 7

200

and

Sustainability,

Categories and indicators Pedestrian policy on campus Total Education and Research (ED) The ratio of sustainability courses towards total courses/ subjects The ratio of sustainability research funding towards total research funding Sustainability publications Sustainability events Sustainability student organizations Sustainability website Sustainability report Total

Points 300

Table

1

Weighting

1800 18% 300

300

300 300 300 200 100 1800

1000 18% 200

300 200

200

200 200

200

(continued)

(a) Internationalization and Recognition Participation in the UI GreenMetric can help the university’s efforts in internationalization and recognition by getting its sustainability efforts on the global map. Participation in the UI GreenMetric can result in an increase of hits to the university’s website, more mentions of the institution connected with the issue of sustainability on web pages, and more correspondence with institutions interested to collaborate. (b) Increasing Awareness of Sustainability Issues Participation can help to raise awareness within and beyond the university regarding the importance of sustainability issues. The world faces unprecedented global challenges, such as population trends, global warming, over exploitation of natural resources, unrenewable energy, water and food shortages, and other sustainability issues. We realize that higher education has a crucial role to play in addressing these challenges. The UI GreenMetric leverages this role of raising awareness by doing assessments and

League Tables and Sustainability

comparing efforts in education for sustainable development, sustainability research, campus greening, and social outreach. (c) Social Change and Action The UI GreenMetric is primarily about raising awareness, but it will be adapted to encourage real change in the future. Addressing emerging global challenges is crucial. (d) Networking All participants of the UI GreenMetric are automatically members of the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings Network (UIGWURN). In this network, participants can share their best practices in sustainability program(s) as well as network with other participants worldwide by attending the annual UI GreenMetric International Workshop and regional/national workshops hosted by approved universities. Participants can also arrange technical workshops on the UI GreenMetric at their respective universities. As a platform to turn sustainability issues into action, the network is managed by the UI GreenMetric. Programs and directions are proposed and decided by the steering committee comprising the UI GreenMetric secretariat, regional, and national coordinators. Currently, the network comprises 719 participating universities located in Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Oceania covering 1,997,294 faculty members and 16,413,522 students, which have invested more than US$ 7,529,219,073 in research on the environment and sustainability. Annually, the UI GreenMetric secretariat sends an invitation for universities to join the ranking, in which the username and password for the universities are provided. Otherwise, the procedure to participate in the ranking is simple. The sustainability director (or other person in charge) can visit http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ to learn about the ranking and, if interested, can e-mail the UI GreenMetric secretariat ([email protected]) to get an invitation letter and access to the system. Or they can select “Registration” on the homepage’s menu.

1077

Timeline

Data is collected online from the participating universities between May and October of each year. The data validation process by our experts’ team is carried out from October to November. The final results and announcements are released in early December.

The Role and Impacts Participants’ Profiles and Distribution The number of participating universities has grown significantly. In its first year (2010), the UI GreenMetric published the rankings for 95 institutions. It received great enthusiasm from universities in 35 countries. There has been a dramatic increase from 95 universities in 2010 to 719 universities in 2018, as shown in Fig. 1. The Roles and Impacts The following has been the roles of the UI GreenMetric over the last 9 years. The UI GreenMetric has promoted: 1. Development in infrastructure in many universities based on the state-of-the-art standard. Some new universities, or universities that developed and renovated their campus, are, to some extent, referring to the UI GreenMetric criteria and indicators. 2. More efficient use of energy and development of smart buildings on campuses. Many universities have shown their commitment to use efficient tools and appliances, including gradual development of smart buildings. 3. Good practices in waste management. Based on the reduce, reuse, and recycle principles, many universities have almost achieved zero waste. 4. Good practices in water management. Efficient management of water has been shown by water management systems. 5. Environmentally friendly transportation systems. Many universities have adopted the standard of green transportation systems by employing near zero emissions vehicles, vertical parking, and the use of public transportation.

L

1078

League Tables and Sustainability

League Tables and Sustainability, Fig. 1 The number of participating universities in the UI GreenMetric

Countries

Universities 719 619 515 407 360

301 215 178 95 35

42

49

61

62

65

75

76

81

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

6. The education of students and achieving sustainability research results. There have been an increasing number of courses with curriculum that covers many parts of education that improves the students’ understanding of human and environment relationship. This indicates the engagement of many university leaders in sustainability issues. Research results indexed in Scopus also have increased significantly. Many universities have produced annual sustainability reports. 7. Linkage between the UI GreenMetric and SDGs. Some effort to map UI GreenMetric indicators and their relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be found in some publications, such as in Hamzah et al. (2018), which accelerate the transformation to green campuses. The following goals are the areas which concern many universities. (a) Good health and well-being (SDG number 3). (b) Quality education (SDG number 4). (c) Clean water and sanitation (SDG number 6). (d) Affordable clean energy (SDG number 7). (e) Industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG number 9). (f) Sustainable cities and communities (SDG number 11). (g) Climate action (SDG number 13). (h) Life below water (SDG number 14). (i) Life on land (SDG number 15).

According to the analysis of Hamzah et al. (2018), the UI GreenMetric criteria have a strong correlation with SDGs. These criteria are as follows: (a) Setting and Infrastructure (SI), related to SDG number 9 and 11. (b) Energy and Climate Change (EC), related to SDG number 7 and 13. (c) Waste (WS), related to SDG number 3 and 14. (d) Water (WR), related to SDG number 6. (e) Transportation (TR), related to SDG number 13 and 15. (f) Education (ED), related to SDG number 4. The matching of UI GreenMetric indicators and the Sustainable Development Goals can be seen in Fig. 2 and are explained below. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 1: Setting and Infrastructure is related with SDG number 9 and 11, and can be explained as follows: (a) Goal 9 is concerned with building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation. Industry plays a critical role in innovation and research, which are crucial for job creation, poverty eradication, gender equality, labor standards, and greater access to education and health care. Together, industries will lead the promotion of inclusive and sustainable industrialization and technology development.

League Tables and Sustainability

1079

League Tables and Sustainability, Fig. 2 Relationship between the UI GreenMetric and SDGs

(b) Goal 11 is concerned with making university campuses and human settlements inclusive, resilient, safe, and sustainable for students and staff. This is because rapid urbanization puts pressure on supplies of fresh water, sewage systems, the living environment, and public health. Embracing the technological and social benefits of universities by making sure they are safe for students and staff will lead to a sustainable campus. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 2: Energy and Climate Change is related with SDG number 7 and 13 and can be explained as follows: (a) Goal 7 is concerned with ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. (b) Goal 13 is concerned with taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 3: Waste is related with SDG number 3 and 14 and can be explained as follows: (a) Goal 3 is concerned with ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for everyone, (particularly young students) by preventing: diseases from pollution or bad interior air quality in lecture rooms and laboratories or from

building materials and furniture; untreated drug and alcohol abuse; birth defects; avoidable traffic; and industrial accidents, which will lead to long and healthy lives. (b) Goal 14 is concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. In fact, a lot of waste (liquid or sometimes solid waste) has ended up in the oceans or seas. Oceans and seas are being threatened and destroyed by human (students and staff) activities, such as marine pollution, overfishing, and the destruction of marine habitats. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 4: Water is related with SDG number 6. Goal 6 is concerned with ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. It is vital to have access to clean water at home (or at universities); therefore, water must be conserved and treated or reused safely for irrigation. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 5: Transportation is related with SDG number 13 and 15 and can be explained as follows: (a) Goal 13 is concerned with taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. One of the most damaging issues to the environment is gas emissions from transportation.

L

1080

Climate change has affected the climate by altering weather patterns that threaten our food production and increasing sea levels which will displace coastal communities. (b) Goal 15 is concerned with protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems; sustainably managing forests; combating desertification; halting and reversing land degradation; and preventing biodiversity loss. Criteria of UI GreenMetric number 6: Education is related to SDG number 4. Goal 4 is concerned with ensuring inclusive, equitable, and quality education, especially in courses concerned with the environment and sustainability based on critical thinking, experimentation, research, and contractual studies. Strong, quality education must always be promoted to provide lifelong learning opportunities for all. UI GreenMetric World University Rankings Network (UI GWURN) The UI GreenMetric World University Rankings Network is the only ranking in the world that has created their own network in which participating universities are members. Each country has a coordinating university which prepares and arranges national meetings and hosts workshops to gather all university leaders and sustainability officers to prepare their annual evaluations. The uniqueness of the network is that universities from all over the world can share their best practices in a voluntary network without any membership fees. Currently, there are 25 universities engaging as national coordinators (see Table 2). As a global network of universities concerned with sustainability, UI GWURN seeks to advance the efforts of its members and contribute to global society by: 1. Shaping global higher education and research in sustainability 2. Creating global sustainability leaders 3. Partnering on solutions to sustainability challenges

League Tables and Sustainability

Feedbacks and Acknowledgments The following are some latest comments and feedback from universities which can be found in the literature and news. 1. Many universities’ websites have been linked to the UI GreenMetric. For example, Jones and Kitaura (2018) from the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) mentioned the UI GreenMetric ranking in their publication. Many universities are proud of their achievement in the rankings and regularly reported that as one of their achievements. UC Davis reported how they have maintained its “greenest-in-the-U.S.” status in the 2018 UI GreenMetric World University Rankings. The director of the UC Davis Office of Sustainability stated that in these 9 years, the UI GreenMetric has been improving and continues to develop. Participation has also been climbing, from 95 universities in the first year to 719 universities in 2018. 2. Nottingham Trent University, NTU, reported that, in 2018, they were ranked as the fifth most sustainable university in the world for the second year running. It is known that NTU is one of only four universities to score full marks in the education section and also as the one of ten universities that gets full marks in the waste section. Due to NTU’s strong position in the UI GreenMetric in recent years, delegates from international universities have visited NTU to understand how to be more sustainable. 3. Filho et al. (2018), in their publication “Towards Green Campus Operations: Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development Initiatives at Universities,” showcased examples of campus-based research and teaching projects, regenerative campus design, low-carbon and zero carbon buildings, waste prevention and resilient transport, among others. It also demonstrates the role of campuses as platforms for transformative social learning and research. They also explore the means by which university campuses can be made more sustainable and relates that to the UI GreenMetric

League Tables and Sustainability

1081

League Tables and Sustainability, Table 2 National coordinators of UI GreenMetric network No. 1

Countries Jordan

Universities Jordan University of Science and Technology Bülent Ecevit University 16

No. 14

Countries Iran

Universities University of Zanjan

2 3

Turkey Istanbul University Malaysia Russia

15 Ireland

Universitas Diponegoro

Universiti Utara Malaysia RUDN University

17 18

Indonesia University College Cork Saudi Arabia Kazakhstan

National Pingtung University of Science and Technology University of Nottingham

19

Brazil

7

Chinese Taipei UK

20

Colombia

8

Thailand

Mahidol University

21

9 10 11

Spain Portugal Pakistan

22 23 24

12 13

Latvia Chile

Universidad de Navarra Universidade do Minho Pakistan Higher Education Commission Riga Technical University Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa María

El Bosque University Italy France China

25

Vietnam

4 5 6

King Abdul Aziz University Kazakh National Agrarian University University of Sao Paulo (USP) National University of Colombia

University of Bologna Inseec U. Shandong Normal University - Lishan College Ton Duc Thang University

L 4. Cazzolle and Perchinunno (2018) reported the positioning of Italian universities in the international rankings. They showed that, according to the type of information analyzed, university rankings can be classified into three groups: one of which is based on environmental sustainability by UI GreenMetric. The UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, promoted by Universitas Indonesia (UI), is the first world ranking of universities with the aim of creating a sustainable environment. The initiative has always been welcomed by academic communities all over the world, recording a continuous increase in participating universities and their countries of origins. In 2018, the UI GreenMetric has launched a network hub to enable participating universities to better share practices for implementing campus sustainability programs in their universities. 5. Bariccco et al. (2018) reported on the University of Turin’s performance in the UI GreenMetric Energy and Climate Change. In 2013, the University of Turin (UniTo) participated to the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings for the first time. As a result, several actions relevant to the UI GreenMetric were performed. The most

recent achievement was in 2016, when the University Green Office (UniToGo) was established, and, in 2017, when the Environmental Sustainability Action Plan was set-up to plan future actions related to five sustainability fields: energy, food, green public procurement, mobility, and waste (Baricco et al. 2018).

Concluding Remarks The UI GreenMetric Rankings is only ranking that focuses on the efforts to create sustainable universities. The UI GreenMetric has been used for the monitoring and controlling of environmentally sustainable parameters and categories. Many university leaders have stated that, by following the standard set by the Universitas Indonesia (UI) ranking, sustainability issues will be enhanced for universities’ civitas academica (Najad et al. 2018). Universities all over the world have created many activities and efforts to realize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which was launched by the United Nations in 2015. Since then, the SDGs have been transformed into programs and activities.

1082

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

The UI GreenMetric indicators are tightly related to the SDGs, including SDG number 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Meanwhile, some new rankings may try to follow a similar path to the UI GreenMetric. Over the 9 years of experiences, the UI GreenMetric ranking has improved and has been accepted by many universities, both in developed and developing countries. Many universities worldwide have shown a lot of progress and improvement in their infrastructure development.

Cross-References ▶ Transdisciplinary

References Baricco M, Tartaglino A, Gambino P, Dansero E, Cottafava D, Cavaglia G (2018) University of Turin performance in UI GreenMetric Energy and Climate Change. E3S Web Conf, 48, the International UI GreenMetric World University Rankings (IWGM 2018) Cazzolle M, Perchinunno P (2018) The positioning of Italian universities in the international rankings. In: Computational science and its applications – ICCSA 2018: 18th international conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, July 2–5, 2018, proceedings, part III. Springer, Cham Dawe G, Jucker R, Martin S (2005) Sustainable development in higher education: current practice and future developments. Higher Education Academy, Heslington Filho WL, Frankenberger F, Iglecias P, Mülfarth RCK (2018) Towards green campus operations: energy, climate and sustainable development initiatives at universities. Springer Nature, Paraná Hamzah RY, Alnaser NW, Alnaser WE (2018) Accelerating the transformation to a Green University: University of Bahrain experience. Journal of E3S of Web Conference, 48, the International UI GreenMetric World University Rankings (IWGM 2018) Jones D, Kitaura C (2018) UC Davis’ GreenMetric Ranking Still Best in US. Available Online at https://www. ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-GreenMetric-rankingstill-best-us/ Lauder A, Sari RF, Suwartha N, Tjahjono G (2015) Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. J Clean Prod 108:852–863 McKeown R, Hopkins CA, Rizzi R, Chrystalbridge M (2002) Education for sustainable development toolkit. Energy, Environment and Resources Center EERC, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Najad PG, Ahmad A, Zen IS (2018) Approach to environmental sustainability and Green Campus at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: a review. Environ Ecol Res 6(3):203–209 Nottingham Trent University (2018) Nottingham Trent University Ranks 5th in World for University Sustainability. Available Online at https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/ news/news-articles/2018/12/nottingham-trent-universityranks-5th-in-world-for-university-sustainability Suwartha N, Sari RF (2013) Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. J Clean Prod 61:46–53 Tilbury D, Stevenson RB, Fien J, Schreuder D (2002) Education and sustainability: responding to the global challenge. Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN, Gland/Cambridge, UK, p xii +206 UNESCO (2005) UN decade of education for sustainable development 2005e2014: the DESD at a glance. UNESCO e Education for Sustainable Development (ED/PEQ/ESD), Division for the Promotion of Quality Education, Paris UNESCO-CEPES (2006) Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Available Online at: www. che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf. Accessed on 09 Mar 2012 Zinaida F, Galkute L, Lotz-Sisitka H, Razak DA, Chacon M, Yarime M, Mohamedbhai G (2012) University appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development? Can it be done? In: GUNi (ed) Higher education’s commitment to sustainability: from understanding to action. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmills, pp 310–315

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development Lydia Fucsko1 and Boria Sax2 1 Department Humanities and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia 2 Mercy College, New York, NY, USA

Acronyms ADEA ASPnet AuSSI CSF

Association for the Development of Education in Africa Associated School Project Network Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative Centre for Sustainable Futures (at University of Plymouth)

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

DEEWR

DESD EfS ESD EYLF HE HEA ICTs KNCU NGO UN UNECE UNESCO UNITAR

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development Environmental Education for Sustainability Environmental Education for Sustainable Development Early Years Learning Framework for Australia Higher education Higher Education Academy Information and Communication Technologies Korean National Commission for UNESCO Nongovernment organizations United Nations United Nations Economic Commission for Europe The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Institute for Training and Research

The terms environmental education for sustainability (EfS) and environmental education for sustainable development (ESD) may be used interchangeably: however, it is noted that the latter term is used more often at the international level and within United Nations (UN) documents (McKeown 2002: 7). Authors may selectively use the term ESD to avoid confusion. ESD encapsulates a unified vision of education that endeavors to bring about human and economic well-being while respecting the earth’s natural resources and cultural traditions. Transdisciplinary educational methods and approaches are typified in ESD so as to create an appreciation of lifelong learning where persons evolve in the appreciation and an understanding that the earth’s resources are not infinite; ESD’s ultimate goal is to foster the development of people who uphold and protect the sustainable use of natural resources while inherently respecting the needs of the planet (UNESCO Decade of ESD (DESD) 2005–2014).

1083

Introduction The idea of sustainability in ESD becomes an educational imperative for the improvement of learning processes. Although educators in ESD may agree upon a wide array of aims and approaches, there is no consensus on precise political, academic, or educational priorities. Irrespective of this, essential pedagogies such as participatory and experiential learning, critical thinking, futures and systems thinking, partnership alliances, and values reflection all have application for the teaching of ESD (Ryan 2011: 3). This entry provides an overview of environmental education for sustainable development (ESD) and briefly examines ESD progress focusing on primary and secondary education from a global perspective. In addition, a selection of scholarly papers in peer-reviewed journals addressing ESD themes and issues and the importance of higher education (HE) promoting sustainability are briefly discussed. The authors draw on relevant evidence from policy documents published by UNESCO and other international agencies. In this regard, Benavot (2014) lists important summaries of programs and learning activities from around the world. Finally, school programs that place an emphasis on biodiversity where global issues are addressed locally to advance ESD are discussed.

Global Overview of ESD Initiatives ESD as a method for future-oriented education can offer university students the opportunity to understand the global challenges of biodiversity degradation and climate change, while learning about organizational processes that embed sustainability concepts into pedagogical practices (Cebrian et al. 2013). Although educational institutions are seen to be repositories of knowledge and wisdom, in the twenty-first century, higher education (HE) must continue to expand the domain of human competence while addressing real worldwide issues. Therefore, teaching sustainable thinking and promoting sustainability at universities will foster further progress and

L

1084

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

proactive measures towards sustainability outcomes. For progress to be made, universities must integrate sustainable development as part of their programs in ways that adopt a more holistic approach. Filho (2015: 10–11) lists examples of such programs: namely, in North America, Yale University and Columbia University (USA) and the University of British Columbia (Canada). In Europe, the University of Lüneburg, University Zittau-Görlitz, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (Germany), Polytechnic of Barcelona (Spain), and the Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), all offer innovative programs teaching ESD. The University Saints Malaysia, University of Hong Kong, and Tokyo University are exemplars of what is taking place in Asia. The University of Sonora (Mexico) and the University of Nairobi (Africa) are also endeavoring to bring about transformative approaches to sustainable development which is much needed at the tertiary level. Some academic institutions further illuminate how HE may overcome institutional and systemic challenges against teaching ESD. The University of Plymouth’s Centre for Sustainable Futures (CSF) and the Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) Education for Sustainable Development Project UK are to be commended for embracing transdisciplinary, holistic, and collaborative approaches (see forward by Peter Blaze Corcoran (2010) in Sustainability education in higher education: Perspectives and practices across the curriculum). As issues of poverty, climate change, water and sanitation, agriculture and food security, and sustainable production and consumption confront humanity, current ESD policies and their frameworks must understandably focus on those pressing sustainability issues which each country seeks to address and redress for their ultimate survival. African countries stress the importance of agriculture and food security alongside disaster and risk reduction, while overall, countries emphasize poverty and climate change as being the most urgent sustainability priorities with access to education seen to be the key to solutions being sought globally: “Education is the most powerful path to sustainability. Economic and technological solutions, political regulations or financial incentives

are not enough. We need a fundamental change in the way we think and act” (Irina Bokova DirectorGeneral of UNESCO: 2013: 7). Therefore, ESD must adapt itself as the priorities and sustainability challenges of countries are affected and educational imperatives must move with the times with institutions addressing what is pertinent in real world terms both locally and globally. ESD challenges, vision, and future successes are reliant upon education which is accessible and relevant to children, young people, and adults alike (UNESCO 2012). With its overarching framework, ESD supports the integration of significant topics and issues for primary and secondary school education and addresses climate change education, health education, global citizenship education, peace education, environmental education, human rights education, HIV/AIDS education, multicultural education, and so forth (Benavot 2014:6; UNESCO 2011b). UNESCO’s existing educational outreach programs on biodiversity in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves is documented in its pilot projects in eight countries for primary to secondary programs that highlight conservation and biodiversity. Cambodia’s pilot project initiated the Learning About Biodiversity: Multiple-Perspective Approaches toolkit aimed at students in lower secondary schools in Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve in three provinces – Kompong Thom, Siem Reap, and Battambang (Phanith and Sothun 2014). Scotland’s “Curriculum for Excellence” has sustainable development and global citizenship spread across most subjects being identified as a cross-contextual theme. Further recommendations were published in “Teaching Scotland’s Future” which was implemented coinciding with a review and revision of the Professional Standards for Scottish teachers (Murray 2012). Shaeffer (2013) states that it is the environmental issues which typically constitute the core content that students learn about at school and this point in reinforced in his summary discussion of ESD successes in the Asia-Pacific region, as Asian-Pacific ESD programs emphasize the environmental dimension with few programs that

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

integrate economic or sociocultural content. Notwithstanding, researchers may categorize the “environmental dimension” in their own respective ways: whether in a broad sense, which capitalizes on a multitude of interdisciplinary topics, or in a more narrow sense within the context of the school and its emphasis on real-life issues that are pertinent to their communities. In the Philippines, Cambodia, and Japan, ESD programs focus on world heritage sites while also teaching environmental topics. In Malaysia, ESD programs incorporate education as a means of interethnic understanding from a sociocultural dimension. ESD programs in Iceland, Kenya, Indonesia, Chile, Australia, Korea, and others have broadened their interdisciplinary focus which is commendable (Benavot 2014:12; De Leo 2012; Jóhannesson et al. 2011; KNCU 2009; UNESCO 2011a). Although the UN Economic Commission of Europe stressed the need for more integrated conceptualizations of ESD that afford equal attention to environmental, ecological, socioeconomic, ethical and cultural aspects of development (UNECE 2012), academics point out that ESD, given its multidisciplinary nature, can function as an umbrella framework which embraces issues and trends (Leicht et al. 2018).

Strategies for Learning Activities to Advance ESD The concept of active learning is in stark contrast to the passive manner in which the transfer of knowledge was subscribed in the didactic ways of a bygone era. Educators and others advocate for a learner-centered approach to teaching that nurtures student engagement in the very act of learning. Active learning, introduced by Edgerton (2001), is learning that encourages students to acquire and hone the abilities and skills that are requisite for the issues and challenges that youth will be required to address in the twenty-first century. Primarily, active learning promotes metacognitive processes which enable the activation of prior learned thinking strategies to be applied above and beyond teacher instructions. As

1085

Bonwell and Eison (1991: 19) assert, instructional activities should ideally involve and engage students in doing things but have students actually “thinking about the things they are doing.” Misseyanni et al. (2018: 83–85) provide a comprehensive overview of active learning strategies. The authors examine, elucidate, and summarize strategies for active learning that can be employed both within and outside of classroom activities. However, experiential learning promotes learning by doing things in the physical world which must be experienced concretely and kinesthetically. Activities may include field work, field trips, and outdoor activities, whether through formal institutions or engagement in informal activities, beyond the confines of the stereotypical walls of the classroom, whereby acquisition of knowledge may occur (Jeffs and Ord 2018). Experiential learning has practical applications to real-life situations with hands-on exercises and projects in their most literal sense. In problem-based learning, students are presented with a dilemma and are required to solve it, whether or not as an individual or as a group. Mazur’s (2009) flipped classroom model asks that students prepare learning materials outside of and before class. This aims to encourage ownership of their learning, with school-time being prudently allocated for projects, discussions, and so forth. The use of case study analyses encourages the discussion of specific real-life situations. In creative learning activities, artistic pursuits include, but are not limited to, creative writing, innovative use of audio-visual material, creation of games, web sites, performances and presentations tailored to course material (see Misseyanni et al. 2018; Papadopoulou et al. 2017). In this technologically driven age, the wide scope of technology available must be used judiciously by educators while being embraced for the creativity it may afford learners with access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and apps. Whether it is with the person (s) next to you, or across suburbs, if not continents, the use of ICTs can be allied with many and varied pedagogical approaches (Ansari and Tripathi 2017; Dobbins and Denton 2017; Foti and Mendez 2014; Papadakis and Kalogiannakis

L

1086

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

2017). It is important that people learning to become educators become familiar and proficient with ICTs and apply these methodologies to ESD among students. For educators, game-based learning may heighten the learning experience in (or outside) of the classroom with the use or invention of board games or e-games. The use of role playing or online role playing may be advantageous for such creative endeavors. Cooperative and collaborative learning strategies help to unite efforts between students, and/or with teacher(s), and/or within the entire school community. These strategies encourage group esprit where learning activities such as an experiential nature project, or the conservation of habitat, for example, planting trees, promote working for a common cause fostering possible positive outcomes for all concerned. In community-based learning, teaching and learning methods may connect course material with the surrounding community and stress the importance of the natural environment. Place-based learning is another essential educational strategy by which students learn about connecting with their (local) immediate environment. This may increase an appreciation for the sense of the place they belong to and foster a further connection with the physical environment itself. Furthermore, service learning enhances a sense of civic responsibility and emboldens the learning experience for students so as to enhance a sense of community, thereby consolidating solidarity. Also students who use research-based learning develop critical thinking which is a transferrable skill much sought after in work places. Ultimately the benefits for instructors, trainers, and teachers is that less time will be expended on the transmission of information, thereby freeing up time to assist HE students to develop their metacognition and to promote deeper learning in consequence of which educators may resume the roles of both facilitator and co-learner in the educative process. There is a substantial amount of literature in support of different instructional strategies focusing on active learning (Bonwell and Eison 1991; Doyle 2008; Faust and Paulson 1998). Active learning incorporates real-life projects, problem-

based learning, collaborative learning, the incorporation of role playing, and ICTs in the learning process which encourages far more active student engagement and autonomous learning, so that the student is encouraged to become the independent researcher responsible for his or her own learning (set at his or her own pace and level) with the teacher adopting the facilitator role. Additionally, studies show that assessment methods such as exams based on memorization or rote learning per se may not compliment active learning approaches (Misseyanni et al. 2018: 100). A less discussed strategy for learning and teaching ESD is the use of humor. When used skillfully (Martin et al. 2003: 48–75) humor can be a novel educational tool for ESD aimed at breaking down barriers that may exist between different communities or ethnic groups, with the use of environmental narratives that engage and immerse children (in this context) in the social message within stories about nature. The concept of empathic intelligence and its emergence within stories can encourage sympathy and empathy and reinforce the vital importance of humor for learning and its use as a therapeutic “bonding agent” (Powell and Kusuma-Powell 2013: 27–29). It requires mental dexterity to have empathic intelligence which is similar to the mental ability required to tell stories. Logic in and of itself will not explain complex phenomena or what it actually means to be empathically intelligent – rationality and emotion are both necessary (Arnold 2005: 149). Thus, twenty-first century teaching and learning must accommodate a wider and more dynamic paradigm that is genuinely inclusive of many types of learners in order to advance a more holistic and quality ESD for all. If an empathic and truly transformed species is to be ultimately realized in the foreseeable future, the world’s agenda must be to protect the planet as its supreme priority. Since 2005, various innovative ESD initiatives have been implemented in schools to promote learning activities globally. Whether modest and manageable rural or urban community projects or larger transnational programs; or national school reforms; or NGO-led initiatives across institutions or individual schools with teachers leading

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

individual projects in collaboration with students, ESD’s holistic vision is to lead the twenty-first century into a transformation in education, with long-term viability on a universal scale. Some examples which incorporate learning strategies are outlined below (as reviewed in Benavot 2014). The “Young Master’s Programme on Sustainable Development” aimed at young people, teachers, and tutors addresses sustainability issues in order to raise collective awareness through its global web-based education learning network. The Young Master’s Programme as a practical on-line course concentrates on broad ESD issues (McCormick et al. 2005). The “Green Flag” program in Sweden coordinated by the Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation offers awards to preschools and schools that raise students’ consciousness regarding sustainable environmental development issues (see Communicating Environmental Actions to Children and Youth (English Summary – undated). See also the sustainable school award initiative in Greece (Kalaitzidis 2013). The Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) network developed an Environmental Literacy Framework that provided integrated contents not dissimilar to those in ESD, for learners in formal school systems and nonformal education (see Gokool-Ramdoo and Rumjaun 2017; Hoppers and Yekhlef 2012). Another organization encouraging and strengthening small grassroots enterprises for ESD in developing countries is SEED (See SEED policy report: Shaping Sustainable Development through Eco-entrepreneurship 2015). Benavot (2014:18) wrote that from 2008 onwards the Japanese government made relevant literature and educational materials available on the internet, school websites, and through mass media that were related to ESD. They also undertook national legislative reforms regarding ESD which is noteworthy. In Israel the “Green School” government initiative served to undergird a school culture based on environmental principles which were adopted and adapted to the school community (Marcus 2012). Primary schools developed “action programs” highlighting environmental issues in their school curriculum. A “green council” was

1087

established by each school community which promoted the school’s certification process. Since 2012, 250 schools in Israel had been certified. UNESCO’s Associated School Project Network (ASPnet) founded in 1953 has continued to embed ESD content in school curriculum worldwide (UNESCO 2011a; Suarez et al. 2009). In Iceland, the government commissioned a document titled Welfare for the Future (2002) which sought to address sustainable development issues. It presents ESD as having three pillars, being economic growth, social welfare, and environmental protection to advance environmental education and sustainability (Jóhannesson et al. 2011). In the Asia Pacific region, ESD initiatives focus on respect as the core value of ESD which involves respect for others, for the present generation and for future ones, respect for the planet and its resources. For example, in India, a case study yielded positive outcomes when teachers incorporated vital classroom discussions supplemented with sensorial hands-on activities, followed by field exposure to increase knowledge and interest in local biodiversity using experiential education to develop and increase overall student awareness and concern locally (Ramadoss and Poyyamoli 2011: 97). Other ESD initiatives in Costa Rica, Morocco, South Africa, Sweden, Vietnam, and Bhutan are documented in a UNESCO 2013 report (UNESCO 2013). The success of the DESD and its implementation is reflected in the examples above which demonstrate the vast array of ESD initiatives, programs, projects, and activities in HE, primary and secondary schools on an international scale.

Green Schools for ESD: Global Issues Made Local As demographic populations change due to migration and translocation from country to city, there are urgent calls for the development of local environmental programs for sustainability. Such programs can enhance cooperation among multicultural communities, improving social and ecological understanding and well-being, while

L

1088

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

encouraging people to live more sustainably (Alberta Council for Environmental Education 2015). Internationally, the content of local curriculum varies. While sustainability is valued across curricula in some countries, others remain mute on the subject (Dyment et al. 2014). Accelerating rates of urbanization seem to be dictating the terms for nature-based experiences (Tidball and Krasny 2010). As such, environmental policies cannot remain abstract concepts when schools themselves must address how to provide environmental education and implement projects that are achievable. Malone and Tranter (2003) note the role of and barriers to school grounds as important sites for children’s environmental learning. Although urban schools can be perceived to be difficult institutions, educators can challenge ideologies so as to envision and implement the positive transformation of urban sites into dynamic places for learning (Pink and Noblit 2007). The UNESCO report Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 full-length report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development suggests that ESD must cross boundaries and go beyond the classroom to encompass other spheres for educational innovation (Wals 2012). School grounds are inexorably linked to the delivery of local authority’s responsibility for wider environmental and social strategies. As a national environmental resource, open spaces within school grounds could be used by children to reconnect with the natural environment (Foster 2006: 8). The maintenance and conservation of wildlife can begin with manageable projects on school grounds because this is where children spend so much of their time in sadly often unfavorable surroundings and conditions (Sharma and Pandya 2015: 6). Urban species and habitats provide a range of ecosystem services that are vital for the sustainability of cities, while city ecosystems provide habitats for urban wildlife (Faeth et al. 2014). Learning activities to assist with biodiversity conservation and environmental education initiatives that directly encourage bodily participation and kinesthetic experiences in green places are beneficial for health. Furthermore, interaction within

these places may help in the long term develop children who are sound of both mind and body (Chawla 2015; Kuo et al. 2017; Slaghekke 2017). Researchers such as Claxton (2012), Ionescu and Vasc (2014), and Rathunde (2009) argue that the concept of embodied cognition is indispensable to learning, given that our unique understanding of the world and our experience of it is grounded firmly in bodily awareness. Embodied cognition proposes that human cognition is essentially grounded in sensory-motor processes and also in human body morphology and internal states (Ionescu and Vasc 2014: 275). Educators have long maintained that exposure to the environment alongside outdoor learning is essential for children to optimize their overall well-being (Malone and Waite 2016). Transcending the traditional classroom structure, experiential learning stresses the primacy of student engagement and is defined as learning by doing, discovery, and exploration, and continues with reflection (Beard 2007; Beard and Wilson 2006; Kolb 2015). Experiential learning is directed in specific ways by the teacher/facilitator but it is also primarily self-directed, empowering the student to learn by being immersed in the environment itself. It is the imperative of being in the moment in which the action taken and the self are synonymous, where movement is crucial for the development of imagination, creativity, and sensual recall (Silk 1996). Teachers who may place greater emphasis on values pedagogy for overall student well-being may also adopt a whole-school systems approach (Broadbent and Boyle 2014; Lovat et al. 2011). Engendering intrinsic motivation to act positively when faced with challenges is vital for young people’s sense of self-worth and group spirit, in order to more fully develop as ethical and responsible human beings, especially when needing to work cooperatively and problem-solve together on projects. The greater the availability and reliability of environmental education materials and activities, the easier it will be to better integrate environmental education for a sustainable future into existing and new educational programs (Gough and Sharpley 2005).

