2.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Sustainable Development

According to Keeys and Huemann (2017), Sustainable development (SD) envisions business and
their projects to deliver benefits to a broad group of stakeholders. Yet, projects are challenged to
realize benefits limited by traditional operational and short-term view of project outputs. Given
the benefits focus of SD, benefits realization helps to understand how SD can be integrated in the
management of projects, linking it to strategy. Linear planning has been the traditional approach
to benefits realization, linking organization strategy and business objectives at the project front
end. SD as a holistic management approach, integrating economic, environ- mental and social
considerations, clarifies the complexity of the project environment, characterized by multiplicity
of stake- holders, dynamism and ambiguity, suggesting alternative approaches are warranted.

Taking the path to a sustainable society is a complex challenge that requires extensive coordinated
participation across disciplines and sectors. How can people hope to succeed without having a
uniform and operational definition of the term. The definition must contain principles tat are
necessary, sufficient, general, concrete and non-overlapping. Having sustainable development
would be beneficial since trade-offs would be possible to manage strategically, unidentified
problems could be easily avoided, and collaboration across different disciplines, organizations and
sectors could possibly be facilitated better.

2.2 Environmental Stewardship

Null hypothesis: As environmental stewardship increases, youth participation also increases.

Stewardship has been defined as “the responsible use (including con- servation) of natural
resources in a way that takes full and balanced ac- count of the interests of society, future
generations, and other species, as well as of private needs, and accepts significant answerability to
society” (Worrell and Appleby, 2000, p. 275).

Olafsson et. al., (2014) stated that Expert judgment was applied to form a pool of potential
indicators, chosen to represent the identified core issue areas. Indicators were chosen from a wide-
range of existing sources and bracketed according to the six identified themes: energy
performance; waste management; air quality and pollution; water quality and pollution; land use,
agriculture and fisheries; and biodiversity, forests and soils. In his research, Iceland and Norway
were the research site. The energy performance by Iceland and Norway’s carbon intensity heat and
electricity production resulted to very low and prone to greater fluctuations respectively. Although
both countries largely decoupled greenhouse gas emissions and electricity production, Norway’s
carbon intensity of heat and electricity production was influenced by increased demand for heat
from fossil fuel sources, increase in the primary energy supply generally being matched by growth
in GDP. On the other hand, the growth in the primary energy supply was Iceland’s influence.
Another indicator is waste management which measured the increase of waste during 1995-2007
in Iceland. It was continued by reductions which had fallen to thousand of tonnes. Norway’s waste
increased during 1995-2000 which also led to thousand of tonnes of reduction. Both Iceland and
Norway has increased the proportion of waste that is recycled and decreased its share sent to
landfill sites yet Norway has had success in doubling its volume of material recycling but as a
proportion of total municipal waste, performance has reduced from a peak rate. Another indicator
is air quality and pollution which was measured by total quantity of various pollutant gases. The
biggest increase was contributed by emissions related to SOx for Norway. PM, CO, NOx and
NMVOC are also some of the pollutants emitted. Next is the water quality and pollution indicator
wherein Iceland and Norway’s abstraction or water resources declined from millions of cubic
meters to hundreds in a certain period. Years later, the practice of at least secondary wastewater
treatment has commenced. The researchers also used land use, agriculture and fisheries as their
indicator. It measures the amount of pesticide, fertilizer, nitrogen and phosphates the countries
have used. The final indicator is biodiversity, forests and soil degradation that showed the number
of species on the threatened red list such as invertebrates, fungi, vascular plants and lichens. It also
measured the use of forest resources, total size of protected land areas and marine areas. With the
given indicators, the researchers were able to summarize that Iceland meets three of its five targets
while Norway meet 3 out of their nine targets connected to energy generation, reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy generation and protected land areas.