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

For over a decade, researchers have indicated that teaching for sustainability in schools has experienced teething problems. Although genuine concerns for the environment are noted, teachers need to feel more confident in implementing experiential projects through learning activities which are action-oriented and which, in literal terms, become an actual and integral part of the school community, rather than some tacked on activity added to an already exhaustive curriculum (Cutter-Mackenzie and Smith 2001; Ferreira et al. 2007; Miles et al. 2006). In the Australian context, educators call for deliberate efforts to be made to integrate environmental learning activities into school curricula, given that there are alarming global trends which point to human activity threatening the ability to meet even current human needs for living (Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum project: final report for research phases 1 to 3 2014; Education for sustainability in the Diocese of Melbourne 2015). This continues to be an important yet complex area for inclusion in primary school curricula and recommendations for the introduction to environmental education for sustainability (EfS) as early as possible cannot be overstated (Sustainability Curriculum Framework 2010). For information on the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) programs for EfS (see Lewis 2009; Tilbury and Cooke 2005). Play in early childhood is essential for learning (Pramling et al. 2018). For example, the “Bush Kinder Pilot Program” affirms that forest preschool programs are so much more than young children simply spending time outdoors. Elliot and Chancellor (2014: 46) note that such pedagogical practices are reinforced in Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) (DEEWR 2009). The literature shows that children best learn about science, for example, through environmental education and conservation-based programs in schools that specifically enhance awareness and understanding of climate change and the challenges it will bring. In this way, students are equipped with the skill set of evaluating diverse evidence to improve overall climate literacy (Gibb 2016; Shwom et al. 2017). Students can also be

1089

taught in innovative ways to act proactively and respond in a timely manner to limit the magnitude of climate change (Australia’s strategy for nature 2017; Beatty 2012; UNITAR 2013). Gopnik (2012: 1625) concludes that from an early age children are natural scientists, using data to formulate and test theories. Accordingly, teachers can guide students in experimental activities and to promote scientific literacy (Verna 2011) enrich their collaborative efforts while creating a safe ambience in which children can grow in confidence to give expression to both themselves and their evolving capabilities and strengths. Osterhaus et al. (2017) further indicate that primary school students may have their social cognition and their epistemological understanding promoted by teachers so as to refine their ability to experiment and engage in scientific inquiry while learning the inherent value of becoming a caring agent and developing empathy (Chawla 2009). Schools as microcosms of larger communities in cities are vital places where education can strive to act locally for ecological restoration, demanding shifts towards more sustainable practices and processes. Children’s enthusiasm and information regarding the further need for environmental sustainability may translate to parents and guardians with a trickle-down effort for ESD. This relates to the idea of “citizen science.” The aim of “citizen science” is to enlist the public in collaborative efforts to collect data using relatively simple protocols, typically from local habitats over extended periods of time, to address both scientific and environmental outcomes (Bonney et al. 2009). To learn about biodiversity locally, students can spend their school time creating gardens and ponds to attract indigenous flora and fauna thereby reinforcing environmental connections between cause and effect. As such students’ natural inquisitiveness is given free rein to discover what is at play in the actual environment, all the while fostering creativity and innovative approaches to subjects such as science in peer to peer interactions (Andreou 2017; DeHaan 2011; Gaston and Spicer 2004) (Fig. 1). For those in the field of environmental education, in particular, it is the lived experiences with

L

1090

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 © Dr Lydia Fucsko (2010)

animals that form the basis of important narratives (Oakley et al. 2011). Educators have observed that the narrative survival struggles of animals in an increasingly threatening world intrigues young people. Here the appeal for children lies in the emotive capacity of narrative to assume a life of its own, while applied pedagogical principles augment learning (Daniel 2013; Horsdal 2012; Huber et al. 2013). Consequently, educators are in general agreement that what has proved increasingly effective in inspiring children to become further involved in environmental/conservation based education programs is the introduction of stories about animals, followed by access and interaction with the actual creatures. Human beings have been shaped by anthropomorphic thinking (Daston and Mitman 2005) and most cultures have created traditional fables and all manner of stories about anthropomorphized animals as characters in narratives. A review of the literature has shown that the concept of anthropomorphism may be a beneficial tool for conservation outreach programs while enhancing a bond with nature itself (Chan 2012; Tam et al. 2013). Further research has indicated that daily social experiences with real animals is correlated with both increased biological knowledge and reasoning (Geerdts et al. 2016: 20–21). Research by Root-Bernstein et al. (2013) suggest that to anthropomorphize a species elicits

empathic responses from humans. This is important for conservation purposes, especially when viewing, in a more compassionate light, lesser appreciated animals which are often seen as disgusting. Ecology educationalists need to enlist the sympathies of young people who are becoming more discerning shareholders in their future. As such environmental narratives can serve as a beneficial teaching tool to engage students. Social engagement can be achieved through the use of anthropomorphic role playing that is geared towards affirmative action for conservation. This kind of enactment allows young learners to find out about and enter the animal’s world (Sax 2013: 253). Imparting a genuine desire for ecology contributes to understanding: as narrative inquiry assumes that humans make sense of random experience by the imposition of story structures (Bell 2002: 207). Tooth and Renshaw (2009: 95) note that “environmental narrative pedagogy” can unite students and teachers in sensorial ways. Paradigm shifts can be facilitated through story, drama, and reflection; about consideration of worldwide biodiversity loss and how to counteract global decline of species. In writing about the Australian landscape, for example, Lloyd and Gray (2014) assert that learning about and from Indigenous cultures in outdoor learning activities in primary school programs adds to the local knowledge of the land, its

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

people and its history. Such programs may offer educators innovative pedagogical approaches to work in partnerships that enable societal and environmental transformation through shared stories. Science complimented with environmental narratives makes for better learning as teacher and student can discover, for example, the why of species endangerment and the how of learning to do something about it (Leslie et al. 2013: 1126; Rowcliffe 2004). The hands-on activity of creating gardens in schools through projects related ultimately to the larger issues of reclamation, restoration, and conservation of animal habitat(s) exemplifies pedagogical experiences that impact upon environmental stewardship into the foreseeable future (Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 (2017)). Such activities emplace young learners in the world immediately around them, fully experiencing and embracing the sense of place and space where they actually live (Education for Sustainability and the Australian Curriculum Project 2014; Malone 2008; Taylor et al. 2015). However, there is no place for complacency because the world is currently facing complex and undeniably urgent environmental issues that demand our unified attention globally (TWI2050 e-World in 2050 2018; UNESCO 2017). Finally, UNESCO offers a multimedia program titled Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future for professional development which is accessible online and is suitable for student teachers, teachers, and others who want to learn about ESD. Educators can incorporate the program ideas and tailor them to their school or institution. The website has four modules offering an exhaustive list of educational materials which link to prepared outlines of relevant learning activities which can be adapted for all levels of education (see http://www.unesco.org/education/ tlsf/index.html).

Final Remarks This entry has provided an overview of environmental education for sustainable development (ESD) and briefly examined ESD progress in

1091

predominantly primary and secondary education from a global perspective. In addition, a selection of scholarly papers in peer-reviewed journals addressing ESD themes and issues and the importance of higher education promoting sustainability are discussed. Examples of learning strategies to advance learning activities and programs from around the world are offered with an emphasis on green schools as sites for ecological restoration. Embracing experiential nature-based learning that reinforces a sense of place, in hands-on conservation initiatives can be harnessed for the benefit of ESD. Smaller and more manageable school projects, such as the creation of gardens and ponds within school communities, have the ultimate intention of both learning about and embedding the concepts of reclamation, restoration, and conservation of biodiversity. Promoting local grass roots efforts in institutions of learning and teaching, to aid conservation and environmental education initiatives, can empower both local and global communities with the opportunity to appreciate and contribute to solutions to the ecological crisis so as to ensure the ultimate survival of the planet.

References Alberta Council for Environmental Education (2015) Mission and vision. ACEE, Canmore, Alberta, Canada Andreou N (2017) Schools turning communities green: how feasible and how pragmatic is it to be an ecoschool? Int Sch 19(3):39–40 Ansari MS, Tripathi M (2017) An investigation of effectiveness of mobile learning apps in higher education in India. Int J Inf Stud Libr 2(1):33–41. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/319187545_An_Investiga tion_of_Effectiveness_of_Mobile_Learning_Apps_in_ Higher_Education_in_India. Accessed 11 Feb 2019 Arnold R (2005) Empathic intelligence: teaching, learning, relating. UNSW Press, Sydney Australia’s strategy for nature 2018–2030: Australia’s biodiversity conservation strategy and action inventory (2017) Commonwealth of Australia. Available via Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy. https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiver sity/conservation/strategy/draft-revision. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Beard C (2007) Experiential learning: the development of a framework for effective practice. PhD thesis, Hallam University, Sheffield

L

1092

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

Beard C, Wilson JP (2006) Experiential learning: a best practice handbook for educators and trainers. Kogan Page, London Beatty A (2012) Climate change education in formal settings, K-14: a workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Bell JS (2002) Narrative inquiry: more than just telling stories. TESOL Q 36(2):207–213 Benavot A (2014) Education for sustainable development in primary and secondary education. Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) unit UNESCO, Paris. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1978.9283 Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59(11):977–984 Bonwell C, Eison J (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1). George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf Broadbent C, Boyle M (2014) Promoting positive education, resilience and student wellbeing through values education. Eur J Soc Behav Sci 8(1):1308. https://doi. org/10.15405/ejsbs.114. Accessed 8 May 2018 Cebrian G, Grace M, Humphris D (2013) Organisational learning towards sustainability in higher education. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 4(3):285–306 Chan AAYH (2012) Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodivers Conserv 21:1889–1892. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10531-012-0274-6. Accessed 14 May 2018 Chawla L (2009) Growing up green: becoming an agent of care for the natural world. J Dev Process 4(1):6–23 http:// www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_reports/01795CA8001D0211.34/jdpchawla.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2018 Chawla L (2015) Benefits of nature contact for children. J Plan Lit 30(4):433–452 Claxton G (2012) Turning thinking on its head: how bodies make up their minds. Think Skills Creat 7(2):78–84 Communicating Environmental Actions to Children and Youth (English summary) (undated) Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation, Stockholm https://www.hsr.se/sites/default/ files/content_media/com_u_report_lagupplost.pdf Corcoran PB (2010) Forward. In: Jones P, Selby D, Sterling S (eds) Sustainability education: perspectives and practice across higher education. Earthscan, London, pp 13–15 Cutter-Mackenzie A, Smith RA (2001) A chasm in environmental education: what primary school teachers might – or might not – know. In: Knight B, Rowan L (eds) Researching in contemporary educational environments. Post Pressed, Flaxton, pp 113–132 Daniel AK (2013) Storytelling across the primary curriculum. Routledge, London Daston L, Mitman G (eds) (2005) Thinking with animals: new perspectives on anthropomorphism. Columbia University Press, New York De Leo JM (2012) The global values within education for sustainable development: a case study of education for sustainable development in the Australian national

curriculum: vol 1. School of Education, Faculty of the Professions, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia DeHaan RL (2011) Teaching creative science thinking. Science 334:1499–1500. http://www.sciencemag.org. Accessed 11 Jan 2018 Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009) Belonging, being and becoming: early years learning framework for Australia. DEEWR, Canberra Dobbins C, Denton P (2017) MyWallMate: an investigation into the use of mobile technology in enhancing student engagement. TechTrends 61:541–549. https:// link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11528-0170188-y.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2019 Doyle T (2008) Helping students learn in a learner centered environment: a guide to teaching in higher education. Stylus, Sterling, VA Dyment JE, Hill A, Emery S (2014) Sustainability as a crosscurricular priority in the Australian curriculum: a Tasmanian investigation. Environ Educ Res 21(8):1105–1126 Edgerton R (2001) Education white paper. http://www. pewundergradforum.org/wp1.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2019 Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum project: final report for research phases 1 to 3 (2014). Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance (AESA), Melbourne Education for sustainability in the Diocese of Melbourne (2015). Catholic Education, Melbourne. http://www. cem.edu.au Accessed 10 Feb 2019 Elliot S, Chancellor B (2014) From forest preschool to bush kinder: an inspirational approach to preschool provision in Australia. Australas J Early Childhood 39(4):45 Faeth SH, Bang C, Saari, S (2014) Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223: 69–81 Faust JL, Paulson DR (1998) Active learning in the college classroom. J Excell Coll Teach 9(2):3–24 Ferreira JA, Ryan L, Tilbury D (2007) Mainstreaming education for sustainable development in initial teacher education in Australia: a review of existing professional development models. J Educ Teach 33(2):225–239 Filho WL (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Filho WL (ed) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities: working across disciplines. World sustainability series, 2015th edn. Springer, Cham, pp 3–12 Foster A (2006) Schools for the future: designing school grounds. The Stationery Office, London Foti MK, Mendez J (2014) Mobile learning: how students use mobile devices to support learning. J Lit Technol 15(3):58–78. http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/ uploads/1/3/6/8/136889/jlt_v15_foti.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2019 Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity: an introduction, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford Geerdts MS, Van de Walle GA, LoBue V (2016) Learning about real animals from anthropomorphic media. Imagin Cogn Pers 36(1):5–26

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development Gibb N (2016) Getting climate ready: a guide for schools on climate action. UNESCO, Paris. Available via UNESDOC. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgibin/uli s.pl?catno=246740&set=0058CAF6B5_3_229&gp= 0&lin=1&ll=s. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Gokool-Ramdoo S, Rumjaun A (2017) Education for sustainable development: Connecting the dots for sustainability. J Learn Dev – JL4D 4(1):72–89. http://dspace. col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2771/2017_Gokool-Ra mdoo-Rumjaun_Education-for-Sustainable-Developme nt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed 11 Feb 2019 Gopnik A (2012) Scientific thinking in young children: theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science 337:1623–1626 Gough A, Sharpley B (2005) Educating for a sustainable future: a national environmental education statement for Australian schools. Department of Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Carlton. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resource s/1b93d012-6dfb-4ceb-a37f-209a27dca0e0/files/susta inable-future.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Hoppers W, Yekhlef A (2012) Promoting critical knowledge, skills and qualifications for sustainable development in Africa: How to design and implement an effective response by education and training systems Sub-theme 1 Common core skills for lifelong learning and sustainable development in Africa. Triennial on Education and Training in Africa (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, February 12-17, 2012) [Report]. Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), Tunisia. Retrieved from https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/b532/b31e28d9efd053d1d1d698c 6d18b53a6cd27.pdf Horsdal M (2012) Telling lives: exploring dimensions of narratives. Routledge, New York Huber J, Caine V, Huber M et al (2013) Narrative inquiry as pedagogy in education: the extraordinary potential of living, telling, retelling, and reliving stories of experience. Rev Res Educ 37(1):212–242 Ionescu T, Vasc D (2014) Embodied cognition: challenges for psychology and education. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 128:275–280 Jeffs T, Ord J (2018) Rethinking outdoor, experiential and informal education: beyond the confines. Routledge, Abingdon Jóhannesson IA, Norðdahl K, Óskarsdóttir G, Pálsdóttir A, Pétursdóttir B (2011) Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland. Environ Educ Res 17(3):375–391 Kalaitzidis D (2013) Sustainable school indicators: approaching the vision through the sustainable school award. J Teach Educ Sustain 14(2): 168–180. https:// doi.org/10.2478/v10099-012-0015-7. https://content. sciendo.com/view/journals/jtes/14/2/article-p168.xml? rskey=s5i5JE&result=1. Accessed 11 Feb 2019 KNCU (Korean National Commission for UNESCO) (2009) Regional collection of good practice: millennium development goals & education for sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific region. KNCU, Seoul

1093

Kolb DA (2015) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, 2nd edn. Pearson FT Press, Upper Saddle River Kuo M, Browning MH, Penner ML (2017) Do lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement? Refuelling students in flight. Frontiers in psychology https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5758 746/. Accessed 8 June 2018 Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (2018) Issues and trends in education for sustainable development, vol 5. UNESCO Publishing, Paris Leslie HM, Goldman E, Mcleod KL et al (2013) How good science and stories can go hand-in-hand. Conserv Biol 27(5):1126–1129 Lewis E (2009) The impact of AuSSI-WA at a primary school. Aust J Environ Educ 25:45–57 Lloyd AM, Gray T (2014) Place-based outdoor learning and environmental sustainability within Australian primary schools. J Sustain Educ, September. http://www. susted.com/wordpress/content/place-based-outdoor-le arning-and-environmental-sustainability-within-austra lian-primary-school_2014_10/. Accessed 5 Feb 2018 Lovat T, Dally K, Clement N et al (2011) Values pedagogy and teacher education: re-conceiving the foundations. Aust J Teach Educ 36(7). https://doi.org/10.14221/ ajte.2011v36n7.3. Accessed 9 May 2018 Malone K (2008) Every experience matters: an evidence based research report on the role of learning outside the classroom for children’s whole development from birth to eighteen years. Farming and Countryside Education (FACE) for UK Department of Children, School and Families, Wollongong Malone K, Tranter PJ (2003) School grounds as sites for learning: making the most of environmental opportunities. Environ Educ Res 9(3):283–303 Malone K, Waite S (2016) Student outcomes and natural schooling: pathways from evidence to impact report. Plymouth University, Plymouth. https://www.plym outh.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/6/6811/ Student_outcomes_and__natural_schooling_pathways_ to_impact_2016.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2018 Marcus A (2012) Implementation of environmental education case study: activating the ‘green school’ program among elementary students in Israel. Geogr Tech 2:52–58 Martin RA, Puhlik-Doris P, Larsen G, Gray J, Weir K (2003) Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: development of the humor styles questionnaire. J Res Pers 37:48–75 Mazur E (2009) Farewell, lecture? Science 323(5910):50–51. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/50/tab-pdf McCormick K, Muhlhauser E, Norden B, Hansson L, Foung C, Arnfalk P (2005) Education for sustainable development and the young masters program. J Clean Prod 13(10–11):1107–1112 McKeown R, Hopkins CA, Rizi R, Chrystalbridge M (2002) Education for sustainable development toolkit. Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, https://www.ramsar.org/sites/ default/files/documents/library/esd_toolkit_version_2. pdf. Accessed 5 June 2019

L

1094

Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development

Miles R, Harrison L, Cutter-Mackenzie A (2006) Teacher education: a diluted environmental education experience. Aust J Environ Educ 22(1):49–59 Misseyanni A, Lytras MD, Papadopoulou P, Maroulic M (eds) (2018) Active learning strategies in higher education: teaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity. Emerald Publishing, Bingley Murray R (2012) Scottish teachers for the 21st century. EG Magazine 18:30–33 Oakley J, Watson GP, Russell CL et al (2011) Animal encounters in environmental education research: responding to the “question of the animal”. Can J Environ Educ 15:86–102 Osterhaus C, Koerber S, Sodian B (2017) Scientific thinking in elementary school: children’s social cognition and their epistemological understanding promote experimentation skills. Dev Psychol 53(3):450–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000260. Accessed 6 Jan 2018 Papadakis S, Kalogiannakis M (2017) Mobile educational applications for children: what educators and parents need to know. Int J Mob Learn Organ 11(3):256–277. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315137160_ Mobile_educational_applications_for_children_What_ educators_and_parents_need_to_know. Accessed 11 Feb 2019 Papadopoulou P, Lytras M, Misseyanni A, Marouli C (2017) Revisiting evaluation and assessment in STEM education: a multidimensional model of student active engagement. EDULEARN17 proceedings, pp 8025–8033. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.0477 Phanith C, Sothun, N (2014) Education for sustainable development biodiversity education project case study of integration of “learning about biodiversity: multipleperspective approaches” into teaching and learning at Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve. UNESCO, Phnom Penh Pink WT, Noblit GW (eds) (2007) International handbook of urban education. Springer Dordrecht (see also second edition 2017) Powell W, Kusuma-Powell O (2013) Becoming an emotionally intelligent teacher. Skyhorse Publishing, New York Pramling N, Kultti A, Pramling Samuelsson I (2018) Play, learning, and teaching in early childhood education. In: Smith PK, Roopnarine JL (eds) The Cambridge handbook of play: developmental and disciplinary perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 475–490 Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 (2017) The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne. https:// www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00 22/51259/Protecting-Victorias-Environment-Biodiver sity-2037.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2019 Ramadoss A, Poyyamoli G (2011) Biodiversity conservation through environmental education for sustainable development – a case study from Puducherry, India. Int Electron J Environ Educ 1(2):97 Rathunde K (2009) Nature and embodied education. J Dev Process 4(1):70–80

Root-Bernstein M, Douglas L, Smith A et al (2013) Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodivers Conserv 22(8):1577–1589 Rowcliffe S (2004) Storytelling in science. Sch Sci Rev 86(314):121–126 Ryan A (2011) Education for sustainable development and holistic curriculum change: a review and guide. The Higher Education Academy, York Sax B (2013) Imaginary animals: the monstrous, the wondrous, and the human. Reaktion, London Shaeffer S (2013) Education for a sustainable future: education for a sustainable future: UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation on a Post-DESD Framework Bangkok, May 16–17, 2013. https://slideplayer.com/ slide/11648580/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019 Shaping Sustainable Development through Ecoentrepreneurship (2015) SEED (Adelphi research gGmbH), Berlin. https://seed.uno/articles/policybriefs/shaping-sustainable-development-through-ecoentrepreneurship. Accessed 10 Feb 2019 Sharma K, Pandya M (2015) Resource book: towards a green school on education for sustainable development for elementary schools. Department of Elementary Education National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi. http://www.ncert.nic.in/ departments/nie/dee/publication/pdf/Towards%20A% 20green%20School.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2019 Shwom R, Isenhour C, Jordan RC et al (2017) Integrating the social sciences to enhance climate literacy. Front Ecol Environ 15(7):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fee.1519. Accessed 2 June 2018 Silk G (1996) Dance, the imagination, and threedimensional learning. In: Vandergrift KE (ed) Ways of knowing: literature and the intellectual life of children. Scarecrow Press, Lanham Slaghekke J (2017) Learning outdoor benefits/risks. Nature Play SA, Blackwood. https://natureplaysa.org.au/educa tors/play-space-design/npsa-learning-outdoors-benefitsrisks/. Accessed 3 Feb 2018 Suarez DF, Ramirez FO, Koo JW (2009) UNESCO and the associated schools project: symbolic affirmation of world community, international understanding, and human rights. Sociol Educ 82(3):197–216 Sustainability curriculum framework: a guide for curriculum developers and policy makers (2010). Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://cpl.asn.au/sites/default/files/journal/Sustainability %20Curriculum-Framework.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2018 Tam KP, Lee SL, Chao MM (2013) Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J Exp Soc Psychol 49:514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001. Accessed 15 May 2018 Taylor N, Quinn F, Eames C (eds) (2015) Educating for sustainability in primary schools: teaching for the future. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Tidball KG, Krasny ME (2010) Urban environmental education from a social-ecological perspective: conceptual

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development framework for civic ecology education. Cities Environ (CATE) 3(1):11 Tilbury D, Cooke K (2005) A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in Australia: frameworks for sustainability. Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability, Canberra Tooth R, Renshaw P (2009) Reflections on pedagogy and place: a journey into learning for sustainability through environmental narrative and deep attentive reflection. Aust J Environ Educ 25:95–104 TWI2050 – e World in 2050 (2018) Transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Report prepared by e-World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/15347. Accessed 10 Feb 2019 UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005–2014: the DESD at a glance (2005) UNESCO – Education for Sustainable Development, Paris. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141629 Accessed 18 Jan 2019 UNECE Steering Committee on ESD (2012) Learning from each other: achievement, challenges and ways forward: second evaluation report of the UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development, synthesizing national implementation reports by state members. Geneva, UNECE. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/ DAM/env/esd/6thMeetSC/Informal%20Documents/ PhaseIIProgressReport_IP.8.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2018 UNESCO (2011a) National journeys towards education for sustainable development 2011. UNESCO, Paris. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001921/192183e.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2019 UNESCO (2011b) Education for sustainable development: an expert review of processes and learning. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/ 191442e.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2019 UNESCO (2012) Education for sustainable development sourcebook. Learning and training tools no 4. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0021/002163/216383e.pdf . Accessed 16 Aug 2018 UNESCO (2013) National Journeys towards education for sustainable development 2013. UNESCO, Paris. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002210/221008e.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2018 UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals learning objectives. UNESCO, Paris. https://unesdoc.un esco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444. Accessed 10 Feb 2019 United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) (2013) Resource guide for advanced learning: integrating climate change in education at primary and secondary level. Available via UN CC-Learn. https://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/ resource_guide_on_integrating_cc_in_education_pri mary_and_secondary_level.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2018 Verna M (2011). Y scientific literacy?) In: Loughran J, Smith K, Berry A (eds) Scientific literacy under the microscope. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 67–74 Wals AEJ (2012) Shaping the Education of Tomorrow: 2012 Full-length Report on the UN Decade for

1095 Education for Sustainable Development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. https://www.desd.in/UNESCO% 20report.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2019 Welfare for the future: Iceland’s National Strategy for (2002) Sustainable Development 2002–2020 Reykjavic, The Ministry for the Environment in Iceland. https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/umhverfisrad uneyti-media/media/PDF_skrar/Velferd_til_framtidar_ 2002_enska.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

Learning Objectives in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) ▶ Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development Eleonora Concina Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Synonyms Learning objectives in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD); Sustainability learning outcomes

Definition Learning outcomes for sustainable development can be defined as educational goals that aim to support students’ full development and wellbeing in an holistic and sustainable perspective.

Introduction The need to promote a more sustainable future is currently one of the most relevant themes in the international debate. Many challenges affect modern society, in terms of social issues (regarding the

L

1096

search for fairness, right equality, prejudice reduction, poverty eradication, and the promotion of democracy) and ecological and environmental themes (mainly focused on the responsible use of natural resources; the management of climate change, waste, and pollution reduction; and the preservation of biodiversity). In this complex scenario, the impact of human decisions and activities is crucial, since people’s behaviors and attitudes can make the difference, impairing or improving the current conditions. From this perspective, a challenge has emerged, concerning whether it is possible to make worldwide citizens aware and fell responsible for the most urgent social and ecological international issues of the twenty-first century. Trying to find answers to this question, a main role has been attributed to education and educational practices, which are the most relevant means for enhancing specific learning outcomes for sustainable development: knowledge, self-regulation skills, critical thinking skills, social responsibility, social participation, and cooperation among people. This implies the need to rethink the current model of education: since now, indeed, the direction of educational systems and programs has been traced out by the technological and economic needs of current society, focusing mainly on the promotion of specialized workers and on the search for more advanced technological tools in the name of the unattainable dream of an overwhelming economic growth. This educational approach is inevitably partial, as it gives space only to the productive and economic dimensions of human life; the new pedagogical perspective should aim to promote a whole individual psychophysical well-being and full development, not only wealth. For these reasons, to address sustainability issues in real contexts, it becomes essential to adopt a more holistic paradigm in education (Sterling 2001), which can sustain the development of the individual in all his/her personal, social, and cognitive expressions, for which the professional field is only one limited dimension of human existence. Starting from new basis, a revision of learning outcomes should follow, in order to effectively address the main goals of a sustainable view of future.

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development Education for Sustainability The impact of sustainability on education has led to a new pedagogical perspective, in which teaching and learning are viewed as fundamental processes for pursuing a more sustainable future and helping citizens become more responsible and actively engaged in a sustainability dimension (Bart and Michielsen 2013). On these bases, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has been theorized and defined as an innovative paradigm for encouraging changes, at a personal and social level, in local and global contexts. The first features of this educational approach can be found in the Agenda 21 (UN 1992), the official document of the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Here, in the Section IV Means of Implementation, the Paragraph 36 Promoting education, public awareness and training stated the key role of education for building a more sustainable future through the development of citizens’ more responsible role in society. As reported in the paragraph 36.3: Education, including formal education, public awareness and training should be recognized as a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullest potential. Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues. (UN 1992, par. 36.3)

In this paragraph, education is clearly defined as a process for promoting the full development of everyone’s potentialities and the access to equal opportunities in each country of the world. The main aim of educational practices, at both formal and informal levels, should be to support not only the achievement of knowledge and contents about sustainability, environmental education, and democracy but also to enhance people’s awareness on these topics and empower their attitude toward sustainable development. For all these reasons, educational opportunities should be offered to all the people (not only children but from all age levels in a life-long perspective) around the world, in order to reduce illiteracy,

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

social and cultural gaps, social exploitation, and discrimination. All these principles have been reaffirmed about 20 years later, during the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development RIO+, held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2012. The official document (UN 2012) recognized the importance of promoting the access to educational opportunities for everyone, supporting, above all, the enhancement of educational systems in the developing countries. We further reaffirm that full access to quality education at all levels is an essential condition for achieving sustainable development, poverty eradication, gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as human development, for the attainment of the internationally agreed development goals. (UN 2012, p. 45)

These goals highlight the need to renovate teaching practices and sustaining learning processes, adapting them to the different cultural and social contexts in which they are applied, in a perspective that put the learners and their needs at the center of the educational debate (learnercentered approach). The Agenda 21 and RIO+ indications about education structured the background for the ESD. It can be considered a new approach to educational practices, since its main aim is to promote, at the same time, reflection and action among people, for enhancing democratic cooperation toward sustainable solutions for contemporary issues (Sterling 2014). Indeed, education for sustainability is not merely a process of achieving knowledge about sustainable development themes: it is not sufficient to “know,” but it is necessary to “act” (in terms of planning, thinking, revising, changing) for reaching a balance between human well-being, economic and technological progress, and social and ecological fairness. Knowledge is currently in constant evolution, and education cannot respond to pedagogical needs only supporting students’ cognitive accumulation of specific notions. To face complex systems, in which economic, social, environmental, ethical, and political themes are strongly interconnected, educational objectives (and more specifically, learning outcomes) should focus on the development of an open mind set and

1097

flexibility of reasoning, valuing, and acting (Cotton and Winter 2010). To encourage the achievement of flexible thinking skills and attitudes, education should be based on a transformative paradigm (Sterling 2001). The need to rethink the educational dimension depends upon the new issues and challenges that characterized modern societies: for this reason, the transmissive paradigm (in which teaching is considered as a simple process of transmitting knowledge from the teacher to students) to teaching and learning should be overcome and replaced by a transformative paradigm, supporting the development of cognitive and affective skills for critically reflecting, acting, and implementing sustainable solution (Sterling 2010). Considering all these aspects, it becomes urgent to redefine the outcomes for learning in a sustainable perspective. Learning Outcomes in a Sustainability Framework The new educational perspective of ESD introduces the need of a revision of the traditional learning outcomes: new educational objectives must be focused on the promotion of aware, responsible, democratic, active, and positive model of citizenship for the future of humankind. For living in a world that is rapidly transforming, characterized by complex challenges, it is not sufficient any more to possess and preserve knowledge, but it becomes essential to develop resilience and attitudes to personally change and to contribute to changes to the surrounding reality for the whole life. This is the core of the transformative paradigm of education, as stated by Sterling (2010), which aim to support resilient learners who can be able to act for shaping resilient future contexts. The transformative paradigm is based on the main pedagogical goal of “educating for change” (Sterling 2001), which includes both the critical revision of personal values, attitudes, and behavioral patterns and the promotion of changing action in a sustainability framework. The fundamental concept moves, in this way, from learning for school success (and, following, for academic and professional success) to learn for life, more specifically for a more sustainable and

L

1098

fair life. To educate for change is a complex process, which implies long-term effects. If considering the paradigm of change as a developmental process, learning outcomes can be defined from their relationship with time span as an evolution of reflective thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and responsibility values, as reported by UNECE (2012): [Competences for] (a) Learning from the past; (b) Inspiring engagement in the present; (c) Exploring alternative futures. (UNECE 2012, p. 16)

To integrate ESD principles in school and academic curricula, learning outcomes should reflect the more general need to achieve sustainability objectives in the society, namely, critical thinking skills, the attitudes toward a sustainable life, and a life-long learning perspective (UNESCO 2012). All the learning objectives should be promoted and achieved through educational opportunities, in order to help citizens developing competencies involved in the resolution of sustainability issues and in the creation of a peaceful and democratic future. This enlarges the traditional view of educational goals in terms of professional specialization and specific knowledge achievement: the new mission of educational institutions in ESD is to foster learning skills, not only to provide professional contents and competences. In this framework, learning outcomes should cover each dimension of human experience, and they can be included in three main areas (UNESCO 2017): the cognitive domain, the socioemotional domain, and the behavioral domain. The cognitive domain includes the acknowledgement of sustainability themes, with reference to both the local and the global dimension, and thinking skills (reflective skills, critical thinking skills, problemsolving abilities) that are needed for facing social and environmental challenges. Particularly, learning to think is the core competence for building a new sustainable mindset (Rieckmann 2012): critical thinking, anticipatory, and systemic thinking encouraging personal reflection and reasoning about causes, possible solutions, and alternative for complex socioeconomic and ecological systems. Moreover, to think critically means also to be able

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

to compare different point of views and integrate multiple perspectives, stimulating interpersonal exchange and cooperation for sustainability. The socio-emotional domain includes social skills and abilities related to collaboration and cooperation among people; in addition, also emotional skills, empathy, values, attitudes, and motivation toward sustainability are here considered (UNESCO 2017). All these objectives have also been defined as affective learning outcomes (Shepard 2008), and they mainly deal with the development of a general sensitivity, motivation to think and act, and interest toward the condition and the development of other people, the whole society, and the environment. This domain is often the most difficult to promote in educational institutions, but, anyway, it is also essential in a perspective of ESD (Mintz and Tal 2014). Acquiring the knowledge related to sustainable development topics is not sufficient, by itself, for promoting a real evolution in individual thinking and acting styles: the real driving force to change is strongly connected to a re-building of personal values and motivational patterns, which can shape each decision and action in a sustainability framework. Education can foster affective outcomes supporting an autonomously personal revision of attitudes and offering through significative educational figures (teachers and educators) key role models of ESD for students (Shepard 2008). The behavioral domain involves attitudes and competencies for acting responsibly in a sustainable development perspective. These features are also linked to the promotion of more practical activities in educational programs (Sipos et al. 2008), which can connect the theoretical dimension of knowledge with the application of the achieved skills in real-life contexts. In a holistic and interdisciplinary view, the main general competences that ESD aims to enhance in students are related to critical thinking and learning attitudes. More specifically, UNESCO (Delors for UNESCO 1996, 2012) has defined five main pillars as the basis for defining ESD learning outcomes: 1. Learning to know. It refers not only to the achievement of a general knowledge and more specific contents related to particular

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

2.

3.

4.

5.

professional and academic fields but also to a life-long learning attitude, for promoting learning processes through life. Learning to do. It includes competences and skills at different levels: professional competencies and transferable cognitive and metacognitive skills (for facing different situations, searching for alternative and innovative solutions). Learning to live together. It is related to interpersonal skills and emphatic attitudes that are necessary for interacting positively and cooperate effectively with others. It also includes the achievement of an intercultural perspective, for understanding different values and traditions, sharing experiences, and promoting a peaceful and fair coexistence among people from different human cultures. Learning to be. It refers to the promotion of a full development of each individual, supporting the expression of his/her potentialities in the respect of personal needs, personality, cultural values, traditions, and beliefs. Learning to transform oneself and society. This last pillar has been added more recently (UNESCO 2012), and it deals specifically with ESD. It is based on the principle of change of sustainability, and it reflects the transformative paradigm for education (Sterling 2001), for which education is viewed as a process for enhancing innovative way of thinking and acting in a social and economic world that is quickly evolving. New perspectives among citizens are necessary for improving social life and justice, peaceful coexistence, human well-being, and the preservation of environment, biodiversity, and natural resources.

Reflecting about these pillars (with a special consideration for the last one) and on the international debate about the competences that should be promoted by educational institutions in a sustainability perspective, Wiek et al. (2011) identified a main key competence, defined as sustainability search and problem-solving competence. This general ability includes all the knowledge and specific skills that are needed for transforming and improving personal attitudes and behaviors, in

1099

order to address and face sustainable development challenges. It can be recognized the interdisciplinary and transferable nature of these abilities that should be promoted in all the educational experiences, by educational institutions in all school and academic levels and training opportunities. Learning Outcomes for Sustainability in Higher Education Learning outcomes for sustainability should be included in the design of all the educational and instructional experiences, respecting the age level, the academic objectives, and the sociocultural context of each student and of the institution itself. Since primary school, ESD principles and goals should be integrated into curricular programs, in an interdisciplinary and holistic approach (Sterling 2001) with the aim to start building the attitudes, competences and skills that are included in the five UNESCO pillars of education (UNESCO 2012). Higher education institutions have a relevant role in fostering the change and the transformative perspective needed for creating a sustainable future. They have the particular responsibility for training future professionals and citizens, which will be the protagonists of the upcoming world and society. This stimulates the reflection about how to integrate learning outcomes for sustainability in different academic courses, encouraging a new vision not only for learning but also for teaching. The first educational challenge is related to the definition of learning outcomes that can support a gradual process of awareness achievement and responsibility taking among students. These are defined on the model of the individual as changing agent (Svanström et al. 2008), who is actively involved in the process of finding alternative and democratic solutions for sustainability issues. For professors and educators, this includes not only promoting a more responsible role in social and professional contexts for their students but also to teach them to think, reflect, plan, and act for building changes toward a sustainable future. This will become possible only if, in addition, students are encouraged to develop autonomy in thinking, acting, and taking decision for their own future in a framework which enhances sustainable development values.

L

1100

The second challenge for higher education is to offer the opportunities both to achieve competences and to put them into practice in real local and global contexts (Mochizuki and Fadeeva 2010). For this reason, educational objectives should consider, at the same time, the theoretical and the practical dimensions of learning, linking the activity of academic world with the life of external community and enhancing situated learning processes. The third challenge refers to the need to offer a wider perspective about sustainability and sustainable development, which could include the professional but also the private and the social areas of human life. This becomes possible only if academic courses integrate in their curricula three kind of learning objectives for sustainability (Mintz and Tal 2014): the knowledge domain, the affective domain, and the skills domain. While the first is related to the theoretical contents about sustainability topics, the second concerns the development of awareness, attitudes, and motivation toward sustainable development topics and issues. Finally, the third includes all the disciplinary and interdisciplinary abilities that are engaged in building a more sustainable future. While learning outcomes related to knowledge and skills are widely considered and, in many cases, successfully integrated in academic educational activities, the affective objectives are often put aside, although they represent one of the core dimensions of ESD (Shepard 2008). This reveals the difficulty that, sometimes, educational institutions have in adopting a holistic sustainability approach. Indeed, universities and higher education centers often decide not to sustain explicitly the achievement of specific affective learning outcomes, since they are afraid these objectives may be viewed as an obtrusion into the private sphere of individual life (Mintz and Tal 2014). In addition, another issue relies on the evaluation of affective outcomes: achievement related to the affective dimension is difficult to be assessed, representing a challenge for professors and students (Shepard 2008). To foster a change in the perception of this kind of objectives, it would be useful to integrate them with another learning

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

outcome, the promotion of students’ autonomy and self-regulation skills: working on affective learning goals implies offering people all the instruments for becoming aware and starting to reflect autonomously on the main sustainability themes and not strictly impose them specific values, spending vain effort to make them passively indoctrinated. This reflecting activity can also be promoted encouraging the diffusion of positive educational models (Shepard 2008), in the person of tutors and professors, who can serve as example of sustainable development professional. Affective learning outcomes are also crucial for supporting students’ motivation and engagement in sustainable education. The promotion of these objectives may impact the positive learning results and satisfaction in higher education courses, as reported by Mulder et al. (2015), who found that promoting autonomy in learning and thinking, reflection, connection with real situations, and self-fulfillment as course objectives in higher education can foster students’ interest toward sustainability and ESD. ESD should impact all the spheres of human activity, and, in this approach, it becomes fundamental to introduce sustainability principles in all the courses. But if apparently it is easier to promote this change in academic fields that are strictly related to environmental topics, it could be not so simple for knowledge areas that do not seem to deal with “traditional” sustainability topics. International experiences advocate a revision of academic learning and teaching approaches, since ESD should not be confined to environmental and economic disciplines but become the basis for designing and implementing all the academic courses. In a more didactic perspective, it has to be considered that learning outcomes for sustainability affect two main dimensions (Svanström et al. 2008): a more interdisciplinary overview, which includes the awareness about sustainability and sustainable education and the understanding of social and ethical responsibility and of the human impact on the environment and society, and a more specific and disciplinary perspective, in which sustainability is discussed in the framework of the specific knowledge field.