Over the past quarter century, scientific evidence has multiplied suggesting that much of the
deterioration in our earth systems is caused by patterns of human activities (Rockström et al., 2009;
Thomas et al., 2004). The world’s population is expected to grow in size as our economy’s size
triples along with the doubling of pollution and waste. Although the government, corporate and
civil sectors have responded, there is still enough proof to say that succeeding generations would
have to face important obstacles in achieving environmental stewardship. Environmental
stewardship requires control of carbon, maintenance of “stocks” of natural resources, transitioning
to renewable energy sources and responsible consumption. It is evident how sustainable
development would need reduction of carbon accumulations to avoid global warming. People must
limit their use of natural resources to the carrying capacity of ecosystems to refrain from it
collapsing since there are certain natural limits to extraction and growth. They may opt to use
renewable energy instead such as solar and wind technologies so they can produce energy for their
own needs. People must be responsible consumers and avoid actions that may hinder
environmental stewardship. Governments may create different projects and programs to guide and
redirect consumer behavior and patterns. Governments and NGOs play a vital role in
environmental stewardship since they have a way of ensuring maintenance of legitimacy through
public mandate and avoid biases towards short-terms. Politicians get pressured by corporations
who ask for support in the form of legislation and regulations that cater to their business needs and
objectives. As a response, they use hybridization to different legitimacy pressures they face. As
the world faces multiple interconnected crises that include our global ecosystems and global
financial systems, organizations will continue to face increasing legitimacy challenges.
Governments and NGOs see themselves in a peculiar and uncertain circumstances with each other.
Their pursuit for easy solutions are limited due to technology and conventional risk-benefit
calculus. Majority of companies have started doing these practices leading to them not serving to
distinguish a company. People must understand the available options and choices to develop
essential strategies that require us to comprehend how organizations can be as one and combine
their interests and forms to most effectively meet societal demands.

As stated by Morelli (2011) the societal needs, special needs, preservation of biodiversity,
regenerative capacity, reuse and recycle, and constraints of nonrenewable resources and waste
generation as his supporting principles regarding the environment.f Under societal needs are,
produces nothing that will require generations to maintain vigilance (“Sustainability Report),
design and deliver products and services that contribute to a more sustainable economy (Moffat),
support local employment (Southampton), support fair trade (Williams), and review the
environmental attributes of raw materials and make environmental stewardship a key requirement
in the selection of ingredients for new products and services (“Global Sustainability Principles”).
Followed by preservation of biodiversity by selecting raw materials that maintain biodiversity of
natural resources and using environmentally responsible and sustainable energy sources and invest
in improving energy efficiency (“Global Sustainability Principles”). Below regenerative capacity
is keeping harvest rates of renewable resource inputs within regenerative capacities of the natural
system that generates them and keeping depletion rates nonrenewable resource inputs below the
rate at which renewable substitutes are developed (Goodland). Moreover, for reuse and recycle
are, design for re-usability and recyclability (“Sustainable Living 101”) and design, or redesign as
appropriate, manufacturing and business processes as closed-loop systems, reducing emissions and
waste to zero (Robinson). Lastly, under constraints of nonrenewable resources and waste
generation are the scale of (population x consumption per capita x technology) of the human
economic subsystem should be limited to a level that, if not optimal, is at least within the carrying
capacity and therefore sustainable, keep waste emissions within the assimilative capacity of
receiving ecosystems without unacceptable degradation of its future waste absorptive capacity or
other important ecological services (Goodland), develop transportation criteria that prioritize low-
impact transportation modes and approach all product development and product management
decisions with full consideration of the environmental impacts of the product throughout its life
cycle (Moffat). Compliance with those principles would make a community have sustainable
development

According to Litman (2008), for the environmental pillar, PROPOLIS considers four themes that
include global climate change, air pollution, consumption of natural resources and environmental
quality.

2.3 Social Inclusion

Null hypothesis: As social inclusion increases, youth participation also increases.

Different researchers have defined social inclusion depending on their objective. During the last
decade, promoting social inclusion and combating social exclusion have emerged as important
social policy issues. There is little difference between these multidimensional concepts (Kenyon,
2011). That is why some definitions are labeled social exclusion and others social inclusion. In
fact, social exclusion is based on an implicit vision of inclusion (Hodgson & Turner, 2003) and
both enhance urban social sustainability (Ghahramanpouri et al., 2013).

Cambir and Vasile (2015) stated that social inclusion is seen as a process to ensure that persons
below the poverty line receive the necessary resources to participate in economic and social life
and enjoy a quality of life considered normal in the society in which they live. Social inclusion
also ensures that groups and persons situated below the poverty threshold have greater
participation in decision making which affects their lives and that they can access their basic rights.