Learning Outcomes for Sustainable Development

Final Remarks In a sustainability perspective, learning outcomes are primarily focused on the promotion of human well-being and a fair and sustainable future for all. In this framework, a new paradigm for education is needed, which could address all the socioeconomic and environmental challenges and tasks that are currently emerging. For this reason, a transformative paradigm has been proposed (Sterling 2001), with the aim to promote a more participatory role of people not only in the learning activity but also in their whole life for building together a more sustainable future. To transmit knowledge and contents is not sufficient for educating future generations: technological tools allow now to access rapidly different and complex contents. The current challenge is to educate future generations for critically selecting and assessing pieces of information, in order to take new decision, assess and review current perspectives, thinking “out of the box,” using creativity for finding new solutions to problems, and promoting a more fair and democratic culture of sustainability. All these expectations have implied a renovation of educational practices, focusing them on the specific learning pillars proposed by UNESCO (2012) as the basis for defining and planning ESD learning outcomes. Integrating learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education seems to be a challenge experience, requiring a great effort from students, professors, and administrators. For facilitating this task, it should be advisable to adopt a “transformative” approach to education (Sterling 2010), which could encourage people and institutions to work together to promote a sustainable view of educational experiences and objectives, in the long-term perspective of contributing to a more sustainable future.

Cross-References ▶ Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development ▶ Participative Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development

1101

References Bart M, Michielsen G (2013) Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability science. Sustain Sci 8:103–119 Cotton D, Winter J (2010) ‘It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs’: a review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In: Jones P, Selby D, Sterling S (eds) Sustainability education. Perspectives and practices across higher education. Earthscan, London, pp 39–54 Delors J (1996) Learning: the treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the twenty-first century. UNESCO Publishing, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001095/ 109590eo.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 Mintz K, Tal T (2014) Sustainability in higher education courses: multiple learning outcomes. Stud Educ Eval 41:113–123 Mochizuki Y, Fadeeva Z (2010) Competences for sustainable development and sustainability: significance and challenges for ESD. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):391–403 Mulder KF, Ferrer D, Coral JS, Kordas O, Nikiforovich E, Pereverza K (2015) Motivating students and lecturers for education in sustainable development. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(3):385–401 Rieckmann M (2012) Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Future 44:127–135 Shepard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):87–98 Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86 Sterling S (2001) Sustainable education. Re-visioning learning and change. Green Books, Cambridge Sterling S (2010) Learning for resilience or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environ Educ Res 16(5–6):511–528 Sterling S (2014) Education in change. In: Huckle J, Sterling S (eds) Education for sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp 18–39 Svanström M, Lozano-Garcia FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):339–351 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE (2012) Learning for the future. Competences in education for sustainable development. UNECE Expert Group on Competences in Education for Sustainable Development, Utrecht. https://www. unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_Publications/ Competences_Publication.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO (2012) Education for sustainable development sourcebook. Learning & training tools N 4. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0021/002163/216383e.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018

L

1102 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals. Learning objectives. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/ 247444e.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 United Nations, UN (1992) Agenda 21. In: Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 3–14. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ Agenda21.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 United Nations, UN (2012) The future we want. In: Outcome document of the United Nations conference on sustainable development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012, RIO+20. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant. pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018 Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development Sustainable Buildings and the LEED BD + C Certification Cláudia de Assunção, Micheli Kowalczuk Machado and Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition The adverse effects resulting from environmental problems and increased public environmental awareness have fostered the development of creative solutions to reduce the environmental impacts of construction. In this context, several assessment tools are being developed worldwide to provide an effective framework for measuring the construction process environmental performance (Amasuomo et al. 2017). Among them, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, in particular its certification for new buildings and major reforms: LEED BD + C, which can be used as an instrument to promote sustainability considering the role of construction in this process.

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

Introduction Nowadays, there is a growing emphasis on the importance of preserving the environment, in order to influence the nature protection and make rational use of natural resources. The considerations presented in this study show how the use of environmental certifications for buildings has been growing in Brazil and how they contribute to minimize the environmental impacts caused by construction activities, in particular the construction of new buildings and major remodelings. Environmental certifications such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), in particular its certification for new buildings and major reforms: LEED BD + C, are used to define criteria and scores in order to categorize works on a scale of sustainable construction assessment. Thus, it can be said that the use of environmental certification tools results in construction activities which are less and less impacting on the environment, in order to contribute to the reduction of waste emissions, to the reduction of the exploitation of nonrenewable natural raw materials, and to social inclusion. In Brazil, civil construction is growing more, and as a consequence, there is an increase in waste generation, informality in activities, and degradation to the environment. In this context, it is crucial to define sustainable practices for the sector and to disseminate building assessment tools, highlighting the growing discussion about the rational use of the resources available in nature (Afonso et al. 2014). Dissemination and extension of sustainable practices related to sustainable construction and LEED DB + C certification are related to the training of professionals who can work in this area. Thus, it should be noted that higher education institutions (HEIs) play a fundamental role in this process. According to Casagrande and Deeke (2009), to serve as an example for society, the concern of HEIs with sustainability must reflect in their physical infrastructure, administration, pedagogical line, and research and extension projects. Kraemer (2004, p.8) strengthens this vision, mentioning that:

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development Challenge of sustainable development sees university as a specially equipped agent to lead the way, because its mission is to teach and train future decision-makers or citizens who are better able to make decisions; because it is rich and extensive its experience in interdisciplinary research; and because its fundamental nature as the motor of knowledge gives the university an essential role in a world whose borders dissolve every day.

In this sense, this entry presents the results of a research project entitled “Sustainable Construction: a Study in the Bragantina Region - SP,” developed at UNIFAAT University Center, located in the city of Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil. In this HEI, there is a research center called CEPE – Center for Studies, Research and Extension – whose main objective is to foster research activities of the institution’s teachers and students, as well as to accompany and support extension activities involving students, teachers, and the community. Its mission is defined as the feasibility and coordination of research, academic extension, and socio-environmental responsibility of UNIFAAT. This research is linked to the Nucleus for Sustainability and Culture Studies, belonging to CEPE, and aims to investigate the role of LEED certification for sustainability, with emphasis on LEED BD + C, using as an example the situation of Brazil and the state of São regarding this type of certification. In this way, we seek to collaborate with the extension of the teaching-learning process and higher education student formation.

Sustainability and LEED BD + C Certification The discussion about sustainable development has already come a long time, since in its various dimensions, the theme has been approached under different aspects and connotations (Amato Neto 2011). In this sense, it is worth highlighting one of the historical milestones related to this theme, the Brundtland Report, published in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which defined sustainable development as “the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without

1103

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (CMMAD 1991, p. 46). In general terms, the definition of sustainable development is based on the pursuit for conscious use of natural resources, in order to preserve the environment and prevent social inequalities (Borges 2008). Although this concept has assumed a prominent role in society in the last decades, many analyses and discussions have developed around its contradictions. It aims to conserve the environment for the survival of humanity under a preventive vision, but does not maintain a clear position regarding the capitalist development model based on high consumption standards, which determine the relationship between human being and nature nowadays (Machado 2009). For Leff (2006, p.86), this capitalist model is based on an economic rationality characterized by “the misfit between the forms and rhythms of extraction, exploitation and transformation of natural resources and ecological conditions for their conservation, regeneration and sustainable use.” In this context, it is observed that the search for sustainable development faces great challenges, among them, the difficult convergence of the economic growth, overcome of poverty, and attention to environmental limits. The concept of sustainable development has fueled many proposals that point to new market tools as a solution to combine production and the capacity to support natural resources. However, it is necessary to consider whether these mechanisms are capable of reorienting the logic of the consumer society, effectively contributing to the conservation of the environment (Scotto et al. 2007). Borges (2008, p.440) draws attention to the popularization of the sustainable development concept. For the author, “Trivialize the expression sustainable development is the most effective way to prevent the growth of this proposal and its capacity for real change.” Keeping distance from inadequate examples regarding the pursuit for sustainability is a fundamental role of the social actors involved in this proposal of vital change to the planet. In this perspective, the critical thinking and content evaluation must always be more important than welldesigned labels (Borges 2008).

L

1104

In the face of the development and historical improvement of issues related to the sustainable development concept, in 2015, the new Agenda 2030 was published, listing the goals for transforming the planet from sustainability. There are 17 objectives and 169 goals. Agenda 2030 creation was based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and on the International Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration, and the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. From a very ambitious point of view, the UN demands integrated solutions between the nations and between the great conferences and summits to dedicate actions toward the objectives (United Nations 2015). In order to reach sustainable development, according to Agenda 2030, it is crucial that the Global Partnership addresses the three spheres, social, economic, and environmental, in an integrated and balanced way to achieve the objectives set (United Nations 2015). John (2008) reinforces this view by mentioning that the development of humanity over the last 250 years has resulted in the worsening of negative impacts on the planet. Considering also that about 45% of the population is poor and that more than 1 billion people live in extreme poverty resulting from poor income distribution and voracious consumption habits, the great challenge of sustainable development is to meet balance between the three sustainability aspects: environmental protection, social justice, and economic viability. Among the commitments of Agenda 2030 is the preservation of the planet. As the devastation of natural resources and degradation to the environment are challenges to sustainable development, attention must be paid to the minimization of negative shocks on the environment. Once the objectives of Agenda 2030 are the protection, recovery, and promotion of the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable construction plays a fundamental role in achieving these objectives. If on the one hand it is an activity that generates great environmental impacts, if it is worked from a sustainable perspective, it can provide alternatives that enable the environmental conservation and guarantee the quality of life for the populations.

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

Civil construction makes great use of natural resources, and over the years, with the increase in population and economic development, there is a consequent increase in the demand for built-up areas. According to Afonso et al. (2014), civil construction is today one of the most important sectors of the Brazilian economy, and its growth brings with it a whole chain of companies linked to the production of inputs and services. Consequently, its macrosector is responsible for a great consumption of materials, emission of gases, and use of energy and water. Once it is impossible to exclude impacts to the environment through construction, by the exploitation of natural resources, generation of waste, segregation of the most needy classes, and influence on climate change, among others, there is a need to explore, discuss, and reflect on related issues in order to expand knowledge that minimizes such impacts. Since construction activities are responsible for the greatest impact on the environment, investments have been intensified in the last decades in order to find alternatives that indicate practices that minimize the environmental degradation that the sector provides, from new buildings to renovations and demolitions. In several countries, public policy applications encourage studies applied to develop actions to reduce the use of nonrenewable resources, energy savings, and reduction of construction waste (Silva et al. 2003). A technical solution for assessing environmental impacts is to use tools to diagnose, compare, and monitor changes in the environment over time in order to clarify and parameterize the information regarding the consequences of civil construction to the environment (Silva 2007). According to Agopyan and John (2011), in the long run, the generation of waste in construction is 2 to 5 times higher than the products consumed. To contribute to the achievement of the goals set by Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, certifications such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is an international system of environmental certification and guidance for buildings, are applied with the objective of protecting the planet from degradation and contributing to dematerialization (build using less materials) of the buildings.

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

According to Motta and Aguilar (2009), when analyzing sustainable development, considering the concern with environmental quality, historically it is possible to observe that the environmental problem is not recent and that the growth of consumption has implied in a greater exploitation of natural resources. Associating sustainability to the built environment, it is verified that the consumption of energy in the construction industry is responsible for more than 50% of the use of the planet’s energy sources. For John (2008), in relation to resources extracted from nature, it is stated that about 40% to 75% are used in civil construction. Since resources are limited and many of the impacts negatively affect the quality of life of all living beings, in search of improvements in the quality of life of society, there are currently studies that expand the options that enable sustainable constructions that meet the requirements proposed in standards, laws, and certifications in the construction area. The improvement of civil constructions is closely linked to human development. Thus, conservation of the environment through sustainable construction is extremely important, not only for the present society but also for future generations. In this context, sustainable constructions can reduce the impacts caused to the environment, generate social and economic benefits, and enable the rapprochement of the human being with nature (Afonso et al. 2014). Soares et al. (2006, p.97) mention that: The construction industry has a significant impact on a nation's economy. Therefore, small changes in the different phases of the construction process can promote, besides important changes in the environmental efficiency and reduction of the operational expenses of a work, greater incentive to investments in the sector. In this market of increasing competitiveness and submitted to control instruments (legislation and standards) and continuous improvement, the choice of building materials represents an important field of environmentally responsible engineering.

Industrialization has caused accelerated economic development. As a consequence, the actions of destruction to the environment were accentuated. From the 1990s, in Europe, methodologies for the environmental evaluation of buildings were

1105

developed, and, considering local characteristics, parameters were elaborated to analyze the life cycle of buildings. These parameters were used for the orientation of the designers, for possible interventions in the construction and foundation for certification requirements (Silva et al. 2003). These parameters are fundamental in view of the impossibility of constructing environments without impacts. Thus, there are some challenges to be faced: to search for more knowledge and to develop methods and tools to help reduce many of these impacts, as well as to enhance social and economic benefits (John 2008). For Motta and Aguilar (2009, p. 99), “In construction, sustainability is being inserted as a requirement for an environmental or green certification tool, such as LEED or AQUA. Green certifications play an important role in changing construction practices and are directly related to management aspects of the project.” According to Silva et al. (2003), in Europe, each country has methods of evaluating buildings, in addition to the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Hong Kong, in which evaluation tools can be divided into two categories: (a) marketoriented methods with simpler structures, such as LEED certifications, and (b) evaluation methods aimed at scientific research, such as the Green Building Challenge (GBC). Among the various tools that help to monitor environmental actions, LEED certification is expanding its reach, with application in more than 160 countries. Environmental certification tools such as LEED help to verify the use of each practice and are directly related to project management, contributing to strategic planning for a more sustainable construction (Motta and Aguilar 2009). LEED certification started its activities in 1996, and its pilot version was released in early 1999 in order to define concepts of practices for environmentally responsible construction. In the 2000s, a new LEED 2.0 version was released with updates to a method that consists of a list of prerequisites to reduce the negative impacts of construction on nature (Silva et al. 2003). LEED is a certification system that aims to disseminate sustainable practices in construction and minimize the environmental impacts of the sector. It includes the following types: LEED

L

1106

BD + C, new construction and major renovations; LEED ID + C, commercial offices and retail stores; LEED O + M, existing enterprises; and LEED ND, neighborhoods and LEED for homes (USBC 2017). In each typology, eight areas are considered for analysis and classification within the certification. They are location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation, and regional credit priority. Each analysis provides a score, which through the fulfillment of the prerequisites of each area accumulates credits that will indicate the qualification for certification, being the minimum score 40 points and maximum 110 points. It has four levels: certified, silver, gold, and platinum (Fig. 1). For projects and construction of new buildings, LEED BD + C proposes sustainable building practices in order to achieve harmony between natural and built environments (GBC Brasil 2018). According to Silva et al. (2003), LEED evaluations consider the construction practices of each country, city, and state, aligning the methodology with local cultural traditions. As announced by GBC Brasil (2018), the LEED BD + C certification, as well as new construction and large reforms, embraces other sectors such as schools, core and shell development, retail stores, warehouses and distribution centers, data centers, hospitality, and healthcare. The use of the tool has been growing around the world and expanding the history of certified buildings, which results in a data collection that helps in simplifying the information according to each region of each country. The continuous use of the evaluations incorporates the database,

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

creating references that help in the creation of goals applicable to positive practices to the sustainable construction (Silva 2007). According to data from GBC Brasil (2018), every day about 158,000 square meters is certified in the world. In this ranking, Brazil is among the five with the highest number of projects registered and certified. This characteristic shows that the country is in a growing process of awareness regarding sustainable constructions. In the country, the green building certification began to be promoted in 2007, when the Brazilian Sustainable Construction Council (CBCS) was created. In order to start the activities for the acquisition of LEED seals in the country, the Green Building Council Brazil (GBCB) (Agopyan and John 2011) was set up. The projects that used the tool have already shown results. According to GBC Brasil, certification contributes to reductions in water and energy consumption, reduction in CO2 emissions, and generation of waste (Fig. 2) (GBC Brasil 2018). According to a survey on LEED certifications, the practice of sustainable construction generates benefits such as the improvement of housing quality, minimization of environmental impacts, rational use of natural resources, reduction of operational costs, as well as social inclusion and incentive to environmental awareness. After verifying the data of the most used environmental certifications in Brazil, it shows that from 2004 to 2016, 1106 LEED certifications were registered and more than 50% of the certifications are from São Paulo State in which 666 registered until 2017 (GBC Brasil 2018). According to records released by GBC Brasil (2018), LEED certifications in Brazil are increasing. Specifically related to LEED BD + C certification,

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Rating levels of LEED. (Source: Reproduced from GBC Brasil 2018)

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

1107

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Average reductions in Brazil from the LEED certification. (Reproduced from: GBC Brasil 2018)

there are a growing number of registrations and certifications, mainly for commercial projects. São Paulo is the state with the highest number of both registrations and LEED certifications. In view of the above, it should be noted that certifications play an important role in the rise of sustainability, by creating parameters aiming at the lowest possible impact of construction activities on the environment (Costa and Moraes 2013) in order to comply with the requirements of the certification used. The search for more sustainable and environmentally efficient buildings is a reality in Brazil. The motivations for this option can vary from the aim to comply with current environmental legislation to the pursuit for a better positioning in the real estate market and attend the demands of increasingly conscious consumers. The fact is that civil constructions have sought to adapt to this new scenario. “Regardless of the reason, this recent posture has provided a reduction of the environmental impacts that this sector has historically caused to the environment” (Afonso et al. 2014, p.7). Camargo et al. (2015) mention that one of the greatest challenges of civil construction is the search for balance in the three pillars of sustainability, which should result in a reduction in environmental impact, corporate social responsibility, and improvements in climatic conditions. In this sense, Afonso et al. (2014) emphasize that among the benefits guaranteed by sustainable construction, the sustainability pillars are highlighted, guaranteeing savings for owners, investors, and occupants, minimizing environmental and social impacts, and avoiding major construction problems, expropriations, and the need to expand urban infrastructure. Thus, specific environmental certifications for this sector have added even more and have been important tools to the entrepreneur and to society.

As quoted by John (2008), two proceedings can be applied in this context: the dematerialization of the economy and construction and the substitution of natural raw materials for waste, as long as it does not create and/or amplify other negative impacts on nature. According to Coelho (2010), for elaborating sustainable housing projects, it is very important to evaluate the bioclimatic and geographical conditions about the place in which the dwelling will be inserted. In order for the results to be involved in permeable, wooded, low-cost areas, with water and energy efficiency, it is important to apply techniques to help achieve these results, culminating in better-quality built environments. In addition to these issues, it should be pointed out that, according to John (2008), in Brazil, the social class division is also marked by the quality of built environments and the poorest inhabit poorquality buildings. For society’s sustainability, the challenge is to increase the built environment, with improvements for the poorest, with the least possible impact. However, to amplify the built environment, there are consequences such as destruction of forests and exploitation of nonrenewable resources. The author also emphasizes that in order to overcome the challenge of building with the least possible impact, technologies and means must be created in order to significantly reduce environmental impacts and return social and economic benefits. In the question of the reduction of social and economic inequality, in Brazil, there is still a lot to be done; the sustainability agenda, in the evaluation of buildings, should consider this reality in the country (Silva et al. 2003). In the world perspective, even with economic growth and development, about 45% of the population is poor. Considering this scenario, it is part of sustainable development to aim to meet social demands (John 2010).

L

1108

In this context, LEED BD + C certification can and must contribute to social issues, given that current environmental problems are the result of human interaction with the space in which they live, and in this way, the search for sustainability must overcome perspectives which consider only the natural environment.

Final Considerations Although the economic development of recent years has boosted life quality and expectancy of the population, it also increased the production of consumer goods, which resulted in a strong exploitation of natural resources. Today society is facing an environmental crisis, with shortage of potable water, desertification of previously forested areas, social inequality, and much precariousness in the conditions of preservation of the environment. Although the advances in environmental technologies and certifications have intensified, as exemplified by the case of the of São Paulo State mentioned in this study, the scope of techniques that help in the improvement of the built environment is still insufficient considering the great extension of Brazil and also that there is little application of these techniques to popular housing. Above all, there are so many impacts to the environment through civil construction, such as exploitation of natural resources, deforestation of forested areas, excessive use of water, air pollution, water pollution, and large generation of waste and illegal waste discards, besides poor quality of built-up areas, especially where poor people live; studies on the use of tools that minimize such impacts are expanding, but there is still much to invest in knowledge and reflection on the subject to achieve continuous improvement. With environmental education, from awareness to responsibility for cultivating a more sustainable environment, and innovative technology applications for improvements to the built-up areas, it will be possible to incorporate more and more environmental responsibility through quality management practices in construction activities. In Brazil, the use of the LEED BD + C certification demonstrates its importance in reconciling

LEED BD + C and Sustainable Development

with the objectives of Agenda 2030, which provide parameters for estimating the environmental impacts of civil construction, as well as setting goals and guidelines for the development of new studies in this area. The increase in the use of environmental certifications in Brazil contributes to minimizing the environmental impacts generated by construction, especially proving the benefits of using sustainable construction proposals. The dissemination and interest in the theme are being established in the country and stimulating practices that integrate the day-to-day activities, contributing to the preservation and improvement of the quality of the natural and built environment. Higher education institutions are key elements in this process, insofar as they are responsible, among other factors, for training professionals and citizens committed to the quest for sustainability. Development of research involving teachers and students, as presented in this entry, enables the production and dissemination of knowledge, such as those related to sustainable construction and LEED certification. In this case, it also encourages the use of new technologies that can contribute to a more balanced interaction between humans and the environment.

References Afonso PP, Ribeiro FABS, Souza LHF, Cunha DAI (2014) Sustentabilidade ambiental no setor da construção civil: comparação das medidas adotadas por construtoras do município de Uberl^andia, MG. In: Anais do 5th Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão Ambiental, Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos Ambientais e Saneamento, Belo Horizonte, 24–27 Nov 2014. http:// www.ibeas.org.br/congresso/Trabalhos2014/III-100.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017 Agopyan V, John VM (2011) O desafio da sustentabilidade na construção civil. Blucher, São Paulo Amasuomo TT, Atanda J, Baird G (2017) Development of a building performance assessment and design tool for residential buildings in Nigeria. Procedia Engineering 180:221–230 Amato Neto J (2011) Os desafios da produção e do consumo sob novos padrões sociaisi e ambientais. In: Amanto Neto J (org) Sustentabilidade & Produção: teoria e prática para uma gestão sustentável. Atlas, São Paulo, pp 1–12 Borges C (2008) Desenvolvimento Sustentável. In: Instituto Socioambiental (org) Almanaque Brasil Socioambiental. ISA, São Paulo, pp 439–440

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development Camargo A, Capobianco RPJ, Oliveira PAJ (2015) Meio ambiente Brasil: avanços e obstáculos pós-Rio-92, 2nd edn. Estação Liberdade, São Paulo Casagrande E Jr, Deeke V (2009) Implantando práticas sustentáveis nos Campi Universitários: a proposta do “Escritório Verde” da UTFPR. Revista Educação & Tecnologia 9:93–104 Coelho MFR (2010) Prefácio. In: John VM, Prado RTA (coord) Boas práticas para habitação mais sustentável. Páginas & Letras, São Paulo, pp 4–5 Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente (1991) Nosso Futuro Comum. Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro Costa ED, Moraes CSB (2013) Construção civil e a certificação ambiental: análise comparativa das certificações LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental design) e AQUA (Alta Qualidade ambiental). Engenharia Ambiental 10(3):160–169 Green Building Council Brasil (2018) http://www. gbcbrasil.org.br. Accessed 14 Nov 2017 John VM (2008) Construção e Sustentabilidade. In: Instituto Socioambiental (org) Almanaque Brasil Socioambiental. ISA, São Paulo, pp 392–393 John VM (2010) Desafios da Construção Sustentável. In: John VM, Prado RTA (coord) Boas práticas para habitação mais sustentável. Páginas & Letras, São Paulo, pp 11–18 Kraemer MEP (2004) A universidade do século XXI rumo ao desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa 3(2):1–21 http://www.peri odicosibepes.org.br/index.php/recadm/article/view/408. Accessed 30 May 2018 Leff E (2006) Epistemologia Ambiental, 4th edn. Cortez, São Paulo Machado ML (2009) Ações institucionais, participação e conflitos ambientais na sub-bacia hidrográfica do Ribeirão do Moinho, Nazaré Paulista-SP. Dissertação, Universidade de São Paulo Motta SRF, Aguilar MTP (2009) sustentabilidade e processos de projetos de edificações. Gestão Tecnologia de Projetos 4(1):84–119 Scotto G, Carvalho ICM, Guimarães LB (2007) Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Vozes, Petropolis Silva VG (2007) Indicadores de sustentabilidade de edifícios: estado da arte e desafios para desenvolvimento no Brasil. Ambiente Construído 7(1):47–66 Silva VG, Silva MG, Agopyan V (2003) Avaliação de edifícios no Brasil: da avaliação ambiental para avaliação de sustentabilidade. Ambiente Construído 3(3):7–18 http://www.seer.ufrgs.br/ambienteconstruido/ article/viewFile/3491/1892. Accessed 14 Oct 2017 Soares SR, Souza DM, Pereira SW (2006) A avaliação do ciclo de vida no contexto da construção civil. In: Sattler MA, Pereira FOR (eds) Construção e Meio Ambiente. ANTAC, Porto Alegre, pp 96–127 United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con tent/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sus tainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2018 US Green Building Council (2017) https://new.usgbc.org/ leed. Accessed 20 Mar 2017

1109

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development LEED O + M: Requirement Analysis for the Adequacy of UNIFAAT University Center Administrative Building Peter Martins Ribeiro, Estevão Brasil Ruas Vernalha and Micheli Kowalczuk Machado Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Currently green building has been recognized for its contribution to sustainability. Several assessment tools and classification systems were developed to analyze the environmental performance of buildings and thus integrate them into sustainable development proposals (Ali and Al Nsairat 2009). In this context, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is recognized as one of the most widely adopted initiatives to evaluate the sustainable performance of buildings. The certification, in addition to new constructions, also includes in its proposal existing buildings (LEED O + M) that can generate diverse environmental impacts in its operation. Thus, the importance of this type of certification for the promotion of sustainable development is noted.

Introduction This entry shows a brief history of how the concepts of sustainability and sustainable construction emerged, as well as the introduction of these concepts in civil construction. It also addresses the importance of sustainable construction in the pursuit of the objectives of the 2030 agenda, with emphasis on the use of environmental certifications as a support to this search. The research takes the administrative building of UNIFAAT University Center as object of study, analyzing it in the light of the parameters of the

L

1110

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, according to the Existing Buildings typology (LEED O + M). Firstly, the current situation of the building is introduced, comparing its characteristics with the parameters demanded by the LEED O + M certification. Next, some suggestions for adaptations in the building’s operating practices are presented in order to meet the minimum requirements presented by the certification.

Sustainable Building: LEED O + M According to Agopyan and John (2011), the concern upon the impacts generated by the human being on the environment emerged in the 1960s, with publications and demonstrations on chemical and radioactive pollution from industrial and warlike industries. In this period, the concern with the development model began. Later, the Brundtland report (entitled Our Common Future), published in 1987 and prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development, defined sustainable development as a “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” which “means enabling people, now and in the future, to achieve a satisfactory level of social and economic development and human and cultural attainment, while making reasonable use of land resources and preserving natural species and habitats” (CMMA 1991). Since Rio 92 event (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), this concept has gained momentum and has been used in many sectors of activity.

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

From these events, the term green building became more frequent, including international events specifically organized to discuss the theme, such as the International Conference on Sustainable Construction, which first edition took place in 1994 in Tampa, Florida. In 1999, Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction was published, defining the concept of sustainable construction. In the following year, Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries was published, in which sustainable construction is defined as “a holistic process that aspires to the restoration and maintenance of harmony between natural and built environments, and the creation of settlements that affirm human dignity and encourage economic equity” (Ministry of the Environment 2017). Agenda 21 comes to rescue the pillars of sustainability, with recommendations for sustainable construction, no longer focusing only on energy efficiency but also aiming at the quality of life provided by the built environment and its economic viability. In an evolutionary process, Agenda 2030 was published in 2015. According to the UN it “is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom” (United Nations 2015). The agenda is composed of 17 objectives and 169 goals (Fig. 1). Among those objectives, those which are more inherent to civil construction are the following: ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation; build resilient infrastructures; promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation; make cities and human settlements inclusive, secure, resilient, and sustainable; take urgent action to cease

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Agenda 2030 Goals. (Source: Reproduced from ONU 2018)

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

climate change and its impacts; protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and sustainable management of forests; and combating desertification, detain and reverse land degradation and detain biodiversity loss (United Nations 2015). According to Agopyan and John (2011), although civil construction is the industry that mostly consumes natural resources and generates waste, as the significant dust generation and noise pollution in construction sites located within cities, it still had not been placed as an industry with problems directly related to sustainability. It is notorious that the activities related to the civil construction are very impacting, from the environmental point of view. Brazilian civil construction currently consumes 40% of natural resources and contributes with one third of greenhouse gas emissions (Tajiri et al. 2014). The construction industry also changes the landscape in a significant way, either in the place of the extraction of raw material or in the place of the building. After the end of construction, there is energy and water consumption during the use and maintenance of the built environment, mainly in public buildings and other places of great influx of people, such as office buildings for companies and student buildings. In such cases, of buildings used by many people who often have different habits, it tends to be more difficult to achieve savings in electricity or water consumption, unless all users have a differentiated sustainable awareness level. A housing or construction can be considered sustainable when environmental suitability, economic viability, and social justice are incorporated in all stages of its life cycle, that is, from the design phase through to construction, use, and maintenance phases and in a possible demolition process (Tajiri et al. 2014). Considering the above, when the term sustainable construction is mentioned, it raises the idea of a concept applied to a new building, designed to obtain greater energy efficiency or, even, to reuse materials in its construction. A previously existing building, built by traditional methods and making use of non-sustainable materials, cannot seek to correspond to this

1111

concept of sustainable construction, since it has no more means to apply environmentally adequate concepts in the design and construction phases of the building. Regarding the quest for sustainability, considering that electric energy and treated water are consumed by almost the entire population in their homes, even more in urban areas, generating energy efficiency by reducing consumption is a highly relevant issue for achieving sustainable development. However, for the construction to be sustainable in accordance with the parameters of Agenda 21, this guidance must be considered throughout the life cycle of the building and not only with regard to energy consumption. The operation of the Brazilian built environment accounted for 44% of the electricity consumption in 2007 (ANEEL 2008), and there is a tendency to increase this participation. On the other hand, changes in the buildings design can mean important savings in consumption and represent the reduction of impacts associated with energy generation (Lamberts et al. 1997). In the case of a new building, in theory, everything can and should be thought and planned for sustainable development, such as building materials and their environmental and social impacts, for example, the analysis of the place from which the raw material for the manufacture of these materials was extracted; of the manufacturing process, which is a generator of greenhouse gases; and of material transport, which may be associated with small or large distances, directly influencing a smaller or larger amount of greenhouse gas emissions, among others. Concerning the execution of the work, it should be planned to be executed in a way to reduce loss, generating less waste. In case of using the environment already built, it should provide well-being to its users, offering them thermal and acoustic comfort, air circulation, and easy access, among other benefits. Regarding the maintenance, it is possible to highlight issues such as the nonuse of chemically polluting paints and the search for processes capable of making it with less economic cost. These are just a few examples of issues to consider when it comes to materials. A number of other issues must be addressed in

L

1112

order to work in the field of sustainable construction, such as the application of protocols capable of avoiding inadequate working conditions – considering the people involved in all stages of the building’s life cycle, as well as the creation of processes and practices responsible for making this whole cycle economically viable. For an existing building, many issues remain unchanged. However, since it is an already-built environment, the focus should be on the reduce of energy consumption, improvement of its use, and sustainable maintenance. This consideration is strongly relevant, since the huge majority of world’s population today occupies built environments that do not have any feature aligned with sustainable issues, as they were built in times when drivers in the construction industry did not have sustainability as an important concept to be considered. The need for changes to make the construction sector more sustainable reveals the need to apply tools that can guarantee adequate environmental performance for new or existing buildings. In this context, seals and certifications have been created, which magnitude of recognition to the people, public bodies, and market bears their influence on architects and engineers, encouraging them to use best practices in the projects and construction of buildings. In this way, they contribute to the movement of change and to a transformation of the market (Tajiri et al. 2014). The certifications, both for materials and for the buildings themselves, are gaining importance in the Brazilian construction industry. Although it is a process that has gradually become reality, there are already some certification initiatives in the country’s buildings. These examples are inspired on American and European certification models, which cover criteria such as the use of inputs from proven origin, the rational use of water, the search for energy efficiency, and the dissemination of recommendations for the use of internal environments in order to decisively reduce the impacts resulting from the execution of the work and, above all, the operation of the building (Tajiri et al. 2014). It is notable that there is difficulty to implement the culture of certifying buildings, often because an inadequate approach is used when presented to

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

consumer, since they are much more concerned about showing that their building has a differential compared to the others – more beautiful and durable, with an innovative system of abstraction of water, etc. than with the impact that the house can cause in socio-environmental terms – as its contribution to climate change (Tajiri et al. 2014). In 1999, the United States Green Building Council (USBCG) created the LEED certification seal. The program brings financial and economic incentives to the US green building market (Motta and Aguilar 2009). In 2007, the Green Building Council Brazil (GBCBrazil) was created in Brazil, aiming to be a reference in the evaluation and certification of sustainable buildings in Brazil, through the regionalization of the LEED evaluation tool. Also in 2007, the Brazilian Sustainable Construction Council (CBCS) was created, with the objective to implement sustainable concepts and practices in civil construction – however, the CBCS does not intend to certify buildings. Also in 2007, the Ecological seal for sustainable products and technologies IDHEA-Falcão Bauer was launched (Motta and Aguilar 2009). In 2008, the Brazilian certification, High Environmental Quality (AQUA) certification, based on the French certification Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE) was launched. In Brazil there are also several other certifications and programs that are being used for the evaluation of new and existing buildings, such as: Selo Casa Azul – created by Caixa Econômica Federal – qualifies projects of enterprises within social and environmental criteria, grouped into six categories: urban insertion, design and comfort, energy efficiency, material resources conservation, rational use of water, and social practices (Caixa Econômica Federal 2017). Procel-Edifica (National Program for Energy Efficiency of Buildings) – developed by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of Cities, with the assistance of Universities and Research Centers in 2003 (Procel 2017). Qualiverde – developed by the City of Rio de Janeiro, within the scope of the Municipal

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

Council of Urban Policy – COMPUR, em 2012 2012 (Bezerra and Oliveira 2015). With great recognition in the Brazilian market for being an international certification, the LEED ™ or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, used in more than 160 countries, is the main platform used for green buildings (GBC Brasil 2018). LEED v4 certification is divided into several types of certification which are the LEED Building Design + Construction (LEED BD + C), LEED Operations + Maintenance (LEED O + M), LEED Interior Design + Construction (LEED ID+C), LEED Neighborhood Development (LEED ND), and e LEED Homes (GBC Brasil 2018). LEED certification works for nearly all types of buildings and can be applied at any time in the enterprise. Those who receive the LEED certification are analyzed in eight dimensions, distributed in prerequisites (compulsory practices) and credits (recommendations) which, once accomplished, guarantee points to the edification. The level of certification is defined according to the

1113

number of points acquired and can vary from 40 points to 110 points. The levels are Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum (GBC Brasil 2018).

LEED O + M Application in the Administrative Building of UNIFAAT The study project deals with one of the buildings of the UNIFAAT University Center (Fig. 2) – more specifically, the building where the administration and the secretary are installed (Figs. 3 and 4), characterized as the one with the largest number of permanent users of the institution. The UNIFAAT administrative building, when conceived, was not designed with certification in mind. The main driver was the concern to create a suitable environment for the installation of the administration of UNIFAAT University Center. Thus, traditional methods and structure with prefabricated materials were used in the construction, aiming at a good cost-benefit and execution of the work in the shortest time possible, and that the quality and durability of the building could be maintained.

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 UNIFAAT University Center. (Source: Reproduced from UNIFAAT 2018a)

L

1114

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Administrative building of UNIFAAT. (Source: The authors 2017)

Thus, the building does not have any sustainable certification. In this sense, this study aims to investigate possibilities about the hypothesis of submitting this building to a process to receive a LEED certification. In the case of the administrative building of UNIFAAT, the best typology in which it fits in is LEED O + M: Existing buildings. The LEED O + M certification comes to certify various types of buildings, including the type addressed by this study, which is the operation and maintenance of existing building. Old buildings are great consumers of water and energy. The application of LEED certification in an existing building is, above all, an attempt to reverse this scene. This inference comes from the observation that it can take up to 80 years to remedy the environmental impacts generated by demolishing an existing building and building a new one, even if the new one is extremely (GBC Brasil 2018). That is, finding ways to make an existing building more efficient is substantially more environmentally productive than demolishing it for a new construction – even if the new building is highly efficient. The LEED O + M typology can be applied to various types of buildings, from commercial buildings to data centers.

The LEED O + M v4 certification type addresses: • Existing buildings – projects that do not have as their main function the education, retail, data centers, sheds, and distribution centers or lodging. • Retail stores – for existing retail spaces, both showroom spaces and storage areas. • Schools – for existing buildings consisting of primary and secondary learning spaces. It can also be used in higher education and nonacademic buildings within an education campus. • Lodging – existing hotels, motels, and inns as well as other companies within the service industry that provide short-term accommodation, with or without food. • Data centers – existing buildings specially constructed and equipped to meet the highdensity needs of computing equipment such as server racks used for data storage and processing. • Warehouses and distribution centers – storing products, manufactured goods, raw materials, or personal belongings (such as storerooms) (GBC Brasil 2018). For a LEED certification, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) evaluates buildings in eight dimensions, which are Location and Transportation,

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Floor plan of UNIFAAT administrative building. (Source: Reproduced from UNIFAAT 2018b)

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development 1115

L

1116

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 LEED O + M Checklist spreadsheet. (Source: Reproduced from USGBC 2018)

Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation, and Regional Priority (GBC Brasil 2018). The certification guide provided by USGB, LEED v4 for Operation and Maintenance of Buildings, was used to guide this study (USGBC 2014). This guide provides information such as what are the dimensions evaluated by the certifier, what are the minimum requirements for each dimension, and what are the values of each requirement and credit in the sum of the total score for the certification. To receive the minimum certification, it is necessary to reach 40 points; for Silver level certification, the minimum is 50 points; for Gold level certification, the minimum is 60 points; and for the Platinum level – the highest – the minimum is 80 points (USGBC 2014). The checklist list provided by the USGBC certifier was used to check what score was achieved.

Basically describing the spreadsheet (Fig. 5), in the first column (green), the amount of credit score obtained in that item is inserted; in the second column (yellow), the scores that can be reached are inserted; in the third column (red), the scores that cannot be attended are inserted; in the fourth column, the items are described; and in the fifth and last column, the maximum score that can be reached is shown, where the letter Y refers to a prerequisite which was met and the letter N to a prerequisite which was not – there is still the possibility of the symbol of a question mark, referring to a prerequisite that can be met. Finally, in the last line of the checklist, the total points are shown. Analyzing the administrative building of UNIFAAT in all dimensions covered by LEED certification O + M, it is noticeable that, currently, the administrative building of the institution meets only 3 prerequisites and reaches 16 credit points, not reaching the minimum to get the LEED O + M

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

certification, which is 40 credit points and all prerequisites met. But there are still 73 credit points that are possible to obtain. The UNIFAAT administrative building has great potential for a LEED v4 O + M certification, with the possibility of reaching the highest level – the Platinum level. In order to do this, first of all, several prerequisites must be met in all dimensions. This can be achieved by changing some practices and promoting some changes such as in the prerequisite Site Management Policy (SS Prerequisite: Site Management Policy) in the Sustainable Sites (SS) dimension, where it is possible to implement a management policy that reduces the use of harmful chemicals as well as promote a management of organic waste generated in the institution that submits this material to an appropriate composting process (USGBC 2014). In the case of Indoor Water Use Reduction prerequisite, in Water Efficiency dimension, metals with reducing system of water consumption can be installed, aiming to achieve a consumption index below last year’s average. And in Building-Level Water Metering prerequisite, install hydrometers that measure the total consumption of water in real time and also promote the measurement of recovered water (USGBC 2014).

1117

In case of Energy and Atmosphere dimension, it is necessary to meet several prerequisites. This item requires special attention because it is the one which can grant the highest credit score. For this, it is basically necessary to reduce electrical consumption, which can be achieved with measures such as the installation of lighting system with automatic adjustment by level of clarity, automatic shutdown by presence sensor, and use of LED lamps. In this way, it is expected that, in general, it will be possible to reduce average annual consumption by at least 25% (USGBC 2014). The Location and Transportation dimension is important because it aims to reduce the effects of automobiles pollution. For this purpose, alternative transportation to the automobiles should be encouraged (Fig. 6). In this matter, the administrative building of UNIFAAT already has 3 points and can reach 70% of this item – which will guarantee 15 points. Based on the analysis carried out in the UNIFAAT administrative building, it is possible to reaffirm that existing buildings play a fundamental role in terms of sustainability, as they can bring direct and indirect benefits to environment conservation and guaranteed quality of life for the populations. In this sense, it should be emphasized that understanding a construction from a

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Bicycle rack. (Source: The authors 2017)

L

1118

nonconventional and more sustainable perspective is an important step toward an urgent and necessary change in patterns that historically have caused diverse environmental impacts, as it is the case of civil construction sector.

Final Considerations The use of practices and methods that meet the conception of sustainable construction refers to the preservation of natural resources for future generations, while maintaining the development to meet the needs of the current generation in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Certifications, at first, come to assess the built environment to classify how much they contribute – or not – to reducing climate change, as well as assessing how sustainable they are in general terms. Today, however, the construction market uses certifications not only as a parameter of sustainability but also as a commercial differential that has led to changes in the market, directing companies which own buildings to seek certifications to fit into this search for sustainability, currently required by the final consumer regarding the need for socio-environmental changes and environmental preservation. LEED certification, as one of the most widespread international certifications in civil construction, has been changing over the years. Currently, in version 4, it attempts to include various types of buildings. In the case of the LEED O + M typology, it seeks to create sustainable operation and maintenance parameters for existing buildings, making a great contribution to sustainability, since it covers a large part of the types of already existing buildings that have not been erected in shape or even to be sustainable. However, they can also contribute to sustainability by reducing their energy consumption and the pollution they generate during their operation and maintenance throughout their useful life. The administrative building of UNFAAT, as all buildings located within an academic center, when certified by an environmental seal of an internationally recognized organization, such as USGBC, makes a great contribution to the promotion of sustainability. In addition to the

LEED O + M and Sustainable Development

contribution of becoming a sustainable building, it will also contribute to the dissemination of practical concepts related to sustainability, given the direct contact that thousands of students of Higher Education will have with this example of sustainable construction daily. These students are future professionals, who in the coming years will compose the labor market and dictate the trends that will guide the construction sector. Another important fact is that a LEED-certified building within a University Center, as well as in most USGBC-certified buildings, denotes a strong commitment of the organization to sustainability and the next generations, as it is objectified in the 2030 Agenda.

References Agopyan V, John VM (2011) O desafio da sustentabilidade na construção civil. Blucher, São Paulo Ali HH, Al Nsairat SF (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries-case of Jordan. Build an Environment 44(5):1053–1064 ANEEL – Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (2008) Atlas de energia elétrica do Brasil, 3rd edn. Aneel, Brasília Bezerra MRDVM, Oliveira AJ (2015) Qualificação Qualiverde. A legislação para edifícios sustentáveis do rio de janeiro e análise comparativa com certificações. In: Anais do 5th simpósio de design sustentável, Puc, Rio de Janeiro, 11–13 Nov 2015 Caixa Econômica Federal (2017) Selo Caixa Azul. http:// www.caixa.gov.br/sustentabilidade/produtos-servicos/ selo-casa-azul/Paginas/default.aspx. Accessed 20 Dec 2017 Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente (1991) Nosso Futuro Comum. Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro Green Building Council Brasil (2018) http://www. gbcbrasil.org.br. Accessed 14 Mar 2018 Lamberts R, Dutra L, Pereira, FOR (1997) Eficiência energética na arquitetura. PW, 1997 Ministry of the Environment (2017) Construção Sustentável. Brasil http://www.mma.gov.br/cidadessustentaveis/urbanismo-sustentavel/constru%C3%A7 %C3%A3o-sustent%C3%A1vel. Accessed 14 Nov 2017 Motta SRF, Aguilar MTP (2009) sustentabilidade e processos de projetos de edificações. Gestão & Tecnologia de Projetos 4(1):84–119 ONU – Organização das Nações Unidas (2018) Objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável: 17 objetivos para transformar nosso mundo. http://www.agenda2030. org.br/os_ods/. Accessed 13 Mar 2018

Living Labs for Sustainability

1119

Procel (2017) Selo Procel edificações. http://www.pro celinfo.com.br/main.asp?View={8E03DCDE-FAE6470C-90CB-922E4DD0542C}. Accessed 12 Dec 2017 Tajiri CAH, Cavalcanti DC, Potenza JL (2014) Habitação Sustentável, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente Coordenadoria de Planejamento Ambiental, São Paulo UNIFAAT (2018a) http://www.faat.com.br/site/imagens/ Vista_FAAT_ok_b.jpg. Accessed 25 Jan 2018 UNIFAAT (2018b) Planta baixa do prédio administrativo da UNIFAAT. UNIFAAT, Atibaia United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20 Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2018 USGBC – US Green Building Council (2014) LEED v4 for building operations and maintenance – atualizado em 1 de outubro de 2014, USGBC. https://www.usgbc. org/sites/default/files/LEED%20v4%20EBOM_10.01. 14_PT.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2018 USGBC – US Green Building Council (2018) Checklist: LEED v4 for Building Operations and Maintenance, USGBC. https://www.usgbc.org/resources/checklistleed-v4-building-operations-and-maintenance. Accessed 10 Feb 2018

Legend ▶ Storytelling for Sustainable Development

Living Case Study ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Living Laboratories for Sustainability ▶ Living Labs for Sustainability

Living Labs ▶ University Development

Operations

for

Sustainable

Living Labs for Sustainability Silvia Sayuri Mandai1 and Fernanda da Rocha Brando2 1 School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Synonyms Living laboratories for sustainability

Introduction Studies have pointed out that human activities have reached a level which can damage the systems of Earth or exceeded crucial ecological limits/planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). These patterns of consumption and production are associated with populations’ lifestyles, such as global extraction in a much faster rate than what our global ecosystem can regenerate, use of natural resources, and the release of waste and emissions from their use (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Rockström et al. 2009; UNEP 2010; Steinberger et al. 2013; Steffen et al. 2015). Then, it is necessary a holistic approach which englobes and optimizes the entire productionconsumption-system (Liedtke et al. 2012). This issue depends on individual decision-making and behavioral actions combined with processes of organizational learning, including the social context (Sanne 2002; Reisch and Ropke 2005; Biel and Thøgersen 2007; Wenger 2007). Hence, more studies are needed, especially about what people want and how they use products and frameworks in their living environment (Shove 2003, 2005; Warde 2005). In this context, design processes represent sociocultural, economic, and environmental

L

1120

trends, connecting the user, the consumer and the producer. Furthermore, sustainable design is a key to avoiding, minimizing, and improving the environmental impacts of products and services (Liedtke et al. 2012). Also, it can suppport the restructuring of the state and the emergence of new ways of institutional innovation (Bulkeley and Broto 2012). In this point, it is relevant a user-oriented design, which integrates users and all relevant stakeholders in the value chain, reducing consumers’ acceptance problems in the future, for example (Feurstein et al. 2008; Liedtke et al. 2012). Thus, the design processes are connected to the idea of experimentation and this approach is related to the living labs concept, such as the design of urban political spaces through which strategies to avoid or minimize climate change’s effects can be pursued (Bulkeley and Broto 2012).

Living Labs Definitions and Historical of “Living Lab” The word “laboratory” (lab) is defined as a building or a room where scientific experiments, analyses, and research are carried out (Collins Dictionary – available at https://www. collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/laboratory). Aiming to test hypotheses, the labs allow variables to be isolated and carefully manipulated (Knorr-Cetina 1995), creating enhanced environments where it is possible to see things not visible easily (Henke and Gieryn 2008). However, the idea that the “lab” can be separated from “reality” has been widely criticized (Gieryn 2006). This way, the approach of living labs enables to redefine the meaning of experimenting and innovating (Evans and Karvonen 2011). In this context, the term “living lab” was initially used to observe, for a period, the living patterns of users in a smart home, a proposition of Professor William Mitchell at MIT (BergvallKåreborn et al. 2009). It has arisen based on innovation and entrepreneurship, as an open business network (Nystrom et al. 2014). Since then, the approach has become broader: living labs to enhance innovation, inclusion, usefulness, and usability of information communication

Living Labs for Sustainability

technology (ICT) and its applications (Eriksson et al. 2005). However, there is no consensual definition of living lab. There are two main perspectives. As a milieu, an environment, an infrastructure, an arena. Also, as a methodology, a systemic innovation, an approach for intentional collaborative experimentation of researchers, citizens, companies, and local governments in a user-centric perspective (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al. 2009; Schliwa 2013). Hereafter, we will present more details. In a milieu point of view, it is seen as an experimentation environment in which technology is given shape in real-life contexts and in which users are considered “co-producers” (Ballon et al. 2005). As well, physical regions, virtual realities or spaces of interaction, where all stakeholders join together to create, develop, test, and implement new products and services in a real-life context (Nystrom et al. 2014). Furthermore a geographical or institutionally bounded space, where are conducted intentional experiments that make social and material alterations, incorporating an explicit element of iterative learning (Evans et al. 2015). Besides, a living lab can be considered an arena for innovation: a systemic innovation approach in which all stakeholders participate directly in the development process of a product, service, or application (Feurstein et al. 2008). Moreover, as a methodology, a living lab is defined as “a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts” (Eriksson et al. 2005, p. 4). The concept involves staging intentional experiments in real-world settings which are then validated collaboratively and monitored, enabling the researchers to make conclusions (Feurstein et al. 2008; Voytenko et al. 2016). In an approach for integrative collaboration, it can be characterized to constitute a form of experimental governance, whereby stakeholders develop and test new technologies and ways of living to address the challenges of climate change and urban sustainability (Evans et al. 2015). Also it is described as “an integrated technological, socio-economic approach that enables optimized

Living Labs for Sustainability

interaction of production and consumption by mirroring, explaining, and integrating emerging trends and consumer behavior” (Liedtke et al. 2012, p. 108). It prioritizes long-term measures and the engagement of users rather than restricting or designing around them (Liedtke et al. 2012). It also represents partnerships between sectors. Living labs can be understood to “sidestep the tensions between bottom-up and top-down approaches to innovation in favor of lateral partnerships” (Evans and Karvonen 2011, p. 136) and to “validate products and services in collaborative, multi-contextual, empirical, real-world environments, integrating users and stakeholders” (Evans and Karvonen 2011, p. 129). Comprehending both an arena and an approach, living labs are characterized as “a user-centric innovation milieu built on every-day practice and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts, aiming to create sustainable values” (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al. 2009, p. 3). Additionally, the expression living lab includes infrastructure and socioeconomic issues: “a combined lab-/household system, analyzing existing product-service systems as well as technical and socio-economic influences focused on the social needs of people, aiming the development of integrated technical and social innovations – new product mixes, services and societal infrastructures – and simultaneously promoting the conditions of sustainable development and respecting the limited numbers of natural services that can be used without destroying the ecological system” (Liedtke et al. 2012, p. 109). Based on the environmental challenges, the living labs for sustainability were proposed. Considering that creating a more sustainable society is increasingly an urban challenge (Pincetl 2010), cities are becoming key sites to develop long-lasting solutions to climate change (Bulkeley and Broto 2012; Hodson and Marvin 2007) and sustainability. In this panorama, living labs to drive innovation in sustainable urban development have been proposed and studied (Evans and Karvonen 2011). In this chapter, both perspectives of living labs will be considered.

1121

Urban living labs (ULLs) constitute a form of experimental governance, whereby urban stakeholders, aiming to produce innovative solutions to the challenges of climate change, resilience, and urban sustainability, develop and test new technologies, products, services and ways of living (Bulkeley and Broto 2012; Voytenko et al. 2016). ULLs can also be understood as “spaces designed for interactions between a context and a research process to test, develop and/or apply social practices and/or technology to a building or infrastructure” (Voytenko et al. 2016, p. 46). Moreover, they are described as “sites devised to design, test and learn from innovation in real time in order to respond to particular societal, economic and environmental issues in a given urban place” (McCormick and Kiss 2015, p. 45). Considering ULLs’ recent and rapid proliferation, studies have been conducted to understand whether living labs may help in the government of urban sustainability and low carbon transitions (Voytenko et al. 2016). ULLs are distinct because their targets are on knowledge and learning as a means through which such interventions can be successfully achieved (Voytenko et al. 2016). Moreover their objectives are the co-creation and empowerment of diverse stakeholders, putting together science, policy, business and civil society (Voytenko et al. 2016) in an open and participatory way. In the area of sustainability, living labs involve some applied problems, such as built design, green infrastructure, and low carbon technologies through collaborative experiments, integrating users and stakeholders as co-producers of knowledge (Evans et al. 2015). The spaces designated as living labs are very variable, such as universities, government bodies, and private companies (Evans and Karvonen 2011). The living lab approach has become popular with universities around the world because they have recognized that their campuses offer accessible real-world conditions where it is possible to conduct applied research (Evans et al. 2015). It is a way to propose alterations in our society according to new knowledge (Evans and Karvonen 2011). This approach is commonly

L

1122

referred to as “living lab” or using the “campus as a classroom” (IARU 2014). In the next section, some practical examples of the previous concepts will be presented focusing mainly on Universities. Universities as Living Labs for Sustainability Universities are potential environments to study sustainability challenges because they can simulate small towns, acting as ULLs (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). Sustainability in a University includes several sectors, like classrooms, laboratories, housing, transportation and other services (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008). The campuses comprise many people (students, teachers, and staff), different activities and buildings of various ages and types (Evans et al. 2015). Some also have student residences to manage, like at the University of Manchester and University of São Paulo (Evans et al. 2015; Mandai and Brando 2018). In this context, several universities have committed to implementing sustainability practices in their institutions (Lozano et al. 2013), such as education, research, community participation, and campus operations (Cortese 2003; Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar 2008; Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010; Leal Filho 2011; Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Universities also have the responsibility for visioning a more sustainable future as they educate the future leaders of the world (IARU 2014). It comprises applying research and education to test real-time sustainability solutions in the campuses (IARU 2014; Konig and Evans 2013). The core point of the living lab is its systematic approach, in which it is possible to harness the academic capacity of universities to address the challenges of sustainable development (IARU 2014). The University Living Lab of the University of Manchester (United Kingdom) is an example. The initiative started in 2012 to transform the campus in a site for applied teaching and research around sustainability challenges of the real world, engaging students and academics (Evans et al. 2015). Another instance is the Living Laboratory for sustainability of the University of Cambridge (United Kingdom). Its goal is to improve the environmental performance of the university applying knowledge to the real world while

Living Labs for Sustainability

enhancing skills of those involved through projects, internships, and research (IARU 2014). It also looks to be a platform for research and a tool for management of environmental practices of the university. Another case: the University of Copenhagen (Denmark), which intends to be an international model of sustainability for universities by focusing on systemic solutions (Green Campus 2013). One of its strategies is the living lab for the development of tomorrow’s sustainability solutions that University itself researches and teaches (Green Campus 2013). Living labs’ activities are usually centered in or related to the sustainability offices of the Universities, which support the development and experimentation of new technologies and ways of living in a governance approach. These are the cases of the Superintendence of Environmental Management (University of São Paulo, Brazil) and the Green Campus Office (University of Copenhagen). Similar challenges were pointed out for these agencies: engaging people, approving projects, obtaining financial support, creating and disseminating content, motivating different managers through dialogues, and conducting projects (Mandai and Brando 2018). By including sustainability in an institution’s teaching, research, and operations, the university creates an environment to act as a change agent (IARU 2014; Konig and Evans 2013). One of the primary ways to do so is to address a firm grounding in the sustainability concepts and issues in diverse disciplines (Leal Filho 2011; Konig and Evans 2013; IARU 2014; Müller-Christ et al. 2014). The University of Manchester reported that there were 112 courses related to sustainability teaching with approximately 7000 students distributed across 11 schools from 2012 to 2013 (Evans et al. 2015). This University is seeking to integrate students into ideas around sustainable development in a nonprescriptive manner, like including living lab student projects into the curriculum (Evans et al. 2015). The challenge was to turn these opportunities into short time projects using resources available within the University (Evans et al. 2015). Furthermore, living lab projects offer for students and academics the possibility to convert

Living Labs for Sustainability

theory to practice, as well as it facilitates people’s engagement with applied sustainability issues (Konig and Evans 2013). At the University of Copenhagen, the project Wild Campus sought to bring nature closer to people in some spaces of the University by planting ten thousand seeds of Danish native plants (Science 2016). The species were selected using the knowledge of specialists of the Center of Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate (Science 2016). This way, it was an opportunity to put the theory to practice in the University. Moreover, this research group is part of the Sustainability Science Centre, which aims to integrate researchers, businesses, and decisionmakers with different academic backgrounds to solve society’s new challenges, one of the ULLs’ characteristics (Voytenko et al. 2016). Living labs also include employees who will be more likely to align their behaviors with the needs of the organization to achieve their collective goals (IARU 2014; Müller-Christ et al. 2014). Next, we will present some instances. Aiming to expand the integration of sustainability issues into University and to promote sustainable articulated actions, the University of São Paulo had a program called PAP (People that learn Participating), which sought to form and engage the University’s employees in a critical and emancipatory perspective of environmental education from 2013 to 2015 (Meira et al. 2014; Sudan et al. 2015). The University of Copenhagen has tried to engage people by the Green Ambassadors’ influence. These are students and staff who help the Green Campus office to share and put in practice its recommendations at their workplaces trying to engage people in their daily lives (Green Campus 2014). Similarly, the University of California, Berkeley (United States of America) had a project called WORKbright green, which englobed staff sustainability training (over 60 employees) (Evans et al. 2015). The goal was to improve sustainability actions in the workplace and at home, to bring green projects back to the office, and to collaborate with other campus sustainability (Evans et al. 2015). The cases mentioned had some points in common, such as the issues treated in their projects (e.g., energy and waste management) and the diffusion of sustainability ideas by

1123

forming and engaging people and bringing theory to practice (Mandai and Brando 2018). Hereafter, we will consider living labs more in an arena perspective associated with sustainability operations. In these situations, it is possible to see partnerships between universities, public sector, and private companies (Evans et al. 2015). The Green Lighthouse at the University of Copenhagen was an attempt to test new technologies and ways of living, seeking to reduce the emissions related to climate change. It was Denmark’s first public carbon-neutral building, which was a partnership between the public university, the government, and the private sector (IARU 2014). For the same University, in the area of sustainability, it was reported a focus mainly on infrastructure, such as automatic energy control, monitoring water consumption, solar panels to energy production and to heat the water, buildings with low-carbon production, as the cited Green Lighthouse, and investment in low-carbon equipment (Mandai and Brando 2018). In a long-term perspective, the University of Manchester proposed a new engineering campus as a living lab for applied teaching and research, where students and academics could apply social practices and technology into the buildings (Evans et al. 2015). In the field of transport operations, Peking University (China) actively encourages walking and cycling by placing cars outside the campus (IARU 2014), while it decreases campus traffic, energy consumption, pollution, and emissions. There are two main strategies: car-parking spaces in the areas around the University and a shuttlebus service to give staff and students an alternative way of getting to different campus sites (IARU 2014). Likewise, the Australian National University (Australia) has incentivized the use of more sustainable transport modes since the 1990s, such as the university’s carpooling program (IARU 2014). It included the construction of bicycle infrastructure across campus and the establishment of Australia’s largest corporate bicycle fleet (IARU 2014). The last University also has experienced waste management operations with the ANU organic waste recycling program diverting around 136 tonnes of food and biological waste from

L

1124

landfill each year (IARU 2014). Most of the material comes from dining halls and a smaller portion from research areas, which are converted to compost after (IARU 2014). This method is more sustainable than landfills, reducing the production of methane and other greenhouse gases (IARU 2014).

Considerations and Future Challenges This entry presents some experiences of some Universities around the world, seeking to transform their campuses into urban living labs for sustainability, putting into practice the knowledge learned and produced. This way, besides their sustainability practices, they have the potential to be examples of cities trying to enhance the broader sustainability. That’s the capacity to transform the contexts by education, research, implementing practical operations, as well as consulting and engaging stakeholders (Liedtke et al. 2012; Evans et al. 2015; McCormick and Kiss 2015; Voytenko et al. 2016). However, the living labs have some challenges. First of all, creating a living lab that suits the needs and internal structure of the University, including what works better for employees and students (IARU 2014). Moreover, despite the living labs aim to influence the broader world, the precise strategy or mechanism to scale up these projects, policies, and plans are rarely delineated explicitly (Evans and Karvonen 2011). In general, innovative practices are assumed to somehow infiltrate and propagate into the real world and become the norm (Evans and Karvonen 2011). Nevertheless, the next steps concerning the living labs are still uncertain, mainly about the widespread changes in the existing processes of urban development (Evans and Karvonen 2011). This process will depend on how the results obtained based on the experiences are package and transferred to other circumstances (Evans and Karvonen 2011). Thus, the educational strategies and the programmes about sustainable development in University “can only succeed if schemes aimed at informing and mobilising people are combined

Living Labs for Sustainability

with relevant structural measures such as campus greening, a robust sustainability research programme or a set of concrete, practical demonstration projects” (Leal-Filho 2011, p. 437). Therefore, the promotion of an active and more sophisticated sustainability discussion, planning, and actions in universities is what will allow communities to craft the future they desire (IARU 2014). Then, staff and students engagement is relevant to promote environmentally responsible behavior, providing sustainability education to all students, as well as offering a best-practice operational model to society (IARU 2014). These actions may motivate other institutions and communities to set similarly ambitious goals, projects, and activities (IARU 2014). Likewise, a collaboration involving sustainability issues can lead to a greater feeling of ownership and responsibility among both employees and students, supporting a broader culture of sustainability at the university (IARU 2014).

Cross-References ▶ Corporate Governance ▶ Living Labs ▶ Sustainability Transitions

References Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Clean Prod 16(16):1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002 Ballon P, Pierson J, Delaere S (2005) Test and Experimentation Platforms for Broadband Innovation: Examining European Practice. In: Proceedings of 16th European regional conference, Porto, 4–6 September. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.1331557 Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Eriksson CI, Ståhlbröst A, Lund J (2009) A milieu for innovation: defining living labs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ISPIM innovation symposium, New York, 6–9 December Biel A, Thøgersen J (2007) Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behavior. J Ecol Psychol 28(1):93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joep.2006.03.003

Living Labs for Sustainability Bulkeley H, Broto VC (2012) Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 38(3):361–375. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ J 31:15–22 Eriksson M, Niitamo V, Oyj S, Kulkki S (2005) State-ofthe-art in utilizing living labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Technology 1(13):1–13 Evans J, Karvonen A (2011) Living laboratories for sustainability: exploring the politics and epistemology of urban transition. In: Bulkeley H, Broto VC, Hodson M, Marvin S (eds) Cities and low carbon transitions. Routledge, London Evans J, Jones R, Karvonen A, Millard L, Wendler J (2015) Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015. 06.005 Fadeeva Z, Mochizuki Y (2010) Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development. Sustain Sci J 5(2):249–256. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11625-010-0106-0 Feurstein K, Hesmer A, Hribernik KA, Thoben KD, Schumacher J (2008) Living labs: a new development strategy. In: Schumacher J (ed) European Living Labs: a new approach for human centric regional innovation. wvb Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270821724_ Living_Labs_-_A_New_Development_Strategy Gieryn TF (2006) City as truth-spot: laboratories and fieldsites in urban studies. Social Studies of Science 36 (1):5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705054526 Green Campus (2013) GREEN CAMPUS 2020 strategy for resource efficiency and sustainability at the University of Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Available at http://greencampus.ku.dk/ strategy2020/english_version_pixi_GC2020_webvers ion.pdf Green Campus (2014) A BIG STEP towards a greener campus. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Available at http://greencampus.ku.dk/green_results_ and_indicators_/Gr_nt_regnskab_webversion_-_engel sk_udgave.pdf Henke C, Gieryn T (2008) Sites of scientific practice: the enduring importance of place. In: Hackett E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, London Hodson M, Marvin S (2007) Understanding the role of the national exemplar in constructing strategic glurbanisation. Int J Urban Reg Res 31:303–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00733.x IARU (2014) Green Guide for Universities. International Alliance of Research Universities and Sustainia. Available at: https://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/ files/iaru_final_web.pdf

1125 Knorr-Cetina K (1995) Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. In: Jasanoff S (ed) Handbook of science and technology studies, revised edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/ 10.4135/9781412990127.n7 Konig A, Evans J (2013) Experimenting for sustainable development? Living laboratories, social learning, and the role of the university. In: Konig A (ed) Regenerative sustainable development of universities and cities: the role of living laboratories. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–24 Leal Filho W (2011) About the role of universities and their contribution to sustainable development. High Educ Pol 24:427–438. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.16 Liedtke C, Welfens MJ, Rohn H, Nordmann J (2012) LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(2):106–118. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676371211211809 Lozano R, Lozano FJ, Mulder K, Huisingh D, Waas T (2013) Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. J Clean Prod 48:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.03.034 Mandai SS, Brando FR (2018) Experiences in sustainability of two public universities in different contexts: the University of Copenhagen and the University of São Paulo. In: Leal Filho W, Frankenberger F, Iglecias P, Mülfarth R (eds) World sustainability series, vol 1, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, Basel, pp 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-7688 5-4_44 McCormick K, Kiss B (2015) Learning through renovations for urban sustainability: the case of the Malmo Innovation Platform. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.011 Meira AM, Bonzanini TK, Rosa AV, Ometto AR, Gois CC, Cunha DGF (2014) Socio-environmental formation in capillarity to employees of Universidade de São Paulo. In: The 6th international conference on environmental education and sustainability “the best of both worlds”. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on environmental education and sustainability, vol 1. Sesc Publisher, São Paulo, pp 258–269 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Rieckmann M (2014) The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainable development – a conference report. J Clean Prod 62:134–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.029 Nystrom AG, Leminen S, Westerlund M, Kortelainen M (2014) Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Ind Mark Manag 43(3):483–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016 Pincetl S (2010) From the sanitary city to the sustainable city: challenges to institutionalizing biogenic (nature’s services) infrastructure. Local Environ 15:43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903406065

L

1126 Reisch L, Ropke I (2005) The ecological economics of consumption. Eartscan, London Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, Van Der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a Sanne C (2002) Willing consumers – or locked in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecol Econ 42:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00086-1 Schliwa G (2013) Exploring living labs through transition management – challenges and opportunities for sustainable urban transitions. IIIEE master thesis. http:// www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/4091934 Science (2016) Vild campus. Available at http://www.sci ence.ku.dk/vildcampus Shove E (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience – the social organization of normality. Berg, Oxford Shove E (2005) Changing human behavior and lifestyle. In: Reisch L, Ropke I (eds) The ecological economics of consumption. Eartscan, London, pp 45–58 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Steinberger JK, Krausmann F, Getzner M, Schandl H, West J (2013) Development and dematerialization: an international study. PLoS One 8(10):e70385. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070385 Sudan DC, de Meira AM, Sorrentino M, da Rocha Brando Fernandez F, Silva RLF, Martirani LA et al (2015) Environmental education for staff at the University of São Paulo, Brazil: capillarity and critical environmental education put into action. In: Leal Filho W, Azeiteiro UM, Caeiro S, Alves F (Org) World sustainability series, 1st edn, vol 2. Springer International Publishing, Basel, pp 543–558 UNEP (2010) Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials. A report of the working group on the environmental impacts of products and materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management Voytenko Y, McCormick K, Evans J, Schliwa G (2016) Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. J Clean Prod 123:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.201 5.08.053 Warde A (2005) Consumption and theories of practice. J Consum Cult 5(2):131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469540505053090 Wenger E (2007) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Mª. Teresa Pozo-Llorente1, José Gutiérrez-Pérez3 and María Fátima de Poza-Vilches1,2 1 Educational Methodology Research Department, University of Granada, Granada, Spain 2 Faculty of Science Education Department MIDE, University of Granada, Granada, Spain 3 Department of Educational Methodology Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Definition The Local Agenda 21 Program (LA21) is a global action plan to promote sustainable development. It arises by the proposal of the United Nations, as an international governmental commitment signed by around two hundred countries in the Conference of United Nation on Environment and Development celebrated in Brazil in 1992, commonly known as Earth Summit. This program is proposed as a governmental instrument to design and implement sustainable development strategies at the local level under the umbrella of coordinated work networks and strategic intervention frameworks equipped with indicators for monitoring and systematic evaluation. One area where progress was made was initiatives by municipalities. Local authorities are becoming increasingly integrated into a worldwide approach to urban sustainability. LA21 has become a growing worldwide movement; however, it should be noted that there are significant differences in the specific strategies, working methods, support systems, intensity of activity, speed of progress, and levels of results (Gilbert et al. 1996; ICLEI 1997).

Introduction The LA21 commits the countries to develop a wide variety of actions that must be carried out by governments in coordination with international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector within certain deadlines. This document includes in its 40 epigraphs a new political commitment at the highest level in favor of

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

sustainable development, becoming an international action plan that has laid the foundations for entering the twenty-first century with new forms of government and decision-making inspired by municipal planning, decision, and evaluation models. Among the goals proposed in chapter 28 of the AL21, highlights such as the following: • The international community should have initiated a consultative process aimed an increasing cooperation between local authorities. • Representatives of associations of cities and other local authorities should have increased levels of cooperation and coordination with the goal of enhancing the exchange of information and experience among local authorities. • Most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on a LA21 for the community. • All local authorities in each country should be encouraged to implement and monitor programs which aim at ensuring that women and youth are represented in decision-making, planning, and implementation processes. The L21A program emerges as one of the most innovative local instruments of environmental, social, and economic management and is applied in a coordinated manner to different local areas in institutions such as schools, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. In the global sphere, it constitutes a tool for the articulation of international policies and agreements oriented towards models of growth and sustainable development. In this framework, the three Conferences of the European Campaign for Sustainable Cities and Towns (Aalborg 1994; Lisbon 1996; Hannover 2000) where the signing of the Alborg Charter is promoted as a singular commitment are celebrated between 1994 and 2000 of European cities with sustainable development, the creation of networks of Agendas 21 in which to share strategies, define common indicators of environmental assessment, assume territorial challenges and responsibilities, and demand more funding and autonomy in sustainable development policies.

1127

Charter of European Cities and Towns Toward Sustainability (ICLEI 1994) is a consensus declaration of the European Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign that includes the following specific steps: • Recognition of the existing planning and financial frameworks as well as other plans and programs. • The systematic identification, by means of extensive public consultation, of problems and their causes. • The prioritization of tasks to address identified problems. • Creation of a vision for sustainable community through a participation process involving all sectors of the community. • Consideration and assessment of alternative strategic options. • Establishment of a long-term local action plan towards sustainability which involves measurable targets. • The programming of the implementation of the plan including the preparation of a timetable and statement of allocation of responsibilities. • The establishment of systems and procedures for monitoring and reporting on implementation of the plan. A21L program supports the development and implementation of broad based environmental action plans that focus on context-specific aspects of municipal planning and management. As mentioned in Tust (1998), local authorities of medium-sized cities are amongst those most in need of capacity-building initiatives but at the same time they are often the most neglected; there is a serious gap between the nature of their problems and the capacity available to address them. Urban environmental problems in secondary cities are often in their early stages; much can still be accomplished in terms of prevention through choosing pathways of development which meet current human needs without compromising the needs of future generations. In addition, in medium sized cities, there are generally fewer external factors interfering with urban development compared to larger cities, and it is therefore easier to isolate causes and

L

1128

effects related to improved environmental planning and management and the quality of the living environment. For these purposes, the European Union, in 2001, launched the Strategy of the European Union for sustainable development: Sustainable development in Europe for a better world. The pace of global changes and the need for continuous adaptation of local agendas to address unprecedented priorities has led over the last three decades to the development of municipal policies related to emerging problems, such as environmental problems (giving as a result a new dimension), which until a few years ago, its presence was not considered. The transversality of strategies that are above the specific problems and that entail a global reading of the territorial context as well as a development of strategic roles at multidimensional scale interrelated and forming part of the whole of the local public policy is an advance in the latter years. It is in these policies of transversal intervention that strategies such as the Local Agenda 21, the City Educational Projects, the New Citizenship and Interculturality Plans, and the Local Plans for the Information Society make sense. Sustainability, education, interculturality, and new technologies become cross-cutting policies that favor the implementation of new generation local development models, which have been classified as “relational government.” Given this new stage of political and local management, it is necessary to comply with the concept of democracy by committing to the philosophy of a participatory democracy that gives meaning to the reflection and collective criticism of citizenship, under a new concept of “government in network” (Blanco and Gomá 2002: 22), which implies the recognition, acceptance, and integration of complexity as an intrinsic element to the political process, a system of government through the participation of diverse actors within the framework of plural networks, a new model of democracy and a new position of the public powers in the processes of government, the adoption of new roles, and the use of new instruments of political participation (O’Riordán 1996; Lafferty and Meadowcrogt 1996).