According to Litman’s research, as for the social pillar, four broadly defined themes are listed
including health, equity, opportunities, accessibility and traffic.
Previous researches have shown that inclusion decisions unfold children’s ability to consider and
prioritize to different goals and aspirations, especially when young people need to decide between
including one of two individuals who reflect different positions in the group, values, or group
membership (Killen et al., 2013). Forced-choice inclusion decisions are frequently occurring
events in children’s lives when space is limited or the conditions are such that ‘‘only one more
person” can be admitted into the group, and these decisions have meaningful impli- cations for
children’s social development. For example, prior research asking young adolescents to make such
decisions has found that, with age, individuals will select peers who support the norms of the group
. The current study tested young children’s judgment about whom to include in social groups and
how decisions vary as a function of the standard of the group.

Rizzo, Cooley, Elenbaas, and Killen (2017) measure their inclusions through ingroup inclusion,
reasoning for ingroup inclusion, outgroup inclusion, and reasoning for outgroup inclusion. Ingroup
inclusion was measured by asking questions regarding including members in a certain group. For
reasoning for ingroup inclusion, questions about why such members were chosen for the ingroup
inclusion are asked. Outgroup inclusion ask questions pertaining to who the group should invite.
Consequently, reasoning for outgroup inclusion explain why the group chose such member.

Sedaghatnia, Lamit, Abdullah, and Ghahramanpouri (2013) conducted a research where social
inclusion was measure through different factors. These factors were legibility, social relation,
hostel quality, facilities, extracurricular activities, accessibility, safety, comfort, academic services
and transportation. These factors were measured through questions regarding easy navigation
around campus, well-defined routes, number of reliable friends, comfortable living condition,
sports facilities, volunteer activities, participation in residence activities, safety when walking
alone during day and night, and convenient and available transportation.

Also some researches states that in developing countries and emerging economies, apart from few
studies (Zhu et al., 2005; Delai and Takahashi, 2013; Chand et al., 2015; Silvestre, 2015a,b; Gurtu
et al., 2015), research on supply chain social sustainability (SCSS) is scarce.

Another researcher paper identifies social issues related to manufacturing supply chain, and uses
interviews and quantitative data from the Indian manufacturing sector to construct and validate
constructs for measuring SCSS. The results suggest that SCSS consists of six underlying
dimensions, namely equity, safety, health and welfare, philanthropy, ethics, human rights, in a 20-
item valid and reliable scale.

2.4 Economic Growth

Null Hypothesis: As economic growth increases, youth participation also increases

For the economic pillar, one theme, is identified to reflect the total net economic benefit from
transport.

According to Van de Kerk and Manuel (2008), a sustainable society is one in which each human
being is capable of developing in a healthy manner and obtaining a proper education, lives in a
clean environment, lives in a safe and well-balanced society, uses non- renewable resources
responsibly so that future generations will not be left without them and contributes to a sustainable
world. Sustainable development indicators should therefore measure these aspects.

Sachs and Warner (2001)’s research in the past years, has empirically established that countries
which are resource-rich had slower economic growth than countries considered as resource-poor.
Some examples for resource-poor countries with fast-growing economies are Korea, Taiwan,
Hong Kong and Singapore while resource-rich countries with the poorest economy are Congo,
Sierra Leone, Valenzuela and Nigeria. They called the negative relationship the resource curse
after having studies that demonstrated the relationship of economic growth and natural resource
abundance. The Dutch disease theory, which models were developed by Corden and Neary (1982),
Corden (1984) and Wijnbergen (1984), is one explanation for the resource curse. It was named
after the Netherlands’ encounter of a declining manufacturing sector after discovering large natural
gas reserves. The researchers used real GDP per capita, ratio of real gross investment to GDP and
openness through the share of imports and exports in total GDP. The researcher’s analysis shows
that there has high dependence of natural resource-rich countries on natural resources for
generating national income, encountered slow economic growth brought by the Dutch disease
However, the researchers believe that there could be a positive relationship if a country develops
a strong escape from the effects.

According to Huang and Ho (2016), traditional economic growth researches focus on the nexus of
economic factors and economic growth. However, explo- ration of non-economic variables such
as institutional factors on economic growth is beginning to gain more attention. Gen- erally
speaking, while institutional factors play an important role on economic growth, different
execution abilities in the same system will likely lead to varied economic performance. This
observation again highlights the importance of governance.