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

The complexity of the process, the diversity of actors, and the redefinition of the roles and functions that mark the political framework are key when establishing a network government; this has contributed to a progressive expansion of municipal competencies forming local agendas of work that integrates unprecedented functions in the culture of municipal management, whose objective is to build and design a model of the municipality of well-being from the expansion of the public policy offer and from the deepening in aspects and social and environmental issues until the last few years, which aims to result in three-dimensional public policies that favor the development of the economic-labor, the welfare and urban-territorial.

Capacity-Building Dimensions of LA21 and Methodology The scope of the main capacity-building dimensions of LA21 is described as followed (HABITAT 1997): • Consultation: The local authority is encouraged to broaden strategy development by conducting broad based consultation processes to reach consensus on priority areas for action. • Action research: Applied research into specific urban issues and exploration of solutions helps to develop strategies and increases the range of implementation options. • Developing tools: Improving planning and management practice through the development of tools to support the implementation of pilot action plans. • Encouraging partnerships: Showing the municipalities the advantages of working in partnership with other interested urban actors to enhance the impact of environmental planning and management activities. • Human resources development: Targeted group training is organized for key actors, often through national institutions for local government training. • Institutional strengthening: While program operations are fully integrated within local government or council operations, institutional

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

change is supported through sensitization at the appropriate levels when there is sufficient justification. • Leveraging of resources: Action plans are implemented through technical and financial support from a wide range of partners. An important way of leveraging resources is to scrutinize the municipal finances and adopt measures for strategic and equitable revenue collection and expenditure control. • Dissemination and exchange: Starting from local experiences, policy dialogue is promoted through exchange. Dissemination is directed to other cities facing similar problems but also to national institutions which can play a role in encouraging broader application. The A21L networks are an instrument for the sustainable development of the municipalities whose purpose is to promote the territorial cooperation of the entities among themselves and in collaboration with public administrations and other institutions of a private nature. From the municipalities, with this program, it is intended to favor and consolidate: • Information on public policies involving the public in its execution, from the prism of intercommunication and the integration of these policies between levels of government for the development of good practices in terms of urban management. • Encouraging and improving citizen participation and, with it, the exercise of democracy, from innovative approaches that propitiate the relationships between the different sectors (private, public, communities, neighbors) such as local action plans, through public financing, that allow developing a diagnosis of the environment and favor the contextualization of the policies to be developed under a process of continuous training and recycling by technicians and professionals in the field. The methodology of the LA21 has multiplied and diversified at different rates and impulses. Its philosophy has been leaving traces in different contexts, applying its principles in different

1129

territorial scales (local, regional), and promoting alliances in its private and public institutions (town halls, nongovernmental organizations, schools, universities) through short-term evaluable action commitments and medium term. In the case of European universities, the Council of Education Ministers of the EU declares its commitments to Sustainable Development by signing the Amsterdam contract on December 20, 1996. This strategy becomes a requirement for the establishments of Higher Education and the training of university students in competencies about sustainability. The European Conference of Rectors of Universities (CRE), through the European University Association (EUA) stimulates the coordinated work between universities of different countries. The COPERNICUS Program (CO-operation Program in Europe for Research on Nature and Industry through Coordinated University Studies). The University Charter for Sustainable Development is an example of a university network aimed at promoting a change of values and awareness in order to achieve the principles of Sustainable Development marked in the A21L. Among the objectives of the COPERNICUS Network, the following stand out: implement the perspective of sustainability throughout the university system; stimulate and coordinate interdisciplinary research projects; bring the research results closer to decision makers in the area of economics and politics; and bring universities closer to other sectors of society (in the local, national, and all of Europe).

Impact of the AL21 Program in Europe Almost three decades after the Rio Summit, Europe has become the continent that has most committed to this sustainability program in quantitative and qualitative terms. The work of evaluation and monitoring of the program leads some authors to distinguish three large groups that move at different speeds in the European context (Lafferty and Eckerberg 1998; Lafferty 2004; Aguado et al. 2007; Joas and others 2007; Echebarría and others 2007):

L

1130

• A first group led by northern European countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands that assumed a leading role in the implementation of these processes, followed by Finland, Norway, and Denmark, although they are incorporated after the previous processes, assume a very active role. The progressive interest that this process has received in some of these pioneering countries is becoming one of the highest priority issues directly addressed by municipal officials as top-level issues. This group already has more than 65% of its municipalities involved in the preparation of its agenda; they have a strategic national framework and are using this procedure as an instrument of democratic modernization. • A second group formed by Austria and Germany that are dragged by the initiatives of the previous ones later, although their processes suffer in their first stage of a systematic and rigorous follow-up. The push of Germany in recent years has made it close to the first group in percentage of implementation of LA21. • A third group consisting of Ireland, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the countries of the Mediterranean arc (France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece) that are the last to meet the commitment signed at Rio-92, although it acquires a significant re-launch at the end century and continues at this time. These “relational government” initiatives present two characteristic dimensions: “their horizontal participatory configuration, with the presence of multiple social, community and local-based stakeholders; and its multilevel configuration, that is to say, the articulation of thematic spaces of governance in which, under possible local leadership, various territorial levels of government converge” (Blanco and Gomá 2002: 26). “Governance” is an alternative to traditional government where all social actors, whether associated citizens or nonassociated citizens, take center stage in the management of local policies and in the decision-making process. Their demands, opinions, and knowledge are key when it comes to making municipal management contextualized and viable. We are witnessing a historical moment where both

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

traditional government and relational government coexist in the same system of action where bureaucratic management, rigid and unreflective, is minimized in the face of far more participatory, direct, reflective, and consensual structures of work and government, with which This new structure requires changes in roles and acceptance of new forms of municipal management. Among the systems of indicators used in the LA21, the Habitat urban indicators referred to tackling city-wide problems and urban management through a series of approaches and techniques, such as economic tools and regulatory systems, land use and strategic urban planning, mobility, water management, energy, transport planning and management, site planning and building design, waste management, environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental impact procedures, environmental audit procedures, capacity studies, state of the environment reports, perception studies, indicators of sustainable development and statutory plan consultations, environmental planning and management, cross-sectoral approaches, coordination and management goal for more livable cities. The works developed by Lafferty (1998, 2004) in different countries of the European Union show a wide range of cases and advances at different speeds in the construction of these relational governments that place environmental issues at the center of their policies. Three basic types of Networks in LA21 have been referenced for the moment in the literature, taking into account their degree of implementation, socio-political impact and progress in the development of modernization processes of municipal management. Contemporary research yields some results on the different types of Agendas 21 according to their approaches, implementation rhythms, degree of development, maturity and progress in the type of processes they have generated in the populations. Echebarría and others (2007) distinguish three types of processes: isolated processes, supported processes, and connected processes. 1. Centralized and technocentric processes of isolated with unidirectional implantation. They are those in which the implementation of the A21L has been left only in the hands of the local government technicians themselves,

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

based on a perception of the local authorities of the benefit that the incorporation into the management of a new environmental planning tool can bring. The value that managers give to these processes is determined by an estimate in terms of expected benefits for the local environment, together with costs and risks. All this conditions and determines diagnostic models that promote priority physical-environmental analysis, neglecting the most social and educational aspects that potentially accompany these processes. A first generation of 21 local agendas developed in Europe have embraced this model. 2. Symbiotic processes of collaboration, support, and external dynamization. The comparative works of Lafferty and collaborators have shown that support from external agents and alliances with partners such as experts from outside the local government, research teams, NGOs, and other collaborating organizations have made it possible to add value to the processes of implementation of agendas 21. Equally the influence exerted from outside to the local context by promoters such as central governments, transfer agencies, international networks, and supranational organizations. This added value has been expressed in terms of efficient leadership, credibility, confidence in the medium and long term, and explicit commitment of local governments in favor of sustainability. The availability of financial resources has been another added motivation that has stimulated the involvement in these processes and has led most of these local governments to provide their own complementary funds for the development of the LA21. 3. Bidirectional-coordinated, networked, and connected creation processes that promote the autonomy and decentralization of the administration and local government’s tutelage. A policy network is defined as a new form of governance that allows governments to mobilize political resources and capacities in situations where they are widely distributed among public and private agents. This form of governance is more powerful and allows local authorities to diminish their perception of the risk of betting on processes of this nature, because they perceive

1131

very positively the support of these social networks from a collaborative approach of co-responsibility and mutual implication. This increases the motivation of the town councils themselves and makes the actions perceived as beneficial without prejudice to the fact that they require costs, even in those local authorities and countries that are very far from having the necessary resources and capacities. A network of policies incorporates a plus of commitment on the part of the level of government that leads it and those that integrate it, since the creation of a network of policies is something much more complex and committed than simply designing a package of aid for local governments. The success of the policy networks is that they integrate the relevant actors of the community and rely on external agents; they give rise to dense relations among the members of the community; they are based on shared decisions on a high level of consensus.

L Other Global Impact of the AL21 Several international reference studies have tried to analyze the impact of the LA21 program in non-European territories such as the United States and Canada (Smardon 2007), Latin America (Steinberg and Miranda 2005), Africa (Tuts 1998) recognizing a lesser impact of the program in relation to European developments and highlighting some lessons learned, among others: information sharing is a prerequisite for participatory decision-making; limited local human resource capacity for urban planning and management in medium sized cities; cities of the same countries have different traditions in involving citizens in planning and management processes; it is very important to have for each city baseline indicators on participation of stakeholders in planning; consultation processes tend to generate long lists of actions which need to be prioritized; criteria for prioritization include urgency, strategic value, political feasibility, impact on poverty, economic viability, and neighborhood versus city-wide impact; political factor is an integral part of formulating and implementing LA21 processes at the municipal

1132

level; political change induces some delays in implementing LA21 activities; an objective of LA21 processes is to strengthen the capacity of local authorities to create partnerships for the formulation and implementation of action plans; the complexity of a partnership with multiple institutions requires considerable coordination efforts to keep time, quality, and resources on schedule; to implement action plans is only possible by mobilizing resources coming from international organizations, bilateral development aid agencies, national ministries, international and local NGOs; local teams need to have appropriate tools to transfer their knowledge and build capacity in other cities; the methodology for strategic structure planning is continuously in progress; there is a need to weigh the advantages of tools of a generic nature and compare this with the effort needed to localize these tools in each case in order to reflect cultural, socio-economic, and institutional diversity. A critical view among the main deficiencies identified in the implementation processes of AL21 are the following (Aguado et al. 2007; Gutiérrez and Poza 2008): low collaboration between autonomous communities, despite the high level of mimicry in models, methodologies and support modalities; greater collaboration between administrations is desirable since common inter-administration programs have barely been promoted; there is a low integration of the A21L in the political strategies of supra-local rank that allow joining objectives and actions of interlocal cooperation, perhaps the initiatives carried out by joint consortiums of municipalities is an exception worth considering as a model of good coordinated practices; the budgets allocated to these programs both by the municipalities themselves and by councils, autonomous, national, or European governments are scarce and conform to homogeneous models, a greater effort to accommodate calls that enhance the diversity of experiences is a way of future work; the development and development of the LA21 are usually the responsibility of the environmental departments, departments that usually have little political weight and low budgetary resources to execute

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

their programs; there is a growing demand to locate these programs in organizational charts close to higher level decision-making bodies (mayors), ensuring that decisions reach sectorially in all areas of municipal management, from the overall viewpoint they have the highest level of political responsibility (responsibilities often delegated exclusively to environmental technicians); the diagnosis that have been promoted have had an excessive emphasis on physical-environmental issues, neglecting those aspects that are more social and economic and obviating the intrinsic training factor that participatory diagnosis entail; the low implementation of effective evaluation tools and systems of shared indicators and structured information systems that allow establishing time comparisons makes it impossible to show progress and detect errors; the real participation of the population is still a pending issue, it is not enough to create forums, the civic responsibility goes on to take a leading role in the diagnosis, in the design of the improvement plans, and in the implementation and follow-up of the same; a greater degree of concentration and joint planning with the private sector is desirable; a demand for training in awareness,

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 An example of a higher Environmental Education network: Andalucia Ecocampus

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

training, and environmental education that allows coordinating actions across town councils, companies, schools, associations, etc., is increasingly recognized as its implementation has to add value to a participation of most qualified agents in the different phases of the process of diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation of achievements.

1133

“Andalucía EcoCampus” Higher Education Network “Andalucía EcoCampus” (see Fig. 1) represents an example of collaboration within a network of public institutions of higher education in southern Spain. The mission of this network is oriented to the implementation of the principles of participation of the

L

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Main activities of the Andalucia Ecocampus Environmental Education network

1134

A21 and the development of initiatives and good practices of sustainability in the university context and in the territory in which these institutions are registered. The network comprises a total of 9 public universities that, since 2010, have been developing annual programs of coordinated actions aimed at improving the institution’s environmental commitments with energy, water, waste management, and the optimization of infrastructures and sustainable management of buildings, the integral environmental planning of the campuses, the actions of environmental volunteering and development cooperation, sustainable mobility within university spaces in coordination with the municipal governments, the foment of healthy lifestyles, the responsible consumption, etc., and more recently, new programs have been incorporated linked to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations Program(see Fig. 2). Each University developed in its territory own actions that directly affect the agents of its university community, but also to the institutions of the city and the territory in which it is located. For example, in the case of the University of Granada, it is worth highlighting specific actions of continued collaboration for the implementation of LA21 in populations of the metropolitan area of the city, as well as a close collaboration with the city government to promote the implementation of A21 in educational centers: https://platform.ue4sd.eu/ue4sd_accademy. php; https://ecocampusgranada.com/ A more detailed view can be obtained of other experiences of good practices related to the implementation of A21 and the methodologies of participation in environmental decision making linked to higher education institutions and local governments from different international contexts in the studies described by different authors: in Germany, Michelsen (2003); in different European countries, Lafferty (2004), Aguado et al. (2007), Joas and others (2007), and Steinberg and Miranda (2005) in Peru; and in North America, India Smardon (2007).

Cross-References ▶ Participation and Sustainable Development ▶ School Actions Plans for Sustainable Development

Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

References Aalborg (1994) http://www.sustainablecities.eu/the-aal borg-charter/ Aguado L, Echebarria C, Barrutia JM (2007) Implantación de la agenda 21 local en Europa: divergencias en ritmos y enfoques. Geographicalia 51:107–131 Blanco I, Gomá R (Coords) (2002) Gobiernos locales y redes participativas. Ariel, Barcelona Echebarría C, Barrutia JM y Aguado I (2007) La Agenda 21 Local en Europa: una visión general. Ekonomiaz: Revista vasca de economía 6: 72–91 Gilbert R, Stevenson D, Girardet H, Stren R (1996) Making Cities Work: The Role of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment. Earthscan Publications, London Gutiérrez J, Poza MF (2008) Instrumentos de evaluación comunes en las redes municipales europeas: el necesario protagonismo de los indicadores de educación ambiental en la sostenibilidad local, cap. 3:83–128, en L Iglesias e Ml Pardillas (Coord): Estratexias de educación ambiental: Modelos, experiencias e indicadores para a sostenibilidade local. Eixo Atl^antico do Noroeste Peninsular, Vigo HABITAT (1997) LA21 progress report. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements Hannover (2000) http://www.sustainablecities.eu/confer ences/hannover/ ICLEI (1994) Charter of European cities and towns toward sustainability. www. iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER ICLEI (1997) Local Agenda 21 Guidance & Training Programme. ICLEI-EU DGXI Joas M, Evans B, Theobald K (2007) La Agenda 21 Local en Europa: la segunda fase de la modernización ecológica en los gobiernos municipales. Ekonomíaz 6: 92–111 Lafferty W (eds) (1998) Implementing Local Agenda 21 In Europe. Varieties of Sustainable Community Development. Prosus, Oslo Lafferty WM (2004) From environmental protection to sustainable development: the challenge of decoupling through sectoral integration. In: Lafferty WM (ed) Governance for sustainable development: the challenge of adapting form to function. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 191–220 Lafferty W, Eckerberg K (1998) From the earth summit to local agenda 21: working towards sustainable development. Earthscan, London Lafferty W, Meadowcrogt J (eds) (1996) Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Lisbon (1996) http://www.sustainablecities.eu/conferences/lisbon/ Michelsen G (2003) Las Universidades y la Agenda 21: el ejemplo de la Universidad de Lüneburg. Revista Polis, consultado el 20 abril 2018. http://polis.revues.org/6894 O’Riordán T (1996) Democracy & the sustainability transition. In: Lafferty WM, Meadowcrogt J (eds) Democracy & the environment problems & prospects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 140–156 Smardon RC (2007) A comparison of local agenda 21 implementation in North American, European and Indian cities. Manag Environ Qual 19(1):118–137

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges Steinberg F, Miranda L (2005) Local agenda 21, capacity building and the cities of Peru. Habitat Int 29:163–182 Tuts R (1998) Localizing agenda 21 in small cities in Kenya, Morocco and Vietnam. Environ Urban 10(2):175–190

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges Izabela Simon Rampasso1, Rosley Anholon2 and Robert Eduardo Cooper-Ordoñez3 1 School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 3 Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Materials, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition The challenges for local sustainable development faced by higher educational institutions are the difficulties presented to establish partnerships between these institutions and local communities in order to reach an education for sustainable development focused at local level. These difficulties must be analyzed and overcome.

Introduction Sustainability is an emerging theme in the contemporary society. Research advances and discoveries on environmental and social impacts caused by human actions became a central point in discussions about the future, economy, and social welfare (Cronemberger de Araújo Góes and Magrini 2016; Fenney Salkeld 2016; AnnanDiab and Molinari 2017; Ciommi et al. 2017; Wang 2017; Hossain et al. 2018).

1135

Given this context, the role developed by higher education institutions is fundamental to train professionals for the new market needs. These professionals must be capable of critical thinking and sustainable consciousness related to environmental and social aspects (Glassey and Haile 2012; Figueiró and Raufflet 2015; Brewster et al. 2016; Fan and Yu 2017; Chan et al. 2017; Pérez-Foguet et al. 2018). Students themselves are demanding a different style of education that provides skills to understand and contribute positively to their local community (Borges et al. 2017). In addition, the engagement of universities in the local community is seen as an important learning source for undergraduates (Brewster et al. 2016). Given the difficulty reported by educators to introduce transdisciplinary concepts in the curriculum of higher education courses (Hanning et al. 2012; Edvardsson Björnberg et al. 2015; Sivapalan et al. 2017), initiatives for sustainable projects have been becoming an interesting way to show students the aforementioned aspects (Borges et al. 2017; Storey et al. 2017). Brewster et al. (2016) emphasize that when applied to the local community, these projects tend to respond more quickly. Worldwide, several projects have been performed by university students focused on the development of local community. Most of these projects use education models based on problem and project-based learning techniques (Figueiró and Raufflet 2015; Storey et al. 2017). According to some authors, the aforementioned approaches are interesting to introduce sustainability in higher education (Wiek et al. 2014; Edvardsson Björnberg et al. 2015; Holgaard et al. 2016; Leal Filho et al. 2016). In these projects, “students create, research and develop their own transdisciplinary educational content, complementing the formal curriculum” (p. 160). This complementarity occurs in two different ways: students learn in practice about management and related issues and also learn about sustainable development (Borges et al. 2017). Considering the importance of the sustainable concepts in higher education and the difficulties associated to their insertion, this entry aims to present projects of education for sustainable development at local level, in order to identify the challenges related to them.

L

1136

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges

Education for Sustainable Development Understanding the concepts of multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity is critical for educators to present the concepts of sustainability correctly in higher education courses (Brewster et al. 2016; Annan-Diab and Molinari 2017). Ideally, transdisciplinarity must be aspired (Wiek et al. 2014). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity can be understood as different degrees of knowledge integration. Transdisciplinarity is the stage of greater integration (Remington-Doucette et al. 2013; Annan-Diab and Molinari 2017). According to Wiek et al. (2014), “Transdisciplinarity builds upon and goes further than interdisciplinarity by moving education into the world outside the university.” Therefore, transdisciplinarity is perfectly suited to teach sustainability. Transdisciplinarity is important because the sustainability analysis requires the integration between different areas of knowledge. Sustainability demands an integration between natural and human systems of knowledge with a holistic view. Mutual collaboration between the different areas of knowledge is necessary, and the market requires professionals with this type of knowledge. The demand for specialized employees to solve routine problems has changed; now these professionals must be capable of solving complex problems by integrating different concepts. The education system needs to change to train the students to this new reality (Remington-Doucette et al. 2013). Because it involves complex societal problems, the teaching of sustainability requires theoretical knowledge, analytical and interpersonal skills, and transdisciplinary work experience. Therefore, this teaching demands more than lecture-based activities: practice, group work, and opportunities for community engagement are necessary (Wiek et al. 2014). Thus, approaches with project-based learning are appropriate to the needs of teaching sustainability (Wiek et al. 2014; Leal Filho et al. 2016). The sustainability-related problems have great learning potential when managed by students, because they actively engage and fully interact with project issues (Storey et al. 2017). Some of the skills learned to manage their projects are

market research, financial mathematics, entrepreneurship, time management, leadership, public speaking, among others. Considering the sustainability area, students learn about sustainable development – objectives and education – and Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) (Borges et al. 2017). However, according to Álvarez-Suárez et al. (2013), the approach used in environmental education is more important than the content itself. Therefore, education needs to consider global environmental issues at the local level. Furthermore, other gains from these projects are highlighted in the literature. Sustainability Education at Local Level An important issue mentioned by Shiel et al. (2016) is the role played by local community, providing support for universities to develop more conscious citizens. Universities, for their turn, may enable communities to become more sustainable (Ávila et al. 2017). Developing a university-community partnership is challenging (Hogner and Kenworthy 2010); however, it is a valuable form of education. Through the use of their own resources, universities and their communities may achieve mutual goals, working together (Dulmus and Cristalli 2012). In this section, examples of education for sustainable development at local level are provided. Ofek (2017) pointed out that although universities have begun to approach local communities to improve their public image in an increasingly competitive environment, the gains resulting from this approach have been greater. The relationship between universities and their local communities was beneficial for both research and teaching in these institutions, insofar that it reduced the gap between reality and theoretical knowledge about social problems. In addition, it was found that universities had much to contribute to local communities. Among the barriers for a successful partnership between universities and their communities pointed out by the literature, the author highlights “unequal power structures, different organizational cultures and values, conflicting interests, lack of trust” (p. 48). Brewster et al. (2016) reported a number of partnerships between universities and schools

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges

that primarily aimed at reducing school dropout rates, although they were not necessarily restricted thereto. The authors developed a model for partnership between the university and the community to provide a blueprint to build such partnerships, since the lack of such a guide represents a challenge for universities. The model had three components: the substantive social issue, the university-community partnership, and the student development. A relevant point is the importance of the participation of undergraduate students in the project. Therefore, besides acquiring knowledge, students showed a strong desire to engage in experiments that provided personal growth and developed their knowledge and skills, despite the difficulty they encounter due to the lack of connection between their academic activities and the activities and learning related to the community. Another challenge reported by the authors is the difficulty to adapt strict academic protocols to communities’ reality. Gardner and Emory (2018) described the partnership between an American university and a community-based organization that caters to homeless people. The project arose from the difficulty encountered by these residents to receive health treatments due to the way they were treated by health professionals. The purpose of this partnership was to teach nursing students how to deal with these patients. As a result, the authors observed that students who had already participated in the program improved their attitudes toward these patients, demonstrating greater empathy and awareness and less fear. Hillier (2013), in turn, showed the partnership established between the University of Brighton and local community groups in Hastings, England. A research program, the Coastal Regeneration Research Centre (CRRC), was created to study and improve the research issues related to social, educational, and economic aspects of the local community. The pilot project of this center aimed to investigate “the relationship between parental involvement in children’s centers and sustainability of learning activities within the home and nearby environment” (p. 99). Among the difficulties reported, there are difficulties to prove projects’ benefits, lack of funding, need for greater dedication time of the participants

1137

than previously stipulated, time required to build the relationships, and people turnover. Kawabe et al. (2013) describe projects to develop community-university partnerships in promoting coastal education for sustainable development (ESD). The authors compared the results of two different projects (Projects Ohmori and Shiba): one failed and the other did not. From the features of these projects, Kawabe et al. identified the main findings they had: improvement of connections between university and community, importance of understanding the needs of the community, the need for mediators between university and local communities, and the need of student involvement. Tourse et al. (2008) described the Manville Project, with students from Boston College (School of Education, School of Nursing, and School of Social Work). In this project, there is “a collaborative exploration in the development of a transdisciplinary course with a community partner” (p. 464). In this project, graduate and undergraduate students performed professional preparation programs in Manville School. Among the benefits observed, there are a better preparation in school practice, development of a better prepared professionals, improvement of students’ communication and collaboration skills, professionals with a holistic view of process, and students better prepared to transdisciplinary practice to deal with successes and failures in their future professions. The authors also reported challenges faced by the project: lack of resources, lack of students’ awareness about the projects’ importance, the need of supervision, and guidance for students. Mosier and Ruxton (2018) conducted a survey to find out the lessons learned by sustainability university-community partnerships. Their results show that communities with high levels of sustainability frequently have partnerships with universities. The authors highlight that most of these projects are time-intensive and use few resources. Additionally, these partnerships “involve faculty, students, and staff in a range of environmental domains including recycling, utility management, pollution cleanup and prevention, preservation, and recreational management” (p. 492). Lewis et al. (2016) reported the challenges presented by literature regarding university-

L

1138

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges

community partnerships. The first challenge mentioned is the unequal power distribution, through which university members do not value the contributions that members of local communities have to offer. Cultural differences were also pointed out as a challenge faced by these partnerships. To successfully establish a universitycommunity partnership, an integration between objectives, cultures, and methodology should be aimed. Additionally, responsibility must be shared, and roles of both parties have to be clearly addressed.

Final Considerations Despite the difficulties faced by higher education institutions to develop an education for sustainable development, there are many benefits from this change. Considering the growing awareness of the society regarding the importance and necessity of sustainable development, the involvement of these institutions is increasingly important. An important approach for universities to enable an education for sustainable development is to focus on the local level. The literature contains several initiatives of universities that used this approach. The challenges (positive and negative aspects) presented in this entry are good examples of projects that these institutions may conduct. These challenges are: • Unequal power structures • Differences in organizational cultures and values • Conflicts of interests • Lack of trust • Lack of a guide for universities to conduct successful partnerships • Lack of connection between students’ academic activities and the activities and learning related to the community • Difficulty to adapt strict academic protocols to communities’ reality • Difficulty to prove projects’ benefits • Lack of funding • Need for greater dedication time of the participants than previously stipulated

• Time required to build the relationships • People turnover • Need for mediators between university and local communities • Improvement of universities’ public image • To reduce the gap between reality and theoretical knowledge about social problems (gains for research and teaching) • To enable universities to contribute to local communities • Development of students’ personal growth, knowledge, and skills • To increase students’ empathy and awareness • Need for alignment at the beginning of the project • Improvement of the connections between university and local community • Education for sustainable development (ESD) through community-university partnerships • Need of student involvement • Need for alignment between the objectives and methodology to reach these objectives of the university and the local community • Need of supervision and guidance for students As may be seen, there are many challenges to be overcome. However, the positive results are beneficial not only to the universities and communities involved but also to society as a whole, which will benefit from training more conscientious and prepared people to collaborate positively with society.

Cross-References ▶ Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development at Regional Level ▶ Sustainability Challenges

References Álvarez-Suárez P, Vega-Marcote P, Garcia Mira R (2013) Sustainable consumption: a teaching intervention in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 15:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2011-0044 Annan-Diab F, Molinari C (2017) Interdisciplinarity: practical approach to advancing education for

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges sustainability and for the sustainable development goals. Int J Manag Educ 15:73–83. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.006 Ávila LV, Leal Filho W, Brandli L et al (2017) Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. J Clean Prod 164:1268–1278. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.025 Borges JC, Ferreira TC, Borges de Oliveira MS et al (2017) Hidden curriculum in student organizations: learning, practice, socialization and responsible management in a business school. Int J Manag Educ 15:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.003 Brewster AB, Pisani P, Ramseyer M, Wise J (2016) Building a university-community partnership to promote high school graduation and beyond. J Appl Res High Educ 8:44–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-102014-0093 Chan CKY, Fong ETY, Luk LYY, Ho R (2017) A review of literature on challenges in the development and implementation of generic competencies in higher education curriculum. Int J Educ Dev 57:1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.010 Ciommi M, Gigliarano C, Emili A et al (2017) A new class of composite indicators for measuring wellbeing at the local level: an application to the equitable and sustainable well-being (BES) of the Italian provinces. Ecol Indic 76:281–296. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.050 Cronemberger de Araújo Góes H, Magrini A (2016) Higher education institution sustainability assessment tools. Int J Sustain High Educ 17:322–341. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2014-0132 Dulmus CN, Cristalli ME (2012) A university-community partnership to advance research in practice settings: the HUB research model. Res Soc Work Pract 22:195–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511423026 Edvardsson Björnberg K, Skogh I-B, Strömberg E (2015) Integrating social sustainability in engineering education at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Int J Sustain High Educ 16:639–649. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2014-0010 Fan SC, Yu KC (2017) How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. Int J Technol Des Educ 27:107–129. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x Fenney Salkeld D (2016) Sustainable lifestyles for all? Disability equality, sustainability and the limitations of current UK policy. Disabil Soc 31:447–464. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1182011 Figueiró PS, Raufflet E (2015) Sustainability in higher education: a systematic review with focus on management education. J Clean Prod 106:22–33. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.118 Gardner J, Emory J (2018) Changing students’ perceptions of the homeless: a community service learning experience. Nurse Educ Pract 29:133–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.01.001 Glassey J, Haile S (2012) Sustainability in chemical engineering curriculum. Int J Sustain High Educ 13:354–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211262308

1139

Hanning A, Priem Abelsson A, Lundqvist U, Svanström M (2012) Are we educating engineers for sustainability? Int J Sustain High Educ 13:305–320. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676371211242607 Hillier Y (2013) Working together: community and university partnerships. High Educ Ski Work Learn 3:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/20423891311313135 Hogner RH, Kenworthy AL (2010) Moving forward together in sustainable, effective, and partnershiporiented ways. Int J Organ Anal 18:245–266. https:// doi.org/10.1108/19348831011046290 Holgaard JE, Hadgraft R, Kolmos A, Guerra A (2016) Strategies for education for sustainable development – Danish and Australian perspectives. J Clean Prod 112: 3479–3491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.063 Hossain MU, Poon CS, Dong YH, Xuan D (2018) Evaluation of environmental impact distribution methods for supplementary cementitious materials. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:597–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.048 Kawabe M, Kohno H, Ikeda R et al (2013) Developing partnerships with the community for coastal ESD. Int J Sustain High Educ 14:122–132. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676371311312842 Leal Filho W, Shiel C, Paço A (2016) Implementing and operationalising integrative approaches to sustainability in higher education: the role of project-oriented learning. J Clean Prod 133:126–135. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.079 Lewis LA, Kusmaul N, Elze D, Butler L (2016) The role of field education in a university–community partnership aimed at curriculum transformation. J Soc Work Educ 52:186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797. 2016.1151274 Mosier S, Ruxton M (2018) Sustainability university–community partnerships: lessons for practitioners and scholars from highly sustainable communities. Environ Plan C Polit Sp 36:239965441774959. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417749593 Ofek Y (2017) Evaluating social exclusion interventions in university-community partnerships. Eval Program Plann 60:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016. 09.004 Pérez-Foguet A, Lazzarini B, Giné R et al (2018) Promoting sustainable human development in engineering: assessment of online courses within continuing professional development strategies. J Clean Prod 172: 4286–4302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.244 Remington-Doucette SM, Hiller Connell KY, Armstrong CM, Musgrove SL (2013) Assessing sustainability education in a transdisciplinary undergraduate course focused on real-world problem solving. Int J Sustain High Educ 14:404–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-01-2012-0001 Shiel C, Leal Filho W, do Paço A, Brandli L (2016) Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities. Eval Program Plann 54:123–134. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.006 Sivapalan S, Clifford MJ, Speight S (2017) Engineering education for sustainable development: using online learning

L

1140

Local Sustainable Development and Educational Challenges

to support the new paradigms. Australas J Eng Educ 4952:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2017.1307592 Storey M, Killian S, O’Regan P (2017) Responsible management education: Mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. Int J Manag Educ 15:93–103. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.009 Tourse RWC, Mooney JF, Shindul-Rothschild J et al (2008) The university/community partnership: transdisciplinary course development. J Interprof Care 22: 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820802355615

Wang C-L (2017) No-self, natural sustainability and education for sustainable development. Educ Philos Theory 49:550–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857. 2016.1217189 Wiek A, Xiong A, Brundiers K, van der Leeuw S (2014) Integrating problem- and project-based learning into sustainability programs. Int J Sustain High Educ 15:431–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-20130013

M

Management ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development

Management Review Environmental Accounting and Sustainability Tamara Cintra e Silva, R. B. Cordeiro and Micheli Kowalczuk Machado Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition Environmental accounting can be an important tool to help in control organizations in search of sustainability. Among other factors, environmental accounting records and controls the actions of companies that affect the environment, in addition to point the financial the benefits, the losses and the results of the environmental exploration.

Introduction For a long time, companies had generally been concerned only with productive efficiency, but

more recently, this proved to be wrong due to the growth of ecological awareness, and companies began to use this idea in their strategy. The world’s concern with environment comes from the fact that protecting it means preserving one’s own human species. In this context, the search for sustainable development is evidenced as a means to guarantee the conservation of the environment and in this way the survival of humanity. Ferreira (2006) explains that sustainable development is one that meets current needs without compromising future needs, suggesting an idea of quantity with quality, which implies a use of renewable resources without eliminating them, degrading them, or even reducing them its usefulness for future generations. Sustainability is related to governmental, nongovernmental initiatives and different social actors that seek to transform the reality in which they live by promoting a balance between social, economic, and ecological factors. Considering this perspective, it is important to highlight the role of companies in the implementation of practices that can contribute to the promotion of sustainability. According to Vellani and Ribeiro (2009), societies are born and developed through organizations, institutions, and companies that operate to meet the needs of people. In this environment, sustainable development can mean organizations, institutions, and companies working in their regions to meet the needs of the present population without compromising the ability of future

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0

1142

generations to meet their own needs. The authors mention that for this, changes in the culture, paradigms, and business of humanity are necessary, and one of these changes is the insertion of sustainability in the decision-making processes of organizations, institutions, and, above all, companies. Ribeiro (2010) states that reduction of environmental aggression means cost reduction in organizations, and that reducing waste production implies in less environmental damage, optimization of raw materials use, avoiding penalties from environmental legislation, and preserving company’s image before society, as there is a steady increase in the number of people seeking environmentally friendly products. In this way, companies can rely on accounting as a source of information useful for decisionmaking considering the sustainability tripod, that is, economic, social, and environmental aspects (Vellani and Ribeiro 2009). Bebbington and Gray (2000) reinforce this view by mentioning that accounting can collect, analyze, measure, and disseminate information about the company’s relationship with sustainability, thus contributing as a fundamental source of information for sustainable development. According to Barbieri (2011), the company that works with the value of sustainability is concerned with reducing pollution at source, through cleaner production, and knows how to take advantage of the opportunities offered by this more conscious market for example by using products and even packaging that offers low impact on environment. It also considers aspects of the entire production chain, from raw materials and suppliers to after sales. Therefore, companies in general should position themselves on environmental and social aspects in order to implement the sustainable development objectives set out in 2030 Agenda, as this seeks to bring about changes in the way societies produce and consume assets and services. This project outlined a set of actions and guidelines that will guide the work of the United Nations members in pursuit of sustainable development. It is composed of 17 objectives and 169 goals agreed upon by the UN member states (United Nations 2015).

Management Review

Achieving the sustainable development proposed in Agenda 30 will require transformations in the fields of management, finance, planning, and investments in the public and private spheres. Will also be necessary measurement tools to track progress and verify that the goals for sustainable development are being achieved, for both environmental accounting theme of this work, plays a key role.

Environmental Accounting, Indicators and Tools for Sustainability In recent years, the pressure exerted by society on companies that do not respect the environment has increased. For this reason, combined with market demand, these companies are being forced to adopt a policy of control, environmental preservation, and recovery in order to ensure its continuity (Santos et al. 2001). The tools of environmental management are extremely important nowadays, in view of the limitation and scarcity of natural resources, in addition to the environmental pollution that increases with each passing day. Environmental impacts could be minimized if it is possible to unite sustainability and profitability, and accounting can assist in the preparation of reports and demonstrations needed to make decisions. Actually, it is not possible to reverse or stop industrial progress, given the need to meet the demand of the planet’s population. Therefore, the importance of development concerned with environmental issues that have existed for decades is well known. Accounting, as a science, represents a crucial tool to assist management in the economic assessment of environmental and social policies. Vellani (2011) mentions that environmental accounting is not something to be created, that is, it is not a new accounting, but a matter to be improved. Actually, it is enough to give necessary treatment to information and to transform environmental actions into economic terms and later in equity. Queiroz and Queiroz (2000) indicate that environmental accounting began around 1970, when companies started to give greater importance to

Management Review

1143

the environmental impacts they caused. At the beginning, however, it was a localized responsibility, but it must be is a global. He also emphasizes that in designing a project, there should be a set of planned practices that take into account not only economic aspects but also ecological aspects. According to Marion and Iudícibus (2000, p. 53), accounting must “[. . .] provide structured information of economic, financial, productivity and social nature, to internal and external users of accounting entities.” Thus, it is possible to define as environmental accounting the study of environmental patrimony, assets, rights, and environmental obligations of entities. Its purpose is to provide users, internal and external, with information about environmental events that cause changes in the equity situation (Costa 2012). In Barbieri’s perspective (2011), the most advanced business management takes into account environmental aspects, from the competitive perspective of the company, to obtain costs reduction. Evidently, that is important; however, a conscious company should not be restricted to it. In this sense, mention should be made of the indicators that perform the function of, through quantitative and qualitative information, determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the company from the environmental point of view. They are indicators of processes, systems, and

e.g. Industry and Transport

e.g. Polluting Emissions

Drivers

Responses

Pressures

e.g. Air, Water, Soil Quality

financial economics and are essential for decision-making, at different levels and areas. According to Tinoco and Kraemer (2008), several initiatives and projects are emerging with the intention of defining indicators of sustainable development, for different administrative figures, be it local, regional, or national. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) is a pioneer in the development of works that stimulate the systematization and comparability of information in several countries, while also seeking to interact with other organizations, such as Eurostat and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The EEA adapted the Drivers-Pressure-StateImpact-Responses model (DPSIR) by creating indicators to analyze environmental problems, seeking to make explicit the entire causal chain (e.g., Fig. 1). The structure of operation of this model consists of five integrated stages: (1) Drivers: underlying causes that lead to environmental pressures; (2) Pressures: environmental pressures that arise as a consequence of socioeconomic guidelines; (3) State: the state of the environment, which is affected by environmental pressures; (4) Impact: changes in the state of the environment, which can lead to impacts on human health, ecosystems, biodiversity, economic valuation, etc. and (5) Response: demonstrate the efforts of society through policy-

Impact

State

Management Review, Fig. 1 The DPSIR framework. (Source: EEA 2018)

e.g. Clean Produciton Public Transport, Regulations, Taxes Information, etc.

e.g. lll health Biodiversity loss Economic Damage

M

1144

makers and decision-makers to solve or minimize identified problems (EEA 2018). Another important example with regard to the Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) indicators in organizations is norm 14031 developed by International Standards Organization (ISO) in which the main objective is to define a process for evaluating environmental performance of organizations’ systems. This norm also assists in the conversion of data into accurate information in relation to environmental performance (ISO 2013). The norm provides two general categories of indicators to be considered in the Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE): the Environmental Condition Indicators (ECI) and the Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI). ECIs provide information about the quality of the local environment. Data for these indicators are generally collected according to environmental standards and rules established by legal standards and provisions. The EPIs are divided into two groups: (1) Management performance indicators (MPI), which provide information on management practices that influence environmental performance and (2) Operational performance indicators (OPI), which provide information on operations in the production process that interfere with environmental performance (Table 1). In the context of environmental indicators, it is also worth mentioning Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that is an international organization to elaborate and disseminate standards applied globally for preparation of sustainability reports. Companies choose to do it on a voluntary basis. As GRI indicate concept of sustainability, it seeks to make the preparation of these reports a routine, thus increasing the level of credibility of the company, as are the financial statements (Tinoco and Kraemer 2008). The indicators needed to prepare such reports cover three elements of sustainability, which are interrelated: economic, environmental, and social (Table 2). Considering its proposal for an international standard for sustainability reporting, the use of the GRI model has grown worldwide. By providing nonskewed indicators, the model is

Management Review Management Review, Table 1 Classification and examples of Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI): ISO 14031 Category Environmental performance indicators (EPI)

Type Operational performance indicators (OPI)

Management performance indicators (MPI) Environmental condition indicators (ECI)

Indicators examples Relative power consumption Relative water consumption Relative generation of solid waste Raw material relative consumption Quality of environmental occurrences Percentage of goals reached Concentration of a specific contaminant in water, air, or soil Total number of fauna species in a defined area

Source: The authors based on ISO 14031 Norm (2013)

Management Review, indicators – GRI Economic

Environmental

Social

Table

2 Elements

and

It includes, for example, spending and benefits, labor productivity, job creation, expenditure on external services, expenditure on research and development, investment in education and other forms of human capital. The economic aspect includes, but is not limited to, financial information and related statements It includes, for example, the impact of processes, products, services on air, water, soil, biodiversity, and human health It includes, for example, treatment of minority groups and women, work done on behalf of minors, occupational health and safety, employee stability, labor rights, human rights, wages, and working conditions in external relations

Source: Tinoco and Kraemer (2008, p. 290)

Management Review

considered the least susceptible to trends and, therefore, is providing additional user credibility (Castro et al. 2010). GRI has developed a sustainability reporting framework that has the practice of measuring, disclosing, and reporting to internal and external stakeholders on organizational performance for sustainable development. “The GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards are the first and most widely adopted global standards for sustainability reporting. Since GRI’s inception in 1997, we have transformed it from a niche practice to one now adopted by a growing majority of organizations. In fact, 93% of the world’s largest 250 corporations report on their sustainability performance” (GRI 2018). In view of the above, it is important to note that environmental indicators are fundamental when it comes to promoting sustainable development and understanding, monitoring, evaluating, and disseminating the role of companies in this context. Pinheiro et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of indicators in the generation of quantitative and qualitative information to evaluate the environmental performance of the organization. For the authors, there is a need for information systems of organizations, especially accounting, to be adequate to provide environmental information that allows the construction of such indicators, helping managers to evaluate the performance of organizations and establish new goals and targets for sustainability. It should also be noted that the Agenda 30 for Sustainable Development mentions, in the item monitoring and evaluation that indicators are being developed to accompany the work of implementing the objectives and targets proposed in the document. Such indicators should promote quality, accessible, up-to-date, and reliable data that will be needed to assist decision-making, measure progress towards sustainable development, and ensure that no one is left behind (United Nations 2015). Indicators are fundamental regarding the role of accounting for sustainability, as among its activities environmental accounting is responsible for producing reports and demonstrations that present the actions of different organizations

1145

related to their commitment to sustainable development. Such commitment can only be assessed in the light of indicators. For this, there are fundamental concepts and instruments in environmental accounting, such as the examples presented below. Costs, Expenses, Revenues, Environmental Assets, and Liabilities The goal for sustainable development (SDG) number 12 of 2030 Agenda seeks to ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns through sustainable management and the conscious use of natural resources, in addition to reducing waste. It also deals with reduction of waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. It seeks to encourage integration of sustainability information into the set of reports (United Nations 2015). This way, it is necessary to classify environment accounts into cost, expense, revenue, asset, and liability, to issue sound statements and identify possible resource reduction and waste. Environmental costs and expenditures are resource consumption related to environment. Cost refers to the production process in order to monitor or prevent damages, and expenses do not refer to production process. Classifications of environmental costs are internal and external. The external can result from production or existence of the company. They are difficult to quantify, monetarily speaking, and in general are outside the limit of the company. Nevertheless, it is important to motivate the company to internalize the externalities because of market imposition. They also include damages paid to others due to environmental damages either economic or affecting natural resources. Internal costs refer to the company, including prevention and maintenance. Their identification is simpler; normally, they appear throughout the production process and determine the products selling price (Santos et al. 2001). The classification is also possible as direct, indirect, and contingent or intangible. The direct ones in the product, as, for example, a type of contamination. The indirect do not have direct bond with the product nor with the environmental

M

1146

management. It is the case of environmental training and, therefore, is associated with cost centers. Contingent or intangible assets are potential future domestic costs that may jeopardize actual operations, such as market perception of the product or service (Tinoco and Kraemer 2008). The environmental assets are the ones acquired or obtained by the company and aim to control, preserve, or even recover the environment. Ribeiro (2010) defines environmental assets as: economic resources controlled by an entity resulting from past transactions or events, expected to obtain future economic benefits, to control, preserve, and recover the environment. However, there are some controversies regarding the recognition of environmental assets, since the development of clean technologies have started. These technologies are forms of production that have mechanisms for nongeneration of waste classified as operational and not environmental assets (Ribeiro and Gratão 2000). Ribeiro et al. (2002, p. 9) present a different classification for operational and environmental assets: [. . .] an acquisition that has a specific purpose to treat polluting waste is environmental in nature. However, another acquisition, used directly in the operational process, reducing or eliminating pollution, is operational, because there is the obligation of clean production.

According to Vellani (2011), the characteristics of environmental assets vary from company to company, because of their operational activity, since they must include all assets used in the process of protection, control, preservation, and conservation of the environment. Another important concept in adapted demonstrations is Environmental liability that represents economic sacrifice that will be used in the preservation, recovery, or protection of environment, in order to compare the economic development with environmental or by inadequate posture with environment (Bertoli and Ribeiro 2006). The companies with these liabilities in their balance sheet caused impact on environment and will have to identify the affected people. The same is true if the recognition was due to fines, because they will have to defray the areas degraded. They

Management Review

can also have been originated from environmentally responsible attitudes, such as maintenance of the environmental management system, because this requires acquisition of inputs, machinery, equipment, and installation. These expenses can be financed by suppliers or even by the banks themselves (Ribeiro and Gratão 2000). Tinoco and Kraemer (2008) argue that recognition of a liability should occur when there is an obligation that has resulted in environmental cost and that meets all criteria necessary to be recognized as obligation. Environmental liabilities are also classified as normal and abnormal. The normal can be detected by the company, for example, a by-product generated within the productive process that is toxic or contaminating, or even when at the end of its useful life they are discarded inadequately, causing problems to environment and population. The abnormal are out of control by the company and do not occur within the productive process. They are usually caused by natural disasters such as lightning, earthquake, and drilling. These are inevitable events and are always contingent (Paiva 2003). On environmental revenues, Carvalho (2008) states that this can be obtained through the sale of by-products or even of products that have been recycled. Tinoco and Kraemer (2008) affirm that environmental revenues come from: provision of specialized services in environmental management; sale of processed products from raw materials waste; sale of recycled products; utilization of gas and heat; and reduction in consumption of raw material, energy, and water. In addition to the above, the company that performs all these practices can obtain a conservationist image and thus can reach new clients or even new markets, which will prefer more sustainable products. Tinoco and Kraemer (2008) explain in Table 3 some environmental revenues. Thus, there are several ways for companies to assisting environmental preservation, to be sustainable and to make revenues, either in the conquest of new markets, in expense reduction, in image improvement, in the sale of by-products, reduction of fines, among others.

Management Review Management revenues

Review,

Decrease in expenses:

Improved waste management: Reduction of indemnities: Reduction in operating costs: Increase in sales due to image improvement: Effective receipts:

1147 Table

3 Environmental

In insurance premiums, maintenance, and medical care Savings in use of materials or recycling of waste, decrease in storage and transport costs By reducing the risk of contamination and destruction Lower consumption of inputs Use of eco-labels, eco-audits, logo and favorable company’s image From sales of studies, diagnostics, waste treatment services, clean technologies, awards, etc.

Source: The authors based on Tinoco and Kraemer (2008)

Management Review, Table 4 Income statement in the period adapted to the environment Statement of income for the year adapted to the environment 1. Gross operating revenue ( ) deduction of sale 2. Net operating revenue 3. ( ) costs (expenses) of the products and services sold 4. Gross profit 5. ( ) operating expenses Normal Environmental 6. (+/ ) other operating revenues and expenses 7. (+) environmental cost savings 8. Operating profit 9. Nonoperating income 10. (+/ ) profit for the year before taxes, contributions, and shareholdings ( ) provision for income tax ( ) participation and contributions 11. (=) environmental profit (loss) for the year 12. TOTAL profit (loss) for the year Source: Tinoco and Kraemer (2008, pp. 197–198)

The adapted statements presented below (Tables 4 and 5) are used by several business and industrial activities, among them petrochemicals, steelmakers, pulp and paper, sugarcane,

mining, and lime. For its elaboration and use are essential to understand and use the concepts presented previously. In view of the foregoing, it should be mentioned that for companies in which the environmental variable is relevant, the correct disclosure of environmental aspects is fundamental for choosing the best alternatives for their results. In order to meet the informational needs of managers, accounting is capable of providing economic-financial information that assists the decision-making process of the organization’s managers, fundamentally with respect to sustainability (Pinheiro et al. 2013). In this case, in addition to the instruments and concepts presented previously, adaptations in the generation of organizational information reports are also important, such as the social balance sheet and added value demonstration, which will allow the elaboration of environmental performance indicators, instruments of great power for decision-making that involves the use of financial resources in the preservation of the environment. Thus, the organization will, for example, reduce both the consumption of resources that are unnecessary or irrelevant to the productive process and the generation of waste, fundamental aspects of sustainable development. Social Balance Sheet and Added Value Demonstration (AVD) The word balance comes from Latin and means dishes. It brings the idea of balance of dishes. Therefore, the term social balance would, actually, be incorrect, given that this report aims to demonstrate the company’s social actions without having the obligation of equalizing. For Iudícibus and Marion (2001, p. 25), the social balance sheet is a: [. . .] a report that contains data, which allow identifying the profile of the company’s social performance during the year, quality of relations with employees, employees’ participation in the company’s economic results and possibilities of personal development, as well as the way they interact with community and finally, relationship with environment.

The social balance sheet is also tool that demonstrates, in a simple and clear way, not only social

M

1148

Management Review

Management Review, Table 5 Balance sheet adapted to environment Assets Current Available Cashier and banks with movement Immediate liquidity applications Credits Customers Environmental customers ( ) duplicates discounts Environmental grants receivable Credits for environmental assessment Other credits Stocks Raw material Products in process Finished products Recycled products and by-products Environmental inputs Environmental packaging

Liabilities Current Loans and financing Environmental financing Suppliers Environmental suppliers Obligations Fines for environmental damages Compensation for environmental damages Green taxes Provisions Fines for environmental damages Compensation for environmental damages Acquisitions of environmental goods and services

Long-term performance Permanent Investments Permanent participation in other companies Other permanent investments Investments in Environmental Investment Funds Immobilized Assets in operation Machines and equipment installations Buildings Furniture and utensils Assets in environmental operation ( ) accumulated depreciation, amortization, and exhaustion Process immobilization Deferred Deployment and preoperating expenses Expenditures on research and product development Environmental management projects Costs of environmental reorganization ( ) accumulated amortization Total assets

Environmental restorations Long-term required Loans and financing Environmental financing Suppliers Environmental suppliers Obligations Fines for environmental damages Compensation for environmental damages Green taxes Provisions Fines for environmental damages Compensation for environmental damages Acquisitions of environmental goods and services Environmental restorations Result of future years Liquid heritage Share capital Profit reserve Fines for environmental damages Environmental protection Capital reserve Environmental results Total profits Accumulated loss

Total liabilities + liquid heritage

Source: Tinoco and Kraemer (2008, pp. 196–197)

but also economic and financial information, social interests, structuring information regarding company’s achievements with the internal and external environment.

Accounting as a science has the mission of providing information, be it accounting, financial, economic, social, with quality and clarity, to all who need it. The social balance has different types

Management Review

of users, such as customers, employees, suppliers, investors, shareholders, financiers, government, among others. Despite its wide use, publication is not mandatory in many countries (Dalmácio and Paulo 2004). Three countries have anticipated and have already set standards at the national level: France, Portugal, and Belgium. In France in the 1970s, researchers began to get interested in data on socioeconomic problems. They were the first country to regulate the need of information from human resources, by law, and this has been mandatory since 1979 (Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas – IBASE 2008). Development of the norm on social balance was effective through Law 77,769 of July 12, 1977, which obliged all French companies, public and private, that had more than 229 employees, to prepare the annual balance sheet (IBASE 2008). The model established by France is composed of seven parts: employment, remuneration and social charges, hygiene and safety conditions, other working conditions, professional training, professional relations, and other conditions of life dependent on the company (Carvalho and Siqueira 2012). Although the French merit is unquestionable regarding actions and initiatives, it ends up not informing the gross benefit generated by the company, contemplating only aspects directed to human resources. The Portuguese social balance was regulated by Law No. 141 of 1985, but only after Decree No. 9/92, more emphasis was placed on company’s social actions. The Portuguese model was mirrored in the French model and is divided into five parts: employment, personnel costs, hygiene and safety, professional formation, and complementary social protection. The law requires all companies with more than 100 employees to publish their balance sheets, and the main user is Ministry of Employment and Social Security (Cunha and Ribeiro 2004). A criticism made by Freire and Rebouças (2001) is that the Portuguese balance sheet does not contain information such as participation of companies in social projects or environmental projects. In Belgium, it was established by a decree on August 4, 1996, which regulated and divided the balance sheet into four parts: status of employed

1149

personnel, movement of staff during the year, information on job creation and maintenance, and training during the year. Despite its mandatory nature, the model presents extremely low information on economic and social indicators (Freire and Rebouças 2001). In Brazil, its structure is as follows (Table 6). IBASE ( 2008) idealized this structure, which, in a simple way, seeks to stimulate companies to disclose their social balance sheets, as a way of showing organizational actions. Thus, the social balance sheet is an accounting statement, which covers a set of information that expresses the fulfillment of social actions carried out by the company with employees, government, and the community. In addition to the social balance, it is important to mention the added value demonstration (AVD) as one of the environmental accounting tools. AVD is the accounting report that discloses the generation of value produced by the company and the redistribution to economic components that formed this benefit (Consenza 2003). Marques (2004) states that the purpose of the value-added demonstration is to present the value of wealth generated by the company in a given period, and its distribution among its stakeholders, that is, its beneficiaries, among others. The information must be clear and simple in order to provide understanding for everyone, even those who do not have access to accounting skills. For De Luca et al. (2009, p. 32): [. . .] The benefit of a company represents the amount of value it aggregates to the inputs it acquires in a given period and is obtained in accounting by the difference between sales and the total of inputs purchased from third parties. This amount will also be equal to the sum of all the remuneration from the efforts consumed by company’s activities.

Ribeiro and Lisboa (1999) point out that value added is given by sales revenue, excluding material and service costs from third parties, such as raw materials, merchandise for resale, third-party services, electricity, all resources acquired and consumed in the production process. The result shows how much the company added to the inputs or services, until reaching the final product, and this is gross value added. However, the company

M

1150

Management Review

Management Review, Table 6 Structure of the social balance in Brazil Calculation base Internal social indicators

External social indicators

Environmental indicators

Indicators of functional structure

Information regarding the exercise of citizenship

Composed of net revenue, operating income, and gross payroll, to demonstrate the impact that these investments have on company’s accounts. Encompasses all investment with the company’s functional structure, whether voluntary or mandatory. This is the case of social charges, food, health, safety, education, culture, crèches or childcare, training, investment in training, among others Any investment made voluntarily for the population as a whole. They are projects in the area of culture, education, health, hygiene, basic sanitation, sports, among others Composed by company’s investment in environment, in order to compensate for impacts caused on environment and those investments that only seek to contribute to environmental quality Refers to information about the relationship between company and employees, or outsourced personnel, regarding number of interns, women, blacks, physically disabled persons and participation in managerial positions, of historically discriminated groups, such as women and black people Deals with all actions of the company related to people that interact with it, in general the internal public, showing benefits distribution and even policies and practices of socially responsible management

Other information, if any Source: Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (2008)

uses asset resources to add value to the products and, therefore, deduct this consumption resulting in net benefit. Therefore, the distribution of this benefit demonstrates how much the company contributed to society and to sectors prioritized. The purpose is to demonstrate the ability of the company to generate wealth but also to distribute it. For multinationals, there is a considerable advantage, since this is the way to demonstrate their contributions to the country. For Consenza (2003), the importance of this demonstration is due to changes in the business environment that increasingly demand the usefulness and quality of information. Today, only economic and financial information is not enough to aid decisionmaking, and relations with productive chains are extremely important. The relationship between AVD and the social balance sheet is narrow, given that many data are common and complementary. AVD is a supplement to the social statement, but it is often presented separately. The social balance emphasizes social and environmental responsibility, while the added value demonstration shows the generation of wealth and its distribution.

The publication of these statements is also important for the implementation of Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, which in item 27 of the subtitle New Agenda, where the proposal of this document is explained, discusses the sharing of wealth, which can be observed in the AVD, accounting instrument in which the potential of wealth generation and its distribution is evidenced. Also in item 27, the economic development aimed at people is addressed through the inclusion of young people and the empowerment of women, factors that must be highlighted in the social balance sheet.

Final Considerations Accounting as a science has a specific aspect that deals with social and environmental information, which together with sustainable management make it possible to generate demonstrations and reports. Accounting coupled with business engagement can help conscious development, transforming in economic terms the sustainable actions. It is a fact that the continuity of human existence depends on a healthy environment.

Management Review

It is important to emphasize that several institutions from all over the world are manifesting in relation to sustainable development, encouraging various environmentally and socially correct actions. There is no escape from the importance of assuming this corporate responsibility. Several tools appeared to enable its use in the business environment, such as environmental indicators, accounts classification and generation of statements and demonstrations developed to enable dissemination of positive actions in a sustainable manner. Agenda 30 expresses its concern about continuity of the way natural resources are used, how they are produced and consumed, and when they are wasted. Change is necessary, and we must transform our world. As stated in the Agenda, many changes are simple, but it is necessary to transform the consciousness of business society (United Nations 2015). In this sense, organizations need to change substantially when they respond to the environmental agenda; otherwise it will not be possible to promote real benefits in terms of sustainability considering social, economic, and ecological aspects (González et al. 2000). Environmental accounting is part of the process of activating these organizational changes, but for that the commitment of organizations, civil society and public power is indispensable. To conclude, it is important to mention that there is much to study in this field. Conducting new research and disseminating this knowledge is extremely important so that accounting can contribute more representatively and efficiently to the promotion of sustainable development.

References Barbieri JC (2011) Gestão ambiental empresarial, 3rd edn. Saraiva, São Paulo Bebbington J, Gray R (2000) Accounts of sustainable development: the construction of meaning within environmental reporting. Finance and Mgmt Working Paper 1:17 Bertoli AL, Ribeiro MS (2006) Passivo ambiental: estudo de caso da Petróleo Brasileiro S.A – Petrobras. A repercussão ambiental nas demonstrações contábeis, em consequência dos acidentes ocorridos. J Contemp Manag 10(2):117–136

1151 Carvalho GMB (2008) Contabilidade ambiental. Juruá, Curitiba Carvalho FM, Siqueira JRM (2012) Regulamentações Brasileiras do Balanço Social. In: Ferreira ACS, Siqueira JRM, Gomes MZ (eds) Contabilidade ambiental e relatórios sociais, 2nd edn. Atlas, São Paulo, pp 23–41 Castro FAR, Siqueira JRM, Macedo MAS (2010) Análise da utilização dos indicadores essenciais da versão “G3”, da Global Reporting Initiative, nos relatórios de sustentabilidade das empresas do setor de energia elétrico sul americano. Revista de Informação Contábil 4(4):83–102 Consenza JP (2003) A eficácia informativa da demonstração de valor adicionado. Account Finance J 14:7–29 Costa CAG (2012) Contabilidade ambiental: mensuração, evidenciação e transparência. Atlas, São Paulo Cunha JVA, Ribeiro MS (2004) Evolução e diagnóstico atual do balanço social. In: Anais do IV Congresso Controladoria e Contabilidade. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. 7–8 October 2004. http://www. congressousp.fipecafi.org/anais/artigos42004/281.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2017 Dalmácio FFM, Paulo FZ (2004) A Evidenciação Contábil: Publicação de Aspectos Sócio-ambientais e Econômico-Financeiros nas Demonstrações Contábeis. Brazilian Bus Rev 1(2):74–90 De Luca MMM, Cunha JVA, Ribeiro MS et al (2009) Demonstração do Valor Adicionado: do cálculo da riqueza criada pela empresa ao valor do PIB, 2nd edn. Atlas, São Paulo European Environmental Agency (2018). https://www.eea. europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/about. Accessed 10 Jan 2019 Ferreira ACS (2006) Contabilidade ambiental: uma informação para o desenvolvimento sustentável – Inclui certificados de carbono, 2nd edn. Atlas, São Paulo Freire FS, Rebouças TRS (2001) Uma descrição sucinta do balanço social francês, português, belga e brasileiro. In: Freire FS (ed) Balanço social: teoria e prática. Atlas, São Paulo, pp 69–115 Global Reporting Initiative (2018) About GRI. https://www. globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/Pages/default. aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2019 González CL, Fenech CF, González FJC et al (2000) The role of environmental accounting in organizational change an exploration of Spanish companies. Account Audit Account J 14(2):213–239 Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (2008) Balanço social, dez anos: o desafio da transparência. IBASE, Rio de Janeiro Internacional Organization for Standardization (2013) Environmental management. Environmental performance evaluation. Guidelines. ISO, Geneva Iudícibus S, Marion JC (2000) Introdução à teoria da contabilidade, 2nd edn. Atlas, São Paulo Iudícibus S, Marion JC (2001) Dicionário de Termos de Contabilidade. Atlas, São Paulo

M

1152 Marques JAVC (2004) Análise financeira das empresas: liquidez, retorno e criação de valor. UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro Paiva PR (2003) Contabilidade Ambiental. Evidenciação dos Gastos Ambientais com Transparência e Focada na Prevenção. Atlas, São Paulo Pinheiro PR, Schmidt P, Santos JL (2013) Contabilidade ambiental: utilização dos indicadores financeiros ambientais como vantagem competitiva na gestão das organizações. Revista Gestão, Sustentabilidade e Negócios 1(1):87–109 Queiroz RS, Queiroz ES (2000) A contabilidade como um instrumento de gestão ambiental e empresarial, e sua contribuição à melhoria da qualidade de vida planetária. Journal think Accounting of the Regional Accounting Council of the State of Rio de Janeiro 3(9):78–83 Ribeiro MS (2010) Contabilidade ambiental, 2nd edn. Saraiva, São Paulo Ribeiro, MS, Gratão AD (2000) Custos ambientais – o caso das empresas distribuidoras de combustíveis. In: Anais do VII Congresso Brasileiro de Custos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, 2–4 August 2000. https://anaiscbc.emnuvens.com.br/anais/article/view/ 3020/3020. Accessed 10 Dec 2017 Ribeiro MS, Lisboa LP (1999) Balanço social. Brazilian J Account 115:1–24 Ribeiro MS, Gonçalves RCMG, Lima SA (2002) Aspectos de contabilização do passivo e ativo ambientais nas termelétricas brasileiras. J Account CRCSP 6(20):4–12 Santos AO, Silva FB, Souza S et al (2001) Contabilidade Ambiental: Um Estudo sobre sua Aplicabilidade em Empresas Brasileiras. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 16(27):89–99 Tinoco JEP, Kraemer MEP (2008) Contabilidade e gestão ambiental. Atlas, São Paulo United Nations (2015) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20S ustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017 Vellani CL (2011) Contabilidade e Responsabilidade Social: Integrando desempenho econômico, social e ecológico. Atlas, São Paulo Vellani CL, Ribeiro MS (2009) Sustentabilidade e Contabilidade. Revista Contempor^anea de Contabilidade 1(11):187–206

Measurement of Sustainability Competencies ▶ Assessment of Sustainability Competencies

Messy ▶ Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

Measurement of Sustainability Competencies

Methods for Critical Reasoning ▶ Critical Thinking Methods for Sustainable Development

Metrics for Sustainable Development Elena Pertceva and Maria Zyulyaeva Department of Project Management, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Definition Metrics for sustainable development are indicators that allow to measure, compare, and report on efforts toward sustainable development integration.

Introduction Many higher education institutions have started to implement sustainability in their activities; this includes in educational process as well as in operation of their facilities. In order to enable the path toward sustainability, sustainability assessment tools have become a crucial element (Lambrechts 2015) as they allow the creation of strategies and planning toward a sustainable university. Shriberg (2002) defined sustainability assessment as a way to measure and compare HEIs to each other in terms of their efforts toward SD integration (through the use of SA tools and frameworks). As indicated by Lozano (2006a), there are three main approaches for assessing and reporting sustainability in organizations: accounts, narrative assessments, and indicator-based. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses, but “in general, indicator-based assessments have an overall higher performance and are more easily measurable and comparable than the other two approaches because they tend to be more objective.”

Metrics for Sustainable Development

Sustainability Assessment Tools There are many approaches to sustainability assessment in HEIs. Comprehensive reviews of such approaches have been proposed by Shriberg (2002), Saadatian et al. (2011), Yarime and Tanaka (2012), Kamal and Asmuss (2013), and Gomez (Gomez et al. 2015). In-depth reviews of individual tools are very scarce (e.g., Glover et al. 2011). Some tools for sustainability assessment of HEI’s core activities are (Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Shriberg 2002; Yarime and Tanaka 2012): – The “Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire” (SAQ) by the ULSF (1999) – AISHE, by a Dutch HE working group on quality management (Roorda 2002) – HE 21 by Forum of the Future (Shriberg 2002) – STARS by the AASHE (2013) – The “Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework” (CSAF), by Cole (2003) Besides these tools, there are a number of other instruments available in the literature offering ways to assess the presence and the extent of SD initiatives within HEIs. Examples of these are: – Tools for the assessment of course content (e.g., Desha et al. 2009; Lozano 2010; Moon and Orlitzky 2011) – HEI rankings (e.g., Lukman et al. 2010; Spitzeck and Siegenthaler 2007) – Other types of composite indicators (e.g., Waheed et al. 2011b, c) Yarime and Tanaka (2012) reviewed 16 tools and found that they focus mainly on environmental impacts of university operations and issues related to governance, while aspects related to education, research, and outreach were not well addressed by sustainability assessment tools. Fischer et al. (2015) also found an overrepresentation of operational indicators in the 12 tools included in their analysis. Based on their qualitative analysis, the authors found that “education was introduced as a constitutive element of a sustainable university”; thus there is a gap between what is considered to be critical to

1153

sustainability in higher education and what the assessment tools emphasize.

Dimensions of Assessments A model of four interdependent dimensions of sustainability in HEIs, education, research, operations (which includes all institutional activities, including all resource consumption and human resource management processes), and community outreach, was proposed by Cortese (2003) and improved by Lozano who added a fifth dimension “Assessment and Reporting” (Lozano 2006b). Similar dimensions are pointed out by Velazquez et al. (2005) as strategies for fostering sustainability in HEIs. These dimensions are interrelated (Gomez et al. 2015) and could be rearranged as follows: • Operations (implementing SD through campus experiences and move toward more sustainability orientated university operations) • Education and research (inclusion of SD throughout the curricula, educating the educators, encouragement of SD research, fostering university collaboration, transdisciplinarity) • Public engagement (fostering university collaboration and stakeholders’ engagement and outreach) • Administration (assessment and reporting, as well as including SD in the institutional framework) Although education, research, operations, and outreach are often seen as completely separate activities (Jones 2013), they form a complex web of experience and learning for students (Cortese 2003). This implies that their monitoring or reporting cannot always be separated and that there should also be room for studying their interlinkages. Therefore, it can be said that sustainability in HEIs encompasses the classic three dimensions of any organization (social, environmental, and economic) also including its main activity: curricular or academic sustainability (Berzosa et al. 2017).

M

1154

Operations Dimension According to Shriberg (2002) “campuses require methods of comparison to each other as well as to a vision of a “sustainable college or university” to ensure that they are moving in the right direction.” While many tools have been developed in order to assess advancement toward sustainability in HEIs, they did not permit comparison among campuses (Shriberg 2002; Lukman et al. 2010; Gomez et al. 2015). Shriberg (2002) states that the “ideal” crossinstitutional sustainability assessment tools have the following attributes: – They identify important issues: They address relevant and material issues related to campus sustainability. – They are calculable and comparable: They must be based on measurement methods that are “flexible enough to capture organizational complexities and differences. – They move beyond eco-efficiency: A focus on eco-efficiency is common, but it is just one dimension of sustainability (triple bottom line). Assessing sustainability requires a broader approach that covers environmental, educational, and social issues. – They measure processes and motivations: Considering that sustainability is a process of continual improvement, sustainability assessment tools should cover “dynamic processes and motivations including direction, strategy, intent and comprehensiveness as well as present impacts.” – They stress comprehensibility: They must be comprehensive to a broad audience. It is important that methods and results are presented in a clear manner, enabling both the verification and effective communication of results. According to (Lozano 2006b) “From the available tools, the GRI guidelines offer one of the best options to assess and report sustainability.” So GRI indicators could be used to measure impacts in operations dimension. These includes:

Metrics for Sustainable Development

– – – – – – – –

Economic performance Energy consumption Consumption of materials and raw materials Water consumption Waste production Greenhouse gas emissions Environmental investments Number of complaints received from the community – Employee turnover rate – Wage discrimination, etc. The best to assess and report sustainability is “From the available tools, the GRI guidelines offer one of the best options to assess and report sustainability.”

Education and Research Dimensions HEIs are faced with increasing requests to disclose how they integrate and contribute to sustainability, for example, from quality management systems (Wals 2014) or by participating in voluntary initiatives such as the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME 2016). Institutions that participate in the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) are required to report on their activities, including how sustainability is integrated in educational programs (PRME 2016). Curricular assessments give insight as to the extent sustainability is integrated into study programs, which can offer university leaders a starting point for change (Lozano and Young 2013). However, consensus has not been reached on how exactly to assess the integration of sustainability in curricula (Shriberg 2002), as evidenced by the varying assessment tools available to higher education. Lozano (2006a) proposed the following metrics to assess sustainability education dimension – Number and percentage (in respect to the total) of courses related to SD concepts – Number of students enrolled in SD-related courses

Metrics for Sustainable Development

– Number of courses with some content on SD themes – List with core titles and SD theme contained – Specific course to “Educate the Educators” in SD – Course structure, goals, and duration – Management procedures to monitor incorporation of SD themes into curricula – Management structure and incorporation follow-up procedures, continuous improvement methods, etc. – Administrative support (with a detailed plan and budget) – Number and percent of departments and colleges including SD courses and curricula Other indicators relevant to this dimension are (as listed in Ceulemans et al. 2015): – Number and percentage of SD/CSR programs or specializations (Lozano 2010; Ceulemans et al. 2011; Moon and Orlitzky 2011; Yarime and Tanaka 2012) – Proportion of multi-/inter-/intradisciplinary programs (Waheed et al. 2011b, c) – Proportion of programs involving community and university (Waheed et al. 2011b) – Importance of course credits of SD courses as compared to total number of credits (Ceulemans et al. 2011; Setó-Pamies et al. 2011; Yarime and Tanaka 2012; Lozano and Young 2013) – Distinction between regular courses and stand-alone SD/CSR courses (Beringer 2007; Ceulemans et al. 2011; Setó-Pamies et al. 2011; Wright and Bennett 2011; White and Koester 2012) – Distinction between compulsory and elective courses (Ceulemans et al. 2011; Moon and Orlitzky 2011; Setó-Pamies et al. 2011; Wright and Bennett 2011; Waheed et al. 2011c) – Presence of SD definition within curriculum (White and Koester 2012) – Student/staff feedback of SD courses (Glover et al. 2011) – Presence of SD issues within course competencies (Ceulemans et al. 2011)

1155

– Pedagogical approaches used to teach SD issues (Lukman et al. 2010; Ceulemans et al. 2011; Glover et al. 2011; Lozano and Young 2013) – Doctoral studies on SD (Beringer 2007) – Presence of extracurricular activities within HEIs (Glover et al. 2011; Shi and Lai 2013; Yuan and Zuo 2013) – Presence of continuing education on SD (Lozano 2011) Lozano (2006a) proposed the following metrics to assess sustainability research dimension: – Presence of research in the area of SD – List issues addressed: renewable energies, ecological economics, urban planning, etc. – List of knowledge field involved – Percentage of graduate students doing research in SD issues – Percentage of faculty doing research in SD issues – List of faculty members and departments or centers to which they belong – Institutional support and management procedures for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in SD – Type of support provided: budget allocation, office and personnel especially dedicated, etc. – Number of research projects that are multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary in the area of SD – List of departments and centers involved – Total revenues from grants and contracts specifying SD-related research – Published research with focus on SD-related issues – Number and function of centers on campus providing SD-related research or services Other indicators relevant to this dimension are (as listed in Ceulemans et al. 2015): – Presence of definition of SD research (White and Koester 2012) – Research on SD involving students (Beringer 2007)

M

1156

– Ethical treatment of research related to SD (Yarime and Tanaka 2012) – SD research projects (Madeira et al. 2011; Yarime and Tanaka 2012; Shi and Lai 2013) – Endowed professorships or chairs on SD (Beringer 2007) – Proportion of research support for SD (Waheed et al. 2011b) – Distinction between internal and external grant opportunities on SD (Beringer 2007) – Presence of research center(s) focused on SD (Waheed et al. 2011a)

Community Outreach Dimension Lozano (2006a) proposed the following metrics to assess sustainability community outreach dimension: – Student, faculty, and staff contributions to community development and service – Partnerships for SD with educational, business, and government entities at the local level – Quantity and composition of student groups focusing on one aspect of SD – Total faculty, staff, and students involved in service learning projects Other indicators relevant to this dimension are (as listed in Ceulemans et al. 2015): – External awards or recognitions on SD (Beringer 2007; Shi and Lai 2013) – Presence of collaborations with other HEIs to advance SD on campus (White and Koester 2012; Koehn and Uitto 2014) – Number of involved stakeholders in collaborations (Dlouhá et al. 2013) – Number of different types of institutions involved in collaborations (Dlouhá et al. 2013) Sustainability reporting in higher education is a voluntary activity derived from a sustainability assessment (Berzosa et al. 2017). Lozano (2011) defined sustainability reporting as a voluntary activity with two general purposes: a means to assess the current state of progress toward

Metrics for Sustainable Development

sustainable development and a way to communicate SD efforts to stakeholders. Fonseca et al. (2011) stated that “the process of assessing and making periodic public disclosures of such [sustainable development] information is becoming known as “sustainability reporting.” These definitions of sustainability reporting refer to sustainability assessment as a part of the sustainability reporting process but do not equate them. Furthermore, they link the topic of sustainability reporting with sustainability communication and stakeholder engagement activities and with the assessment of sustainability performance. On the other hand, sustainability assessment stresses the use of instruments and tools for internal sustainable development performance management (which can be communicated afterward), while SR for HEIs mainly focuses on disclosing and communicating the results on sustainable development performance to particular stakeholders (Fonseca et al. 2011; Lukman and Glavič 2006). The concept of “materiality” has become important when discussing sustainability reporting (Hsu et al. 2013). Applying the GRI’s definition of materiality to HEIs implies the following: as the core activities of HEIs include education, research, and community outreach, these are among the topics that should be reported on by HEIs, linked to their possible (positive and negative) impacts on society (Ceulemans et al. 2015). Fonseca et al. (2011) stressed that it is not common yet to make information from SA largely accessible to a broad range of external stakeholders. A study (Ceulemans et al. 2015) showed that in 2014 only 35 universities from around the world published their sustainability reports, compared with the total number of HEIs estimated at over 20,000 worldwide. The literature on sustainability reporting in HEIs rarely mention the importance of stakeholder engagement within the SR process (Disterheft et al. 2014), and sometimes SD reports are developed without the involvement of stakeholders (e.g., in the case of the University of Leeds’ sustainability report (see Lozano et al. 2013). Fonseca et al. (2011) found that no thirdparty assurance had been performed on the

Metrics for Sustainable Development

studied sustainability reports (by external stakeholders), while this is considered as one of the key quality elements of corporate SR. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2015) presented a forecast of the diffusion of sustainability reporting in HEIs, based on logistical curves previously developed for other sectors, such as public agencies. They predict that by 2022, the estimated number of HEIs having adopted the GRI guidelines will be 300, an irrelevant number compared to the total number of HEIs around the world. Other results of this research are that currently HEIs are, in terms of SR, in the early adopter stage.