Researchers questioned whether good governance would affect economic growth and be beneficial
to economic practice. Examples of which were studies by Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido (1999),
Dollar and Kraay (2002) and Rigobon and Rodrik (2005) which showed beneficial and significant
impacts of governance to economic growth. The researchers used voice and accountability,
political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rue of law
and control of corruption as indicators for governance. Measuring the countries’ GDP, along with
the indicators, brought them to the conclusion that different dimensions of governance lead to a
more significant economic growth.

In addition, Farhidi (2015) conducted a research where he used different measurements for
economic growth. One of which is human capital through thee number of individuals in the labor
force, multiplied by the average years of schooling. Another is government policy and institutional
effect by using a combination of political effectiveness measures, with the same weight. In
reference to that, weight was computed through the average weight of six different indicators:
Voice and Accountability, Rule of Law, Government Effectiveness, Political Stability and
Absence of Violence, Regulatory Quality, and Control of Corruption. Furthermore, "Living
standards" refers to the index of social health and consists of sixteen indicators: affordable housing,
alcohol-related traffic fatalities, child poverty, high school completion, infant mortality, teenage
births, unemployment, wages, poverty among senior citizens, child abuse, health care coverage,
inequality in family income, life expectancy, teenage drug use, violent crime, and youth suicide.
Index of social health was used as a proxy for living standards.
In the perspective of economic gowth, the World Health Organization emphasized that sustainable
development should improve urban economics towards the direction of effectiveness and
innovation with limited resources (Xu Guangqing, 2006). Nijkamp et al. (1994) stressed that a city
should maximize its potential in order to yield qualified and voluminous technology and economic
benefits.

In order to achieve economic growth, we must look into our available materials and technology
and use it to preserve the nonrenewable resources for future generations, considering the cost and
forgone alternatives

2.4 Youth Participation

Null Hypothesis: As youth participation increases, sustainable development also increases

According to Checkoway (2011), the aim of youth participation is to empower and engage young
people around issues that are relevant to them. Participation may take on a variety of forms, but
includes the contribution of ideas, opinions and feedback to an organization, and participation in
a range of activities. Effective youth participation ensures that young people are included as active
valued members of a team and not just engaged in a passive capacity or given token roles. It would
be an advantage to the youth since it would lead to development of social skills and self-esteem.

Coates and Howe’s (2014) research on youth participation was conducted through a focus group
discussion with questions regarding their expectations and reason for joining. The focus group was
carried out in a manner that allows the young people to freely express their opinions without
pressure (Lambarth, 2002). Based on the data they collected, they were able to identify the benefits
of youth participation mostly on a personal level.

Omar, Othman and Yusoff’s (2016) research was also conducted through a focus group discussion
to know the youth participation in urban neighborhood communities. According to Li H et al
(2015), the youth should actively take part in the community program in making the society more
livable and functional to all age group with the community social hierarchy. Moreover, applying
broad and continuous action plan and contribution for youth does not necessarily mean better
outcome, but this action may recognize and integrate the different perception of the adult and
youth. Through this, the youth may be able to experience first hand, the different norms, culture,
behavior activities and programs of the community and see which parts must be improved. The
questions asked were to find out their perception and opinions regarding the neighborhood.
Through this, they were able to find out that their programs were not encouraging enough to be
participated in. They described the youth involvement often being criticized namely no special
task, marginalized, less attention, limited access, less communication networks, and negative
perception. Clearly, the respondents wanted youth involvement to be encouraged. They believe
that the youth act based on the example set by their neighborhood’s characteristics.

2.5 Synthesis

The three pillars of sustainable development are social inclusion, environmental stewardship and
economic growth. The researchers will measure sustainable development through different
indicators under these pillars. Under environmental stewardship would be waste, pollution, air
quality, electric use and transportation. The researchers have created a questionnaire that would
measure how the youth contributes to sustainable development by testing their behavior on waste
through segregation, recycling and preservation. For the social pillar, traffic injuries, perception of
safety, facilities, extracurricular activities, accessibility, safety, comfort, academic services and
transportation. would be used as measurement. Lastly, expenses, income, consumption, education,
health, knowledge, and longevity would be used for measuring the economic pillar.