Final Comments HEIs’ sustainability performance is a multidimensional concept, which takes into account different aspects of activities. The most significant impacts of HEIs refer to their core activities in education, research, and community outreach, but their environmental impacts should also be evaluated. The complex assessment of HEIs’ sustainability helps to define the strengths and weaknesses of the HEIs.

Cross-References ▶ Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Higher Education’s Sustainability Assessment Procedures ▶ Importance of Sustainability Indicators

References AASHE (2013) STARS, a Program of AASHE. https:// stars.aashe.org/ Alonso-Almeida MDM, Marimon F, Casani F, Rodriguez-Pomeda J (2015) Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J Clean Prod 106:144–154 Beringer A (2007) The Lüneburg sustainable university project in international comparison: an assessment against north American peers. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):446–461. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676370710823609

1157 Berzosa, Bernaldo MO, Fernandez-Sanchez G (2017) Sustainability assessment tools for higher education: an empirical comparative analysis. J Clean Prod 161(2017):812–820 Ceulemans K, De Prins M, Cappuyns V, De Coninck W (2011) Integration of sustainable development in higher education’s curricula of applied economics: large-scale assessments, integration strategies and barriers. J Manag Organ 17(5):621–640. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.034 Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Van Liedekerke L (2015) Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J Clean Prod 106:127–143 Cole L (2003) Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. Royal Roads University, Victoria Cortese A (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31:15–22 Desha CJ, Hargroves K, Smith MH (2009) Addressing the time lag dilemma in curriculum renewal towards engineering education for sustainable development. Int J Sustain High Educ 10(2):184–199. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676370910949356 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Filho WL (2014) Sustainable universities a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 106(2015):11–21 Dlouhá J, Barton A, Janou_skov_a S, Dlouhý J (2013) Social learning indicators in sustainability-oriented regional learning networks. J Clean Prod 49:64e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.023 Escudero M, Csuri M, Alcaraz JM, Goldberg ES, Guevara R, Howaidy G (2016) Transformational model for PRME implementation. New York, NC: UNGC Fischer D, Jenssen S, Tappeser V (2015) Getting an empirical hold of the sustainable university: a comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks across 12 contemporary sustainability assessment tools. Assess Eval High Educ 40(6):785–800 Fonseca A, Macdonald A, Dandy E, Valenti P (2011) The state of sustainability reporting at Canadian universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):22–40 Glover A, Peters C, Haslett SK (2011) Education for sustainable development and global citizenship: an evaluation of the validity of the STAUNCH auditing tool. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2):125–144. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14676371111118192 Gómez FU, Sáez-Navarrete C, Lioi SR, Marzuca VI (2015) Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 107(2015):475–485 Hsu C-W, Lee W-H, Chao W-C (2013) Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: a case study at lite-on technology corporation. J Clean Prod 57:142–151 Jones DR (2013) “The Biophilic university”: a de-familiarizing organizational metaphor for ecological sustainability? J Clean Prod 48:148–165 Kamal ASM, Asmuss M (2013) Benchmarking tools for assessing and tracking sustainability in higher

M

1158 educational institutions: identifying an effective tool for the University of Saskatchewan. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(4):449–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-08-2011-0052 Koehn, Peter H., and Juha I. Uitto (2014) Evaluating sustainability education: lessons from international development experience. High Educ 67(5):621–635 Lambrechts W (2015) The contribution of sustainability assessment to policy development in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 40(6):801–816 Lozano R (2006a) A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU). J Clean Prod 14(9e11):963–972. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.041 Lozano R (2006b) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Clean Prod 14(9e11):787–796. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010 Lozano R (2010) Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J Clean Prod 18(7):637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005 Lozano R (2011) The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):67–78 Lozano R, Young W (2013) Assessing sustainability in university curricula: exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits. J Clean Prod 49:134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.032 Lozano R, Llobet J, Tideswell G (2013) The process of assessing and reporting sustainability at universities: preparing the report of the University of Leeds. Rev Int Sostenibilidad Tecnol Humanismo 8:85–113 Lukman R, Glavič P (2006) What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Techn Environ Policy 9(2):103–114 Lukman R, Krajnc D, Glavič P (2010) University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. J Clean Prod 18(7):619–628. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.015 Madeira AC, Carravilla MA, Oliveira JF, Costa C (2011) A methodology for sustainability evaluation and reporting in higher education institutions. Higher Educations Policy 24:459–479 Moon J, Orlitzky M (2011) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability education: a trans-Atlantic comparison. J Manag Organ 17(5):583–603 Roorda N (2002) Assessment and policy development of sustainability in higher education with AISHE. In: Filho WL (ed) Teaching sustainability at universities: towards curriculum greening, environmental education, communication and sustainability. Peter Lang, Frankfurt Saadatian O, Dola KB, Tahir OM (2011) Identifying strengths and weakness ofsustainable higher educational assessment approaches. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(3):137–146 Setó-Pamies D, Domingo-Vernis M, Rabassa-Figueras N (2011) Corporate social responsibility in management

Metrics for Sustainable Development education: current status in Spanish universities. J Manag Organ 17:604–620 Shi H, Lai E (2013) An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a structured criteria tree. J Clean Prod 61:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.09.006 Shriberg M (2002) Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):254–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676370210434714 Spitzeck H, Siegenthaler CP (2007) Value-driven and stakeholder-based ranking – a closer look at evaluating “education for sustainable development.”. High Educ Eur 32(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03797720701618872 University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (1999) Sustainability assessment questionnaire (SAQ) for colleges and universities. Washington, DC: University Leaders for a Sustainable Future Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676370510623865 Waheed B, Khan FI, Veitch B (2011a) Developing a quantitative tool for sustainability assessment of HEIs. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(4):355–368. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676371111168278 Waheed B, Khan FI, Veitch B, Hawboldt K (2011b) Uncertainty-based quantitative assessment of sustainability for higher education institutions. J Clean Prod 19(6e7):720–732. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.013 Waheed B, Khan FI, Veitch B, Hawboldt K (2011c) An integrated decision-making framework for sustainability assessment: a case study of memorial university. High Educ Policy 24(4):481–498. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/hep.2011.17 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD:a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007 White GB, Koester RJ (2012) STARS and GRI: tools for campus greening strategies and prioritizations. Sustain J Rec 5(2):100–106. https://doi.org/10.1089/ sus.2012.9978 Wright N, Bennett H (2011) Business ethics, CSR, sustainability and the MBA. J Manag Organ 17(5):641–655 Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education institutions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):63–77 Yuan X, Zuo J (2013) A critical assessment of the higher education for sustainable development from students’ perspectives – a Chinese study. J Clean Prod 48:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2012.10.041

Migration and Sustainable Development

Migration and Sustainable Development Aristea Kounani and Constantina Skanavis Department of Environment, University of The Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

1159

2018). The 2030 Agenda declares to provide a cohesive development approach, which has succeeded to balance opposing environmental, social, and economic considerations, the so-called triple bottom line (Sachs 2016).

Migration

Definition Migration is the movement of a person or group of persons either across an international border or within a state, on a temporary or permanent basis, primarily to ameliorate their lives by finding work or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons (UNCHR 2016).

Introduction People often migrate for numerous reasons, such as seeking for better jobs, or education, or following family members who have migrated (Durmaz and Kalca 2013). In other words, migration is “an expression of the human aspiration for dignity, security and an optimum future”. Today, international migration, indisputably, is a crucial component of neoliberal globalization and is associated with regional and national economies of inequality (Ackerman et al. 2000; Milanovic 2016; Likic-Brboric 2018). While simultaneously, there is a predominant sight that international migration is a source of colossal gains to be unleashed by free labor migration from poorer to economically dominant countries (Pritchett 2006; Rodrik 2011; Likic-Brboric 2018). In recent years, refugee crisis triggered by Syrian war and the prolonged conflicts in Africa and the Middle East has boosted the irregular migration flows and demonstrated a flagrant lack of a functioning regime of the international movement of people, encompassing shared rules, norms, and procedures, as well as authoritative actors accountable for its implementation (Likic-Brboric

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2016) defines “migrants” as “persons who select to move not due to a direct threat of persecution or death, but principally to advance their lives by finding job, or in some circumstances for education, family reunion, or other reasons.” On the other hand, “refugees” are defined as “persons fleeing areas due to armed conflicts or persecutions” (UNHCR 2016) and are protected in international law (Laborde et al. 2017). A displaced person becomes a refugee when he/she crosses international borders; has a lawful fear of persecution based on race, religion, political opinion, or belongingness to a social group; and is not protected by his or her country (UNHCR 2015). Forced migration takes numerous forms and is a worldwide phenomenon (Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2017). According to the incentive for the migration, there are three types of migration: (1) “free choice,” when people make their decision by themselves after weighing up the pros and cons between their native land and the potential destination; (2) “forced choice,” when the government decides to move people living in a poverty situation, in order to eradicate poverty and improve the environment; and (3) “induced choice,” when it is half forced and half free choice, meaning that the government promises to provide some supports, such as preferential loan and land policy, to people who are willing to migrate to other areas (Kelin 1998).

Drivers of Migration Migration is often considered to be the outcome of various push-pull factors or intervening factors,

M

1160

Migration and Sustainable Development

which are constituted of innumerable economic, political, social, demographic, and environmental drivers (Black et al. 2011; Foresight 2011; Piguet et al. 2011; Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2017). Food insecurity is one of the dimensions inducing migration (FAO 2016; Black et al. 2011). Furthermore, environmental and financial tremors that diminish access to food and increase food costs, coupled with weak institutions and a nonexistence of employment opportunities, also contribute to migration (Luginaah et al. 2009; Deshingkar 2012; Warner and Afifi 2014; Laborde et al. 2017). However, the willingness to flee a region, on an enduring basis, in the face of life-threatening environmental disaster is exceptionally rational and has been a vital survival strategy throughout human history (Brolan et al. 2017).

Rural-Urban Migration

Environmental Migration

Sustainability and Migration

Environmental migration is defined as the one caused by environmental degradation or natural disasters (environmental disruption, droughts and floods, desertification, land degradation, deforestation, sea level rising, pollution, etc.). Since the environmental capability and carrying capacity of natural resources in a specific area cannot sustain excessive population, some people are obliged to leave or leave voluntarily their original habitats to resettle down in a new area with relatively abundant resources to protect themselves from harm and/or to seek a better quality of life (Kelin 1998). Environmental migration has historically received less attention than migration resulting from factors like persecution, war, or economic considerations (Obani and Ogbodo 2013). Since the element of persecution is missing in case of climate refugees and there are chances of getting them back to their country of origin, the term “refugee” defined above does not include “climate refugees.” Always, it has been hard to discriminate “environmental refugees” from “economic migrants” who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, because of a marked environmental disruption that risked their existence and/or extremely exaggerated the quality of their life (Boano et al. 2007).

In 2015, the UN established a Task Team who set a framework, which includes economic, social, health, environmental, and sustainability dimensions for the next 15 years. Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were devised, including redressing equity and inequality within and among countries (Short et al. 2016).

Rural-urban migration is thought to be one of the most widespread global demographic trends (Grau and Aide 2007). There is a close association between urban overpopulation, land abandonment, and socio-environmental alteration, which is a challenge for the urban sustainability (Gisladottir and Stocking 2005).

Economic Migrants Living in a world shaped by human migration, economic migrants cross borders in seeking of better economic and improved quality of life and are considered the fastest-growing group of migrants (IOM 2008; Bak-Klimek et al. 2017).

SDGs and Migration The main ambition is to identify the space for and the role of global civil society in this process (Likic-Brboric 2018). The links between migration and SDGs show that migration is not a development “problem” to be solved, but a mechanism or a strategy that can contribute to the achievement of many of the goals (ODI 2018). SDG1 (End Poverty)

Migration has the prospective to reduce poverty and increase growth in host countries, through increased productivity, new demand for and supply of goods and services, and more labor-intensive production. What is noteworthy to be mentioned is that immigrants also add value to host countries through their skills and innovation, fostered by diversity (HagenZanker et al. 2018).

Migration and Sustainable Development

The specific relevance between the targets of SDG1 and migration is depicted in Table 1. SDG2 (Zero Hunger)

SDG2 aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Table 2 presented the relevance between the SDG2 and migration. SDG3 (Good Health and Well-Being)

SD Goal 3 intends to ensure healthy lives and promotes well-being for all, at all ages. Table 3 presented the linkage between SDG3 and migration.

1161

fundamental human right but it is an essential element for accomplishing a thriving and sustainable planet. Table 5 presents the linkage between the goal 5 and migration. SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) (Table 6)

A critical step in efficient addressing fresh water in Agenda 2030 is the Sustainable Development Goal 6, which “ensures availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” (Likic-Brboric 2018). Table 6 depicts the relevance between SDG 6 and migration. SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy)

SDG4 (Quality Education)

SD Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Table 4 depicts the relevance of migration and SDG4.

SDG7 aims on the one hand to enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology. The relevance between the SDG7 and migration is presented in Table 7. SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

SDG5 (Gender Equality) (Table 5)

SD Goal 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. According to UN gender equality not only is it considered being a

SD Goal 8 promotes inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment, and “decent work” for all. Table 8 presents the linkage between SDG8 and migration.

Migration and Sustainable Development, Table 1 Linkage between migration and SDG1 Relevant target 1.1 By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day 1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

1.3 By 2030, achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable by implementing nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all 1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights

1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social, and environmental shocks and disasters ODI (2018)

Link to migration Rural to urban migration contributes to economic development and to overall poverty reduction (Ravallion et al. 2007) Labor migrants in host countries may need specific support as they often face unique poverty challenges (Lucci et al. 2016) Migrants often send a high share of their disposable income as remittances In host countries migrants often add value to domestic economies Migrants can be a particularly poor and vulnerable group but often lack eligibility for legal social protection and/or are not effectively covered Migration can help families in origin countries improve their well-being through increased income Migration can also improve their ability to invest in assets, including land ownership, and increase access to basic services like education and healthcare Migration reinforces households’ resilience, by strengthening their ability to cope with economic risks and shocks Remittances have also been shown to increase at times of national shocks

M

1162

Migration and Sustainable Development

Migration and Sustainable Development, Table 2 Linkage between migration and SDG2 Relevant target 2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of smallscale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists, and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets, and opportunities for value addition and nonfarm employment

Link to migration Support increasing income and productivity of smallscale food producers, family farmers, etc. by secure and equitable access to land, resources, financial services, and markets, with particular attention to women, indigenous peoples, and marginalized minority populations, in order to permit people to “stay on the land”

ODI (2018)

SDG9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)

SDG9 intends to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. Migration leads to greater diversity in host countries, and this can foster innovation. As well as in origin countries, migration can foster innovation through social remittances, skills transfers, and return migration (Debnath 2016). This has implications for long-term poverty reduction in these countries. In some contexts, outflows of the highly skilled could have negative impacts for origin countries in certain sectors (Mills et al. 2008). However, evidence that a so-called “brain drain” harms development in origin countries is mixed once the net effects are considered. High-skilled migration often generates positive externalities such as increased investment in education, a more educated domestic workforce, and returnees bringing back skills acquired abroad (Adzei and Sakyi 2014; Docquier and Rapoport 2011). SDG10 (Reduced Inequalities)

SDG10 aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. Table 9 depicts the linkage between the SDG10 and migration. SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

SD Goal 11 supports positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and

rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. The association between SDG11 and migration is presented in Table 10. SDG13 (Climate Action)

Building “resilience for all” is akin to leaving no one behind. Voluntary climate-induced migration can be supported and planned for as an adaption strategy. Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing states, including focusing on women, youth, and local and marginalized communities. Τhe relevant targets are shown in Table 11. SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

The SDG16 promotes peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provides access to justice for all, and builds effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. Table 12 presents the linkage of SDG16 and migration. SDG17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

Goal 17 strengthens the means of implementation and revitalizes the global partnership for sustainable development. The relevant targets and their association to migration are depicted in the following table (Table 13).

Final Remarks The problem of wasted human capacity and deprivation of human dignity (Abdi 2005; Kumssa et al. 2014) should be seriously addressed. As several researchers argued, literacy is a fundamental component to reaching all the SDGs across all development sectors. Without improved learning and literacy, each of the SDGs will limit the ability of citizens to be sufficiently informed on key issues and less empowered to take action. Concurrently, in order to achieve a more literate world, the education sector, through its formal and nonformal programs, could benefit critically from linkages

Migration and Sustainable Development

1163

Migration and Sustainable Development, Table 3 Linkage between migration and SDG3 Relevant target 3.1 Reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to seeding > building > living – that seeks to transform communities into complex systems where people thrive by optimizing and collaborating in the local energy-water-food nexus so the community and nexus thrive together as a cognitively complex system (SCI 2015). Grounded in complexity science, these and other transformative urban planning and design initiatives can help communities as whole-systems build the deep interconnections among diverse systems needed to sustain and regenerate complex systems, including the complex system needs to regenerate the EWF Nexus and its ability to help communities thrive now and into the future.

Re-empowering Living Systems

The emergence of an Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness and maturation of conscious complexity needed to re-empower living systems can be catalyzed by activities that help heal and re-empower the complex adaptive systems that have been compromised by consumption-driven Anthropocene 1.0 consciousness and lifestyles and the chemically enriched, fossil-fueled powered unsustainable systems implemented by Anthropocene 1.0 consciousness. This healing can be triggered by removing – from soil, air, and water

Implementing Cognitive-Complexity Knowledge-Building Projects As stated in the ▶ “Complex Systems and Sustainable Development” entry (this Encyclopedia), humanity is shifting to its third development tradition. In the first, people lived within local systems, struggled with limited resources, and survived by co-adapting within these systems. In the second, technology and science empowered humanity to mine resources, externalize costs, and degrade systems at increasing rates, intensities,

W

2088

and scales. In the emerging third tradition, system breakdown is motivating humanity to become an appreciative system (Jantsch 1975) that co-adapts in ways that help build complexity, transformative resilience, and sustainability. Diverse streams of knowledge are analogically developing understanding to enhance human ability, as intelligent agents, to build the Anthropocene 2.0 consciousness needed to optimize whole-systems life-cycle metabolic flows. In one of these streams, the Sustainable Community Institute has been envisioning analogically robust urban planning and design project proposals, including one for a neighborhood in Baltimore and another in Indianapolis. These proposals seek to help people and their local communities thrive by integrating analogically robust knowledge systems designed to inform local system reprovisioning for sustainability and transformative resilience (2015). The projects each integrate complexity science knowledge and community-based knowledge about local complex systems to help people live appreciatively by managing their local EWF Nexus; by harvesting from, using and regenerating the EWF Nexus; by integrating ecological, infrastructural, and built-environment supports; by interconnecting previously disconnected decisions; by building life and job skills; and by appreciatively managing the local EWF Nexus. The first project is a prototype urban farmstead proposed for the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood in West Baltimore – where the profound need for transformational change resurfaced following the death of Freddie Gray (Reid 2015). The project is part of the ministry of Martha’s Place, a center for peace and justice, with a recovery program for women overcoming substance abuse and homelessness. At Martha’s Place, people help women who are overcoming drug addiction and homelessness maintain sobriety, develop vital life skills, enhance nutritional intake, develop healthy diets, and learn food production, preparation, and valueadding skills. The prototype urban farmstead project built on previous urban agricultural activities by Martha’s Place, to develop an urban homestead on property managed by the center. The project also sought to address local water and food problems and catalyze transitional housing and life

Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability

skills. It included an urban agriculture initiative to provide organic food and help Martha’s Place become more self-sufficient. It also proposed launching micro-businesses as value-adding activities (food service, processing, and products) and food distribution activities (food carts and food trucks). The urban farmstead project, proposed as a catalyst for self-sufficiency and community thriving, included skill development and training for the women in recovery, with skill-building and knowledge in the areas needed to build the local neighborhood economy. The proposed project received a first place award in the 52nd International Making Cities Livable conference and the People’s Choice Award in the Baltimore Growing Green Initiative design competition sponsored by the City of Baltimore, US Environmental Protection agency, and Chesapeake Bay Trust (Truex 2015). The second project included community visioning to provide analogically informed insight around a food hub proposal for a challenged Indianapolis urban neighborhood with an aging population, employment challenges, and health issues. A Quality of Life Plan had recommended development of a food hub as a community and economic redevelopment catalyst. In this project, the Sustainable Communities Institute partnered with the engineering firm designing the site redevelopment project and the existing steering committee to develop the vision for the food hub. In community visioning sessions, participants from diverse community and societal sectors self-identified their biases by declaring the relative value they placed on job creation, healthy food, and a stronger community. Each team of similar biases, with members from diverse community sectors, then engaged in an interactive board game designed to stimulate network conversation among different sector-framed views. Each team placed game pieces over tabletop community maps while engaging in deep conversations to dialectically decide how best to allocate land. Each team allocated land to diverse components of a food hub, local food system, and community development. Components of the food system included land for growing food, distribution, job training, education, value-adding, and food consumption, as well as employment centers, new housing, start-up businesses, community space, and education and

Whole-Systems Approach to Sustainability

wellness services. After making its land allocations, each team received a scorecard and scored its solution. Then the collection of solutions, each generated by visioning through a unique set of lenses, were used to stimulate network conversation among all teams, each of which had make its own land allocations looking through its unique set of lenses. This analogically rich network conversation provided insight for robust design proposals for the project. The game created for this community-based visioning was later evolved by Sustainable Communities Institute into a learning tool where teams in academic and nonacademic contexts can engage in four cycles of play. In each cycle, teams allocate lands based on a specific economic paradigm and then are given a score sheet which they use to score their solutions. In the first cycle, teams allocate land based on market value and perceived first cost/benefit of solutions. In the second cycle of play, they allocate lands based on market considerations adjusted to optimize the energy-water-food nexus. In the third cycle, teams allocate land based on market considerations, optimization of EWF nexus, and provision of green infrastructure as secondary supports that collaborate with ecological systems as primary supports. In the fourth cycle, teams allocate land based on market considerations, optimizing the EWF nexus, green infrastructure as secondary supports and built environments as tertiary supports that collaborate with ecological systems as primary supports. This evolved game has been used by the designers as a sustainable development learning tool in a range of academic contexts (master’s degree programs, undergraduate programs, high school, etc.) and global contexts (US and international). Sustainability Through a Whole-Systems Approach In summary, a whole-systems approach to sustainability focuses on complex adaptive systems, how they build complexity and transformative resilience, how the history of unsustainable economic and community development has arrested co-adapted complexity, and how development can unlock complexity, reactivate biologically complex system, and reprovision for emergence of

2089

conscious complexity. This whole-systems approach operates at all three systems-levels: the object-level of entities and their co-adapted behaviors; the systems-level of optimizing complex adaptive system performance through network conversation, life-cycle flows, and systems functionality, regeneration, and resilience; and the meta-level of transformative innovations as feedstock for co-adapting with rapidly changing complex systems, building transformative resilience, and facilitating transformative system change, complexification, and higher levels of biocapacity. The whole-systems approach appreciates that sustainable development must operate within current conditions while simultaneously reprovisioning for a sustainable future. It must also have the transformative resilience to survive the inevitable changes that are the deepest metabolic dynamic of complex adaptive systems. The whole-systems approach appreciates the profound and rapid ongoing change in complex systems due to the history of Anthropocene 1.0 unsustainable development. It also appreciates that when complex systems are changing rapidly, as they are now and in the next few decades, development and support systems must be provisioned to enhance transformative resilience. Since complex adaptive systems build resilience through innovation/co-adaptation cycles, in these times of profound change, a whole-systems approach sees transformative innovations essential for providing feedstocks to build transformative resilience. It sees this feedstock fueling the boundary-expanding robustness needed to reprovision development in ways that help people and the complex systems of which they are part sustain, enhance metabolic capability, regenerate their health and productivity, build new potential, and thrive into the future. It also sees complexity-centric co-design processes as catalysts for transformative change to a sustainable future.

Cross-References ▶ Complex Systems and Sustainable Development ▶ Co-design Methods and Sustainable Development

W

2090

References Armistead D (2011) Symposium on community social and economic change in the new economy. Ball State University, Muncie BFI (2018) Buckminster Fuller Challenge, Buckminster Fuller Institute. Website, https://www.bfi.org/chal lenge. Accessed 8 Jan 2018 Callaos N (2017) Analogical thinking, inter-disciplinary communication, and case studies (participative talk). In: General joint sessions and workshops of IMCIC 2017 and its collocated events, Orlando, 21–24 Mar 2017. http://www.iiis.org/ViewVideo2017sp.asp?id=3. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 CMPBS (2009) Beyond the petroleum era: a protocooperative means for re-mineralizing coastal regions, proposal to 2009 Bucky Fuller Initiative. http://chal lenge.bfi.org/application_summary/469 CMPBS (2010) Center for maximum potential building systems: 35 years of serious commotion, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems. http:// cmpbs.org Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2018) Intelligent assets: unlocking the circular economy potential. https:// www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/intelli gent-assets. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Fisk P (1989) Metabolic planning and design (how healthy building could be the forerunner of healthy businesses, healthy cities, and a healthy environment). http://www.cmpbs.org/library/10. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Fisk P (2008) The Eco-Balance™ approach to transectbased planning: efforts taken at Verano, a new community and university in San Antonio, Texas. http://www.cmpbs.org/library/10. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Glendinning R, Armistead D (2018) Building community wealth PowerPoint presentation. https://www. slideshare.net/innovant2003/building-communitywealth-by-ruth-glendinning-and-david-armistead. Accessed 2 Jan 2018 ISEE (2018) ISEE systems thinking and dynamic modeling software. https://www.iseesystems.com/store/prod ucts/ithink.aspx. Accessed 24 Jan 2018 Jantsch E (1975) Design for evolution: self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. George Braziller, New York Johnson S (2001) Emergence: The interconnected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. Scriber, New York Kumu (2018) Data visualization platform for organizing complex information into interactive relationship maps. Kumu.io website, https://www.kumu.io/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Lawrence M (2015) Harmony with nature and harmony among humans in the Anthropocene. UN General Assembly Dialogue on Harmony with Nature Lyle JT (1994) Reqenerative design for sustainable development, Wiley, New York

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development Motloch J (2016) Unlocking complexity: big science project and research agenda. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics 11(4):563–572 Motloch J (2017) Complex system co-design: pathway to becoming an appreciative system. In: Proceedings of the 8th international multi-conference on complexity, informatics and cybernetics Neighborhood Economies. Neighborhood economies webpage. http://neighborhoodeconomics.org/about/. Accessed 2 Jan 2018 Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam international discussion paper Reid C (2015) Sandtown, Baltimore: inside Freddie Gray’s neighborhood. CBS News, 8 May 2015. https://www. cbsnews.com/news/drugs-unemployment-freddie-graysneighborhood-sandtown-baltimore/ Accessed 19 Jan 2018 Ruskoff D (2016) Throwing rocks at the Google Bus: how growth became the enemy of prosperity. Penguin, New York SCI (Sustainable Communities Institute LLC) (2015) Baltimore urban farmstead initiative, honor award. In: 52nd international making cities livable design competition for excellence in designing for green, healthy cities. http:// www.livablecities.org/node/693. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the digital age: solving complex problems in a globalized world. Academic: An imprint of Elsevier, London Swimme BT, Tucker ME (2011) Journey of the Universe, Yale University Press Truex S (2015) Press release for the first place award of the international making cities livable design competition Wahl DC (2016) Designing regenerative cultures. Triarchy Press, Axminster Wahl DC (2017) Life’s economy is based on collaboration rather than competitive advantage. https://medium.com/ age-of-awareness/lifes-economy-is-primarily-based-oncollaborative-rather-than-competitive-advantage-e7c5f 55466fd

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development Lorelei L. Hanson Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada

Synonyms Complex; Intractable; Messy

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

Definition Wicked problems are intractable social issues that defy traditional problem-solving approaches because they are characterized by high levels of complexity and ambiguity and involve multiple stakeholder groups with strongly divergent values and perspectives. While initially applied in a social planning context, sustainability researchers have increasingly utilized this lens to explain the multidimensions of many sustainable development issues and explore new ways for addressing these complex issues.

Introduction In this entry, the origin of wicked problems as a concept and its ten distinguishing properties is discussed. These characteristics are then used to discuss vexing dimensions of sustainable development that are highlighted in the research literature. There is increased attention by sustainability researchers to how traditional decision-making approaches, management strategies, public policy responses, and education are insufficient for effectively addressing sustainable development problems, as well as growing interest in identifying productive pathways for addressing these deficiencies. An overview is provided of three general themes identified in the research literature for addressing the complexities associated with the wicked nature of sustainable development. As researchers and practitioners have struggled with the wicked nature of sustainability issues, recognition has emerged that problems like climate change have additionally troublesome features that make them especially challenging to address; the entry ends with an overview of discussions of super wicked sustainability issues found in the research literature.

Wicked Problems The concept of wicked problems emerged in the United States in the late 1960s anchored by two

2091

defining events: urban revolt that ravaged African American urban neighborhoods and the landing on the moon. American philosopher and systems scientist West Churchman received a grant from NASA to explore the application of space program technology to urban problems and with this organized a weekly seminar in 1967 (Skaburskis 2008). Horst Rittel, a design theorist and professor with interests in planning, engineering, and policymaking, attended one of these sessions and introduced a list of differences between technical/ scientific and intractable social problems (Crowley and Head 2017). He argued that applying a rational, scientific, system-based approach to wicked issues often results in proposed solutions that are worse than the symptoms of the problem (Churchman 1967). Persistent encouragement over the next 5 years, by Rittel’s colleague Melvin Webber, for him to publish this list resulted in the now famous paper, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” (Rittel and Webber 1973; Skaburskis 2008). The list details ten properties of “wicked problems.” The word “wicked” denotes vicious, tricky, malignant, or aggressive planning problems that are highly resistant to defining and resolving. Wicked problems contrast with tame or benign ones – problems that may still be complicated but that can be solved using rational or technical solutions or routine management approaches (Rittel and Webber 1973). Wicked problems defy such straightforward analytical techniques because they are characterized by the following features: 1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3. The solutions to wicked problems can only be good or bad, not true or false. 4. There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 5. Attempts to solve wicked problems are a “one shot” deal. 6. Wicked problems are highly resistant to clear and agreed upon solutions. 7. Every wicked problem is unique. 8. Every wicked problem is a symptom of other societal problems.

W

2092

9. Discrepancies between explanations of a wicked problem can be explained in multiple ways; each explanation frames the slate of possible solutions. 10. There is no public tolerance for failure in solving wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973). Over the past four decades, interest and support have grown for the idea that there are intractable social problems that defy resolution using traditional methods and instead must be addressed through political argumentation and networked and communicative approaches. Other scholars have developed similar ideas to those of Rittel and Webber about socially complex, politically fraught, and imperfectly understood social issues in their analyses of radioactive waste management, cybernetic research, and urban redevelopment, describing them using different adjectives such as “messy,” (Metlay and Sarewitz 2012), “clumsy,” (Frame 2008; Hartmann 2011) or “fragmented” (Conklin 2005). While there are critics of Rittel and Webber’s wicked problem concept (e.g., Bahm 1975; Catron 1981), “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” has become the most cited article in Policy Sciences (Crowley and Head 2017). The trajectory of references of Rittel and Webber’s paper has steadily increased with citations reaching double digits in the 1990s and increasing beyond 100 annually by the late 2000s. Interest in wicked problems extends far beyond scholars and practitioners of planning theory, design, and practice, with application of the model found in disciplines such as public policy, political science, public administration, public management, philosophy, health, and, most prominently, environmental/ecological management and theory (Crowley and Head 2017; Head and Alford 2008).

Sustainable Development as a Wicked Problem Rittel and Webber’s model of wicked problems has been employed as a conceptual framework

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

for framing sustainable development issues and for providing additional insights concerning why many natural resource and environmental “policies and programs generate controversy, fail to achieve their stated goals, cause unforeseen effects, or are impossibly difficult to coordinate and monitor” (Head 2010, 3). Within the research literature, scholars highlight how these wicked properties become conditions of the complexity that must be understood and adequately responded to in undertaking sustainable development efforts. Wicked properties of sustainable development include: 1. Sustainable development is difficult to define. Despite the ubiquity of the concept in a contemporary context, and widespread consensus that it is a worthwhile goal, there is little agreement about what sustainable development is, how it differs from sustainability, and how to attain it (Du Plessis 2009; Morelli 2011; Redclift 1989; Vos 2007). There is always more than one explanation of wicked problems and their scope. How sustainable development issues are defined (e.g., as economic, as ecological, as social, etc.) suggests some solutions “(e.g., carbon trading, regulation, international aid, etc.) and excludes others from being considered (Powys Whyte and Thompson 2012). Scholars and professionals alike provide case studies that demonstrate how sustainable development remains an elusive goal. To illustrate, Allen and Gould (1986) talk about national forest management in the US as typically plagued by a lack of consensus about the problem and solution: “long-range forest plans involve power struggles, imprecise goals, fuzzy equity questions, and nebulous information and thus become wicked” (23). 2. There is no end point to sustainable development. Scholars whose work draws on complexity theory speak of sustainable systems as dynamic, complex, and adaptive (see Biggs et al. 2010; Olsson et al. 2004; Remington-Doucette 2013; Westley et al. 2011). They explain that the social

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

and ecological elements self-organize to optimize the function of the system, or take advantage of certain functions, thereby creating new niches as necessary and changing their composition (i.e., the elements and relationships of which they are composed) to fit the changing patterns they encounter (Du Plessis 2009). As the conditions within the socio-ecological system continually change over time, solutions must perpetually adapt to meet the new conditions (RemingtonDoucette 2013). Consequently, the target of the decision constantly morphs and moves, and there is no obvious point at which one can cease working on the problem because sustainable development has been achieved. Rather, one stops working on a sustainable development problems because they have run out time, money, or patience, not because they have found the ultimate solution. 3. Strategies to achieve sustainable development are always better or worse, not right or wrong. Wicked problems associated with sustainable development are linked to social pluralism that is articulated through multiple stakeholder interests and perspectives (Head and Alford 2008). Given such divergence, there can be no absolute view of whether the formulation and proposed solutions for sustainability problems are true or false (Norton 2005). Because proposed strategies for achieving sustainable development are so closely tied to problem formulations, even if there is agreement about the problem, disagreements arise as the stakeholders foresee themselves as being impacted differently by the solutions. Underlying discussions and debates are questions about what is it that will be sustained and for whose benefit (Vos 2007)? Hence, rather than being right or wrong, solutions to sustainable development problems are better or worse, or good enough or not good enough relative to a specific situation, who is judging the outcome, and the resources available to work on it. As Remington-Doucette (2013) explains, “A solution that is good enough for one place and time might not be good enough for another” (48).

2093

4. Sustainable development problems have no objective measure of success. Sustainable development problems exist in complex systems that exhibit unpredictable, emergent behaviors and thereby result in unforeseen consequences. Adaptive responses and interactions within socio-ecological systems allow for emergence within the system, as the socio-ecological system undergoes spontaneous self-organization into collective structures with properties that cannot be predicted from the characteristics of the parts and which the agents or elements may not have possessed individually (Du Plessis 2009). Given the ongoing dynamic nature of socio-ecological systems and the ripple effects created by interventions for achieving sustainable development, it is difficult to develop a test or criteria to judge if and when success is realized (Norton 2005). 5. Responses to sustainable development problems have irreversible consequences. Implementing solutions to achieve sustainable development creates changes in the world that cannot be undone, and because the consequences of any proposed solution for a wicked problem leave permanent marks, there is no learning by trial and error. Geoengineering proposals to counteract anthropogenic climate change are a clear reminder of this wicked factor. Actions such as fertilizing the ocean with iron or other nutrients, though based on sound science of marine plant photosynthesis, have resulted in algae blooms that have not been as effective as expected, and resulted in depleted oxygen levels, which potentially could create oceanic dead zones and have other potential side effects including suppressing Asian monsoons or modifying the ocean’s acidity (UNEP 2011). 6. Sustainable development problems have innumerable possible solutions. There is no way to determine if all the possible solutions to a sustainable development problem

W

2094

have been identified and considered (Powys Whyte and Thompson 2012). As understandings of the problem constantly evolve, and constraints and resources for the solution change over time, there is no established set of potential solutions or permissible activities. Hence, there is need for continuous learning and developing knowledge to cope with the changes and uncertainty associated with socio-ecological systems (Olsson et al. 2004). 7. Every sustainable development problem is unique and requires context-specific solutions. While sustainable development problems may have commonalities with other social and technical problems, because they are socially complex, politically fraught, imperfectly understood, and morph over time and space, the transfer of external solutions to them is often highly problematic. One cannot rely on precedent to determine how to act to achieve sustainable development. As Remington-Doucette (2013) explains, “Every specific situation is distinct because the cultural, political, social, environmental, technological, economic, and other important aspects will be different in particular contexts” (49). 8. Sustainable development issues are nested and interdependent. Sustainability problems result from the multiple interactions between human activities and ecosystems across multiple policy domains and authority structures within and between organizations. According to Head (2010), “This feature raises great difficulties both for clear analysis and for devising practical interventions to tackle the problems” (7). As Balint et al. (2011) explain, this is often because multiple objectives and decision-making processes characterize sustainable development initiatives, which when combined make “the goal of developing and implementing politically acceptable, technically feasible, and ecologically and economically effective policies seems unattainable” (34).

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

9. The causes of and solutions for sustainable development problems can be explained in numerous ways. Experts and stakeholders often disagree about how to achieve sustainable development in part because they see the issue from different worldviews (Salwasser 2004). The loss of biodiversity can be argued to be an effect of globalization, but it can also be explained as being caused by climate change, industrialization, individual greed, and social oppression (Powys Whyte and Thompson 2012). Further, natural resource and environmental problems are complex because multiple factors are at work that influence each problem area or objective. For example, “the condition and trend of a wildlife population are a result of interactions among the prior population, habitat, weather, predators, disease, off-site factors, and chance events. Resource managers can influence only some of these factors, and scientists only vaguely understand how they all operate together to affect a population outcome for many, if not most, species. Most of what affects wild plant and animal populations falls into the arena of uncertainty and unknowns” (Salwasser 2004, 9). 10. There is no room for error in trying to achieve sustainable development. Because the impact of sustainability issues and the proposed solutions for them have profound and lasting consequences, there is no forgiveness or understanding for grievous mistakes in trying to solve these issues. There is no lack of social and technological innovation in the world, but sadly much of it does not respect interacting planetary boundaries and is creating tipping points in the earth’s systems (Westley et al. 2011). Paths Forward In addition to descriptive/analytical discussions of the concept, much of the environmental and natural resource research literature that discusses wicked problems focuses on innovative approaches and new ways of thinking for effectively addressing sustainable development challenges. Suggested guidelines for helping build

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

capacity to effectively address the complexities associated with the wicked nature of sustainable development include: 1. Expanded conceptualizations of the problem Innovation, creativity, and imagination are central to addressing wicked problems (Brown et al. 2010). Higher-order thinking that transcends disciplinary boundaries and is grounded in ethical or moral perspectives is found necessary for moving beyond the linear thinking and fragmentation common to more traditional problem-solving approaches (Palmer et al. 2009). Holistic or systems thinking is critical to ensure a more integrated understanding of the complexity and interconnected components of the socioecological system (Burch et al. 2014; Head and Alford 2008; Olsson et al. 2004; RemingtonDoucette 2013). Additionally, reflexivity (the ability to consider and evaluate multiple frames at once) allows one to appreciate the multiple perspectives at play and reconsider dominant frames as a means for avoiding tunnel vision (Termeer et al. 2012). Several tools are discussed in the research literature for enabling more creative and expanded perspectives, including visioning (RemingtonDoucette 2013); transformational sustainability research (Wiek and Lang 2016); backcasting, creating future scenarios and tracing back the steps required to get from the present to the future vision (Head and Alford 2008); identification of transition or leverage points, those places or times in a socio-ecological system that create barriers for change (Remington-Doucette 2013); scenario analysis (Head 2014); solution-focused sustainability assessment (Zijp et al. 2016); and the use of simulation games (Learmonth et al. 2011). 2. Deeper and broader collaboration There is widespread consensus that collaboration between scientific experts and stakeholders is critical to achieving progress on sustainable development issues (Termeer et al. 2013; Webber and Khademian 2008). Because decisions about natural resources and the environment are not

2095

merely scientific and technical in nature, but also political and social, more inclusive stakeholder engagement is necessary for managing environmental problems. Many argue that this observation is particularly true in the context of wicked problems that are ill-defined, rely on political judgments rather than scientific certitudes, and require innovative methods beyond legislation, fines, and taxes to motivate organizations and individuals to actively cooperate in the transformation (Balint et al. 2011; Head and Alford 2008; Remington-Doucette 2013). Scholars use various terms to describe formal collaborations between scientists and citizens. Adaptive management is described as requiring a range of innovations in approach that creates “a learning and decision making framework linking science, stakeholder knowledge, and integrative processes for new thinking” (Head 2014, 675). Others, such as FitzGibbon and Mensah (2012), call this adaptive co-management. Adaptive management involves scientists working “side-byside with managers in designing, implementing, and monitoring project work” and with the “management projects. . .treated as experiments with sufficient scientific design so that they clearly lie in the interface between research and routine management” (Salwasser 2004, 19). Tools such as coping strategies and structured decision analysis are utilized to allow for continuous learning and improvement. Frame (2008) and Head (2014) label this “postnormal science” and describe it as a qualitative change in how science and policymaking are approached, “with its emphasis on including stakeholders in the consideration of information and policy options and its insistence that solutions to such problems are highly provisional and need continual renegotiation” (Head 2014, 665). Head and Alford (2008, 17–18) explain that these forms of expert/citizen collaborations help in addressing wicked problems in three ways: it “increases the likelihood that the nature of the problem and its underlying causes can be better understood; “it increases the likelihood that provisional solutions to the problem can be found and agreed upon”; and “it facilitates the implementation of solutions.” According to Salwasser (2004),

W

2096

collaboration done well should increase credibility and trust in the solution to the sustainability problem. Yet, scholars often find that conventional public engagement processes often not only fall short in achieving these results but worse fuel distrust, controversy, adversarial politics, and inaction (Balint et al. 2011; Carcasson 2013; Head 2014). Most public engagements on sustainability issues are too limited in scale and duration to understand the full dimensions of the wickedness of sustainable development issues and for diverse knowledges and perspectives to surface (Balint et al. 2011). Given that wicked problems are not solved but rather managed translates into long-term engagement and collaboration between experts and stakeholders in identifying the problem to evaluating the implementation strategies. As Salwasser describes, this is a fundamental challenge for contemporary bureaucracies, because it requires that the “collaborators must agree to share power” (15). Methods discussed for overcoming these barriers, bringing to surface the multiple perspectives, building shared understandings, and effectively integrating multiple values and perspectives into policy and action strategies include dialogue- and participatorybased approaches such as deliberative engagement (Carcasson 2013); systems thinking and case-based inquiry (Brown et al. 2010); multistakeholder forums and participatory action research (Verweij and Ney 2015), mess, and resolution mapping (Horn and Weber 2007); and participatory modeling (Davies et al. 2015). Mitigating the negative consequences of sustainability issues and forging more desirable trajectories toward sustainable development also require long-term and coordinated responses across and within government departments. As Berkes (2009) explains, different levels of organizational scale, from local to international, have distinctive strengths and comparative advantages in the generation and mobilization of knowledge for socio-ecological problems. Developing networks is therefore seen as key in harnessing this expertise and overcoming the limitations of hierarchical and fragmented administrative systems because they provide “flexible, efficient and innovative organizing hybrids that enable participants

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

to accomplish something collectively that could not be accomplished individually” (Webber and Khademian 2008, 334). Enabling these collaborations often requires organizational adjustments to allow for greater coordination and tolerance for uncertainty, flexibility and agility, trust, long-term funding, extended time lines, and support for collaborative champions (Frame 2008; Head and Alford 2008; Termeer et al. 2013; Waddock et al. 2015). 3. Education Many sustainability scholars contend that realizing the innovation, creativity, imagination, and success of new approaches for solving wicked problems requires new paradigms in education. In the words of Miller et al. (2011), “building sustainability knowledge requires a fundamentally different approach to the ways academic institutions organize research and education and relate to society” (178). Allen et al. (2014) argue that students not only require “strong content knowledge in relevant fields as well as skills in systems thinking, active and creative problem solving, collaboration, and communication” (52). To overcome some of these issues, Brundiers and Wiek (2011) propose sustainability research education that provides problem and solutionoriented educational opportunities for students to work on real-world sustainability problems with entities outside of academic institutions. Others such as Dale and Newman (2005) speak of the need for sustainable development education that emphasizes problem-based interdisciplinary learning. Beyond Wicked Sustainability Problems When Rittel and Webber conceived the model of analysis for wicked problems, they had little appreciation of global developments like climate change. But in the decades following, scholars such as Levin et al. (2012) have found that the interdependency, circularity, and uncertainty associated with wicked problems are further confounded by a set of additionally troublesome features that make an issue like climate change a “super wicked problem”:

Wicked Problems and Sustainable Development

1. Time is running out. 2. Those in the best position to solve it are largely responsible for it and have the least incentive to do something about it. 3. The central authority tasked with solving the problem is weak or nonexistent. 4. The proposed policy solutions discount the future irrationally (Lazarus 2009; Levin et al. 2012). Levin et al. (2012) explain that super wicked problems create a tragic dilemma: “even when we collectively recognize the need to act now to avoid the catastrophic impacts, the immediate implications of required behavioral changes overwhelm our collective interest in policy change and the ability of the political and policy systems at multiple levels to respond” (148). Scholars such as Levin et al. (2012) and Westley et al. (2011) are examining “path dependence” associated with super wicked and wicked sustainability problems and looking for solutions or mechanisms that can “unlock” humanity from the unsustainable trajectories that constrain innovation and limit the options available for societal transformation.

Conclusions The concept of wicked issues helps explain why complex social issues like climate change cannot be solved using expert-driven, centralized, and rational-technical approaches. Value-centered sustainability problems that are highly resistant to resolution using existing problem-solving approaches require transformation in the way we conceptualize and approach them.

References Allen GM, Gould EM Jr (1986) Complexity, wickedness and public forests. J For 84(4):20–23 Allen JH, Beaudoin F, Lloyd-Pool E, Sherman J (2014) Pathways to sustainability careers: building capacity to solve complex problems. Sustain For 7(1):47–53 Bahm AJ (1975) Planners’ failure generates a scapegoat. Policy Sci 6:103–105 Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desia A, Walters LC (2011) Wicked environmental problems. Island Press, Washington, DC

2097 Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organisations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90:1692–1702 Biggs R, Westley FR, Carpenter SR (2010) Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. [online]. Ecol Soc 15(2):9 Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol15/iss2/art9/ Brown VA, Harris JA, Russel JV (eds) (2010) Tackling wicked problems: through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in realworld sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36:107–124 Burch S, Shaw A, Dale A, Robinson J (2014) Triggering transformative change: a development path approach to climate change response in communities. Clim Pol 14(4):467–487 Carcasson M (2013) Tackling wicked problems through deliberative engagement. [on-line]. Retrieved from: https://cpd.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/ 2014/01/tackling-wicked-problems-through-deliberativeengagement.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2017 Catron BL (1981) On taming wicked problems. Dialogue 3(3):13–16 Churchman CW (1967) Guest editorial: wicked problems. Manag Sci 14(4):B141–B142 Conklin J (2005) Dialogue mapping: building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley, Chichester Crowley K, Head BW (2017) The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Weber. Policy Sci 50:539–547 Dale A, Newman L (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):351–362 Davies KK, Fisher KT, Dickson ME, Thrush SF, Le Heron R (2015) Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. [On-line]. Ecol Soc 20(2):37. Available at. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES07581-200237 Du Plessis, C., 2009. Urban sustainability science as a new paradigm for planning. Smart building in a changing climate (van den Dobbelsteen, A., van Dorst, M., van Timmeren, A., Techne Press, Amsterdam: 31–46 FitzGibbon J, Mensah KO (2012) Climate change as a wicked problem: an evaluation of the institutional context for rural water management in Ghana. SAGE Open, (April-June): 1–14 Frame B (2008) ‘Wicked’, ‘messy’, and ‘clumsy’: longterm frameworks for sustainability. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 26:113–128 Hartmann T (2011) Clumsy floodplains: responsive land policy for extreme floods. Routledge, New York Head B (2010) Wicked problems in water governance: paradigm changes to promote water sustainability and address planning uncertainty. [on-line]. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report No. 38. December. Available at: http://www.urbanwater alliance.org.au/publications/UWSRA-tr38.pdf

W

2098 Head B (2014) Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision making in Australia. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 32:663–679 Head B, Alford J (2008) Wicked problems: the implications for public management. Available at: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/228645090_Wicked_Prob lems_The_Implications_for_Public_Management Horn RE, Weber RP (2007) New tools for resolving wicked problems: mess mapping and resolution mapping processes. Available at: http://robertweber. typepad.com/strategykinetics/New_Tools_For_Resolv ing_Wicked_Problems_Exec_Summary.pdf Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. [on-line]. Georgetown Law Rev. Available at: http:// scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/159 Learmonth GP Sr, Smith DE, Sherman WH, White MA, Plank J (2011) A practical approach to the complex problem of environmental sustainability: the UVa Bay Game. [on-line]. Innov J Public Sect Innov J 16(1):4. https://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/learmonth_ sustain_inviroment_v16i1a4.pdf Levin K, Cashore B, Bernstein S, Auld G (2012) Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems; constraining our future selves to ameliorate climate change. Policy Sci 45:123–152 Metlay D, Sarewitz D (2012) Decision strategies for addressing complex, “messy” problems. Bridge Linking Eng Soc 42(3):6–16 Miller TR, Muñoz Erickson T, Redman CL (2011) Transforming knowledge for sustainability: towards adaptive academic institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2): 177–192 Morelli J (2011) Environmental sustainability: a definition for environmental professionals. [on-line]. J Environ Sustain 1(2):19–27. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0002. Available at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/jes/vol1/iss1/2 Norton BG (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in socialecological systems. Environ Manag 34(1):75–90 Palmer J, Smith T, Willetts J, Mitchell C (2009) Creativity, ethics and transformation: key factors in transdisciplinary application of systems methodology to resolving wicked problems in sustainability. In: Sheffeld J (ed) Systemic development: local solutions in a global environment. ISCE Publishers, Litchfield Park, pp 69–78 Powys Whyte K, Thompson PB (2012) Ideas for how to take wicked problems seriously. J Agric Environ Ethics 25(4):441–445 Redclift M (1989) Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Routledge, London Remington-Doucette S (2013) Sustainable world: approaches to analyzing and resolving wicked problems. DebKendall Hunt Publishing, Debuque Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

Work-Based Learning Salwasser H (2004) Confronting the implications of wicked problems: changes needed in Sierra Nevada National Forest planning and problem solving. In: Murphy DD, Stine, PA (eds.) Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium: science for management and conservation, general technical report PSW-GTR193. USDA Forest Service, Kings Beach, pp 7–22 Skaburskis A (2008) The origin of ‘wicked problems’. Plan Theory Pract 9(2):277–280 Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Breeman G, Stiller SJ (2012) Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Adm Soc XX(X):1–31 Termeer C, Dewulf A, Breeman G (2013) Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: Kneiling J, Filho WL (eds) Climate change governance, climate change management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 27–39 UNEP (2011) Geoengineering to combat global warming. Thematic Focus: Climate Change, Environmental Governance. Available at: https://na.unep.net/geas/ getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=52 Verweij M, Ney S (2015) Messy institutions for wicked problems: how to generate clumsy solutions. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 33:1679–1696 Vos RO (2007) Defining sustainability: a conceptual orientation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82(4):334–339 Waddock S, Meszoely GM, Wadell S, Dentoni D (2015) The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. J Organ Chang Manag 28(6):993–1012 Webber EP, Khademian AM (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review 68(2):334–349 Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, Lambin E, Sendzimir J, Banerjee B, Galaz V, van der Leeuw S (2011) Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO 40:762–780 Wiek A, Lang DJ (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science: an introduction. Springer, Dordrecht, New York, pp 31–41 Zijp M, Posthuma L, Wintersen A, Devilee J, Swartjes FA (2016) Definition and use of solution-focused sustainability assessment: a novel approach to generate, explore and decide on sustainable solutions for wicked problems. Environ Int 91:319–331

Work-Based Learning ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education Tony Wall1,2 and Ann Hindley1 1 International Thriving at Work Research Group, University of Chester, Chester, UK 2 Centre for Work Related Studies, University of Chester, Chester, UK

2099

learning, practicum, simulation learning, fieldwork, cooperative education, and experiential learning (ibid). Although it can be argued that workintegrated learning is distinctive from workplace or work-based learning, in that it integrates disciplinary knowledge (Smith 2012), in practice, this is variable (Wall 2013). In their review of the literature and practice in higher education settings, Edwards et al. (2015: 38) found that work-integrated learning had a number of common features but that these are variously prioritized across institutions:

Synonyms Action inquiry; Action learning; Action research; Co-inquiry; Collaborative action research; Cooperative inquiry; Experiential learning; Internship; Living case study; Negotiated work-based learning; Problem-based learning; Reflective practice; Service learning; Systemic inquiry; Work-based learning

Definition Work-integrated learning is a form of pedagogy which is situated, experiential, and collaborative with industry or community partners. Specifically, it has been characterized as intentionally integrating theory with authentic activities which then form part of an authentic assessment. Work-integrated learning for sustainability education specifically applies such pedagogical approaches to sustainable development challenges such as climate change, community recovery and resilience, or local poverty reduction.

• Integrating theory with the practice of work • Engagement with industry and community partners • Planned, authentic activities • Purposeful links to curriculum and specifically designed assessment In this way, the application of work-integrated learning utility, in the context of education for sustainable development in higher education, relates to (1) learning which is across multiple, contextualized sites in real (or real-simulated) settings and (2) which is aligned to competency or the “how” (as well as “what,” “why,” and so on) (Barth et al. 2007). For example, work-integrated learning has been found to develop disciplinary and professional knowledge, graduate capabilities such as critical thinking, problem-solving skills, communication and interpersonal skills, workreadiness, self-esteem, and confidence (Smith and Worsfold 2015). Similarly, work-integrated learning can inculcate systems thinking, interpersonal, anticipatory, strategic, and normative competences relevant to sustainability in higher education (Wiek et al. 2011).

Introduction Work-integrated learning is a form of education which broadly connects practice settings as a location or vehicle of learning (Billett 2014) and has expanded rapidly in response to increasing pressures for global employability agendas (Smith and Worsfold 2015; Wall 2017). It is variously known as work-based learning, workplace learning, workrelated learning, placement learning, internship

Forms of Work-Integrated Learning Work-integrated learning as a form of sustainable education manifests in a variety of ways. As Coll et al. (2003) conceptualized, there are three broad possibilities: (1) utilizing work and workplace learning as a means of delivering sustainability education (outside of the higher education

W

2100

classroom), (2) developing sustainable development knowledge first (in the classroom) and then taking this out to the workplace to influence practice, and (3) integrating the development of sustainability and workplace-based knowledge. Whereas Coll et al. articulated these as “proposals,” Edwards et al. (2015) more recently found empirical evidence of these models in practice, but with a more nuanced set of four models: “trust transfer will happen,” linear “theory to practice,” gradual immersion, and “industry” (or stakeholder community) oriented models. The Edwards et al. (2015) framework helps to articulate how work-integrated learning manifests in relation to sustainability education. Trust transfer will happen model. In this model, the design of the course prioritizes the disciplinary knowledge and skills deemed important to the discipline. This means there is no explicit focus or developmental approach to sustainability, and it is assumed that the student in higher education will be able to apply their learning in relation to sustainability outside of their studies. For example, Hindley and Wall (2017) found evidence of this in relation to climate change through an extensive mapping of university curricula, where climate change was evidenced in a very small number of educational units. In addition, evidence suggests that some forms of negotiated, work-integrated learning may prioritize the immediate perceived development needs of the individual or organization (Wall 2013), which may in turn mean the development of sustainability knowledge and skills may not feature explicitly in the curriculum. Linear theory to practice model. This model represents the most common modality of workintegrated learning (Edwards et al. 2015), where disciplinary knowledge and skills form the basis of the curriculum but are supplemented by sustainability-related inputs and interventions. This “bolt-on” model can include sustainability case studies, guest lectures, field trips, and a variety of work- or industry-oriented projects. This model reflects the work of Wall et al. (2017a) to develop a major resource bank of climate change learning materials (such as cases and website links) which were specific to multiple disciplinary

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

contexts (such as psychology, engineering, tourism) in a university setting and could therefore be utilized at the disciplinary level. Gradual immersion model. This model is similar to the previous model but with an increasing exposure and immersion in the particular area of sustainability. This might include, for example, guest lectures and case examples at the start of the higher education course, leading to extended periods on sustainability projects. An example of this is the use of capstone experiences at the end of the higher education course, focusing on a large independent work-integrated project (or projects) (Hauhart and Grahe 2015). Such projects may be designed to have multiple outcomes through volunteering or community or place development. “Industry” (or stakeholder community) oriented model. This model of work-integrated learning for sustainability education is less typical but is where work-integrated learning and sustainability are present from the first day of the higher education course and where work-integrated learning then continues throughout the program. For example, Franses and Wride (2015) discuss a variety of pedagogical philosophies and structures which engage the higher education learner in a phenomenological and holistic science from the outset and which are conducted in nature throughout the course. Here, there is a strong emphasis on immersion to develop a deep and intimate appreciation of the natural world and human connectedness to (or wholeness with) it. Also see chapters on art-based teaching for sustainable development, art-based approaches for sustainability, and reflective practice for sustainable development.

Embedding Sustainability Education Through Work-Integrated Learning In terms of how sustainable development is embedded (or not) into higher education curricula, Rusinko (2010) and Painter-Morland et al. (2016) developed and expanded matrix models to articulate and categories different strategies. Wall et al. (2017a) explored and expanded the application of this model in the specific context of workintegrated and work-based learning forms and

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

included piggybacking, digging deep, mainstreaming, focusing, and delivering outside of the formal higher education curricula (Rusinko 2010; Painter-Morland et al. 2016). Piggybacking: integrating sustainability education into existing curricula using workintegrated learning. Within the piggybacking model, the integration of sustainability involves a narrow focus developed through existing workintegrated learning pedagogical structures. For example, Wall et al. (2017a) examined the establishment and implementation of a climate change project (which might be understood as a relatively narrow focus of sustainability), conceptualized as a workplace project within a core work-integrated learning course for all undergraduate students within a university. Although the piggybacking model may be seen as a “bolt-on” strategy with limited scope for institutional change, Wall et al. (2017a) found that this strategy may initiate cultural change in a higher education setting if it engages, for example, interdisciplinary teams and generates cross-disciplinary learning resources. Digging deep: creating new disciplinaryspecific sustainability education curricula using work-integrated learning. As a strategy for embedding sustainability education through work-integrated learning, digging deep is about taking a narrow focus of sustainability through new work-integrated learning pedagogical structures. For example, in response to cyclone Yasi’s destructive effects on Mission Beach in Queensland in 2011, Philips and Boland (2013) developed a new pedagogical model which established new university-community partnerships and social entrepreneurship. This involved higher education students working with a community organization, through work-integrated learning, to deliver local and ecologically driven projects (such as a sustainable marketing plan). Similarly, San Carlos et al. (2016) explored a week-long educational experience in Japan, exposing students to the community resilience and reconstruction processes after the Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami of March 2011. San Carlos et al. (2016) found multilayered educational effects including the development of knowledge and skills relevant

2101

to researching sustainability and science, with a specific (relatively “narrow”) focus on resilient communities. Mainstreaming: integrating sustainability education into common core curricula using workintegrated learning. Mainstreaming sustainability education through work-integrated learning is a pedagogical strategy which involves a broad focus of sustainability developed through existing work-integrated pedagogical structures. One example of this is where, in the context of events management program, Robertson et al. (2012) conceptualized sustainable development knowledge and skills as a core competency at the program level and then embedded and integrated throughout the program utilizing authentic, work-integrated learning experiences (in a model such as the gradual immersion and “industry” collaboration models above). Similarly, Isacsson and Ritalahti (2015) embedded sustainability education through a core “responsible self” strand of the curriculum and delivered it through workintegrated experiences attracting academic credit. Other examples focus on embedding similar embedded competences and work-integrated combinations at the university level (Purvis et al. 2013). Focusing: Creating new cross-disciplinary sustainability education curricula using workintegrated learning. In this model, there is a broad focus of sustainability, which is developed through new structures (e.g., Kurland et al. 2010). For example, a new, interdisciplinary course and teaching strategies were established drawing on various disciplines including urban planning, communications, and marketing, to offer “in situ” learning through higher education sites (Marchioro et al. 2014). Likened to a simulated provider-supplier relationship in an interdisciplinary-problem-based-learning approach (Diamond et al. 2011), Marchioro et al. (2014) set up a pedagogical process to tackle local sustainability issues as experienced by the students, to encourage the exploration of issues and options, as well as making recommendations to enhance life on campus. The results of this activity then fed in to final year capstone experiences in relation to the detailed planning of the community development and enhancement activity.

W

2102

Delivering sustainability education outside of the formal curricular through work-integrated learning: cocurricular activity. Sustainability education which is delivered outside of the formal curriculum has been a common strategy in higher education and is a viable option when the responsibility of sustainability is outside of the academic departments of universities. For example, Tansey and Gonzalez-Perez (2007, p. 6) developed the ALIVE (A Learning Initiative and the Volunteering Experience) volunteering program, which sought to “foster civic engagement, enhance student learning and serve community needs” (also see service learning) (O'Flaherty et al. 2011). In addition, Wall et al. (2019) discuss a European professional development course for training teachers, utilizing drama processes to embody sustainability awareness and action planning. Such cocurricular approaches provide a flexible strategy to target a wide range of sustainability issues.

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

2.

3.

Aspects of Effective Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education Work-integrated learning in the context of education for sustainable development seems to offer the following attributes (Smith 2012; Wilson and Pretorius 2017: 253–254): 1. Authenticity, both physical and cognitive, is achieved through learning environments that are similar to the real-world environment. Realistic problems and projects, which are meaningfully consequential and collectively solved by students, motivate engagement and relevant learning. In addition, Edwards et al. (2015) suggested that “a clear value proposition” is required in work-integrated learning, so that there is a stronger buy-in and understanding of the nature of the experience. In the context of work-integrated learning for sustainability education, this means establishing work contexts and situations where the authenticity of a sustainability project to localized community is explicated and explained, for example, where a project recognizes the social

4.

5.

6.

impacts of litter in a locality and attempts to tackle it (Hindley and Wall 2017). Alignment of learning with integrative learning objectives aims to develop the ability of students to integrate theory and practical subject knowledge. This moves students beyond mere application and aims to develop abilities to discern what, when, and how integrated knowledge should be applied. Edwards et al. (2015) also highlight the importance of designing experiences to enable “ah ha” moments where the practical and theoretical aspects of the educational program appear to merge in some way. For example, alignment can be generated through explicitly deriving the workplace experience from the reflective learning goals of a work-integrated learning course (Hindley and Wall 2017). Alignment of assessment with integrative learning objectives requires assessment of integrative learning knowledge applied to work and reflection on their experience. In the case of a work-integrated learning for sustainability education project, the artefacts produced can form part of the assessment load of the course, such as climate change resources or a recycling mobile application (Hindley and Wall 2017). Integrated learning support at the university or workplace is needed to alleviate stress and/or improve learning processes and can include tutors, mentors, and workplace supervisors working together. Curriculum designers and deliverers should make explicit reference to these services. Supervisor access is the mentoring role between the institution contact and the student on placement, which provides feedback and support through the learning experience. In the context of sustainability projects, this is particularly important in relation to ensuring appropriate health and safety practices are adhered to, including (a) the use of special scientific and protective clothing when dealing with waste or toxins and (b) dealing with vulnerable adults or children. Induction and preparation process. This includes clear processes at the start of the

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education

work-integrated learning experience, in order to frame the experience and clarify expectations of those involved in the experience. Edwards et al. (2015) also highlight the importance of facilitated opportunities for reflection on the work-integrated learning experiences as the end of the experience. According to Smith (2012), the extent to which authenticity is achieved is the most impactful. Specifically, he found that students’ sense of whether or not they had had an “authentic” work placement was found to have the strongest relationship with each of three outcomes: their sense of work-readiness (i.e., their ability to work independently, solve problems, reflect on their level of knowledge, and so on), selfefficacy (i.e., their confidence in themselves as both a practitioner and/or student), and team skills (i.e., their ability to work effectively in a team).

2103

continues to be difficult challenges with workintegrated learning. Some of the most significant challenges relate to (1) the accessibility of workintegrated opportunities for higher education students with diverse profiles, including international students and students with disabilities (physical or mental health), and (2) their treatment during the workplace experience (Gribble et al. 2015; Wall 2017). Evidence suggests that the latter of these reflect wider trends in how migrant workers are treated in workplaces, and so further partnership working needs to be done to facilitate a greater inclusivity to work-integrated learning experiences (Wall et al. 2017b).

Cross-References ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education

References Conclusions and Future Directions The development and enhancement of workintegrated learning, as part of vocational education and training, has been a focus of significant educational reform over the last decade (Wall 2017; Wall et al. 2017a,b). As such, the practical implementation of work-integrated learning generally, and specifically in relation to sustainability education, will continue to be a focus of research and practice development. This reflects Leal’s call for more research into applied sustainable development activity. Practical issues for workintegrated learning include access to relevant placements and access to placements which offer suitable scope for higher-level learning, development and impact appear to be a perennial and significant issue (Patrick et al. 2008). Some areas, such as science and agriculture, are particularly difficult to find appropriate work-integrated learning opportunities, which makes expansion in these areas near impossible (Edwards et al. 2015). However, and with particular pertinence to the sustainable development goals of quality education for all, equality, and inclusive work, there

Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430 Billett S (2014) Learning in the circumstances of practice. Int J Lifelong Educ 33(5):674–693 Coll RK, Taylor N, Nathan S (2003) Using work-based learning to develop education for sustainability: a proposal. J Vocat Educ Training 55(2):169–182 Diamond S, Middleton A, Mather R (2011) A cross-faculty simulation model for authentic learning. Innov Educ Teach Int 48(1):25–35 Edwards D, Perkins K, Pearce J, Hong J (2015) Work integrated learning in STEM in Australian Universities: final report. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne Franses P, Wride M (2015) Goethean pedagogy: a case in innovative science education and implications for work based learning. High Educ Skills Work-Based Learn 5(4):339–351 Gribble C, Blackmore J, Rahimi M (2015) Challenges to providing work integrated learning to international business students at Australian universities. High Educ Skills Work-Based Learn 5(4):401–416 Hauhart RC, Grahe JE (2015) Designing and teaching undergraduate capstone courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Hindley A, Wall T (2017) A unifying, boundary crossing approach to developing climate literacy. In: Leal W (ed) Sustainability in the curriculum of universities:

W

2104 teaching approaches, methods, examples and case studies. Springer, London Isacsson A, Ritalahti J (2015) Work-integrated and service learning at HAAGA-HELIA Porvoo campus in Finland. In: Dredge D, Airey D, Gross MJ (eds) (2014). The Routledge handbook of tourism and hospitality education. Routledge, London Kurland NB, Michaud KEH, Best M, Wohldmann E, Cox H, Pontikis K, Vasishth A (2010) Overcoming silos: the role of an interdisciplinary course in shaping a sustainability network. Acad Manag Learn Edu 9(3):457–476 Marchioro G, Ryan MM, Perkins T (2014) Interdisciplinary student centric approach to work-integrated learning. Asia Pac J Coop Educ 15(4):359–368 O'Flaherty J, Liddy M, Tansey L, Roche C (2011) Educating engaged citizens: four projects from Ireland. Educ Training 53(4):267–283 Painter-Morland M, Sabet E, Molthan-Hill P, Goworek H, de Leeuw S (2016) Beyond the curriculum: integrating sustainability into business schools. J Bus Ethics 139(4):737–754 Patrick C-J, Peach D, Pocknee C, Webb F, Fletcher M, Pretto G (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: a national scoping study [Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) final report]. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Philips D, Boland G (2013) Reaching out: communitybased sustainable education, mission to mission beach. In: Atfield R, Kemp P (eds) Enhancing education for sustainable development in business and management, hospitality, leisure, marketing, tourism. Higher Education Academy, York Purvis M, Young CW, Marsh C, Clarke J (2013) An institutional approach: education for sustainable development at the University of Leeds. In: Atfield R, Kemp P (eds) Enhancing education for sustainable development in business and management, hospitality, leisure, marketing, tourism. Higher Education Academy, York, pp 1–10 Robertson M, Junek O, Lockstone-Binney L (2012) Is this for real? Authentic learning for the challenging events environment. J Teach Travel Tourism 12(3):225 Rusinko CA (2010) Integrating sustainability in management and business education. Acad Manag Learn Educ 9(3):507–519 San Carlos RO, Tyunina O, Yoshida Y, Mori A, Sioen GB, Yang J (2016) Assessment of fieldwork methodologies for educational purposes in sustainability science:

This encyclopedia includes no entries for X, Y and Z.

Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education exercise on resilience, Tohoku unit 2015. In: Esteban M, Akiyama T, Chen C, Ikeda I, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: field methods and exercises. Springer, Cham, pp 67–91 Smith C (2012) Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. High Educ Res Dev 31(2):247–262 Smith C, Worsfold K (2015) Unpacking the learning-work nexus: ‘priming’ as lever for high-quality learning outcomes in work-integrated learning curricula. Stud High Educ 40(1):22–42 Tansey L, Gonzalez-Perez MA (2007) University platform and student volunteering: harnessing student civic engagement through volunteering. In: Paper presented at the development’s future conference, NUI Galway, 24–25 Nov Wall T (2013) Diversity through negotiated higher education. In: Bridger K, Reid I, Shaw J (eds) Inclusive higher education: an international perspective on access and the challenge of student diversity. Libri Publishing, Middlesex, pp 87–98 Wall T (2017) A manifesto for higher education, skills and work-based learning: through the lens of the manifesto for work. High Educ Skills Work-Based Learn 7(3):304–314 Wall T, Hindley A, Hunt T, Peach J, Preston M, Hartley C, Fairbank A (2017a) Work-based learning as a catalyst for sustainability: a review and prospects. High Educ Skills Work-Based Learn 7(2):211–224 Wall T, Tran LT, Soejatminah S (2017b) Inequalities and agencies in workplace learning experiences: international student perspectives. Vocat Learn 10(2):141–156 Wall T, Clough D, Österlind E, Hindley A (2019) Conjuring a spirit for sustainability: a review of the sociomaterialist effects of provocative pedagogies. In: Leal Fihlo W and Consorte-McCrea A G (eds) Sustainability and the Humanities. Springer, Cham Switzerland Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2): 203–218 Wilson G, Pretorius RW (2017) Utilising workintegrated learning to enhance student participation and engagement in sustainability issues in open and distance learning. In: Leal Filho W, Skanavis C, do Paço A, Rogers J, Kuznetsova O, Castro P (eds) Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham