Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:465595 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Dissonance in
Dissonance in students’ students’
perceptions of sustainable perceptions
development and sustainability
317
Implications for curriculum change
Fumiyo Kagawa
Centre for Sustainable Futures, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – An online questionnaire survey was conducted to explore University of Plymouth
students’ perceptions and understandings of, and attitudes towards, sustainable development and
related concepts and issues. In general, student perceptions of sustainable development have been
under-researched. This research sought to go some way towards filling the gap by providing insights
for those working in the field of education for sustainable development (ESD) in higher education.
Design/methodology/approach – The survey was administrated in autumn 2005 by the Centre for
Sustainable Futures at the University of Plymouth. The closed-category statements were analyzed in
terms of frequencies and percentages. A comprehensive set of cross tabulations and x 2 tests were also
conducted using SPSS. Responses to open-ended questions were coded and categorized according to
emerging themes.
Findings – Key findings include, first, that a majority of student respondents think sustainability is
“a good thing” their positive response not particularly correlating with their degree of familiarity with
either of the concepts of sustainable development or sustainability. Second, students strongly associate
the concepts of sustainable development and sustainability with their environmental as against
economic and social aspects. Third, in terms of personal change for a sustainable lifestyle, “light green”
actions addressing responsibility as consumers such as changing purchasing habits, recycling, and
saving energy and/or water were most frequently articulated. Fourth, respondents harbour mixed
feelings regarding the future of society in the face of sustainability-oriented challenges.
Originality/value – The paper highlights the importance of ESD curriculum development that more
explicitly addresses the interconnectedness of different aspects of sustainable development and which
also employs pedagogies that help students to take action towards realizing their preferred futures. It
also suggests future study directed towards identifying various means of facilitating students’
pro-sustainability behaviours.
Keywords Education, Sustainable development, Students, Perception, Learning, Change management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Education for sustainable development
Education for sustainable development (ESD) currently enjoys huge momentum.
Internationally, there exists a strong political will and commitment to integrate ESD at
The author would like to express her appreciation to Jackie Palmer for her support in
implementation of the online questionnaire survey, and to Paul Hewson for his support on International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education
statistical data analysis using SPSS. She would also like to express her appreciation for comments Vol. 8 No. 3, 2007
on the first draft of this paper by Debby Cotton, Brian Chalkley, and James Gray-Donald. She is pp. 317-338
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
particularly indebted to David Selby for his thorough editing of and detailed comments on the first 1467-6370
and all successive drafts. However, the responsibility for the paper remains her own. DOI 10.1108/14676370710817174
IJSHE all levels of education, including the higher education sector. Its importance was
8,3 recognized with the establishment of the United Nations Decade for Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014). According to UNESCO, the lead agency for the
decade, ESD is “a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the
long-term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities” (UNESCO,
2004). Haigh (2005, p. 32) states that the decade:
318 . . . offers academe’s best chance to date for making the deep and radical changes that will be
necessary if the world’s higher education institutions (HEIs) are to enact their responsibilities
for creating a better and self-sustainable world.
The term, sustainable development has been widely accepted and used since our
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
sustainability;
.
ability to bridge the gap between theory and practice; in sustainable
development, only transformational action counts;
.
ability to practice creatively in inter-disciplinary teams; and
.
ability to initiate and manage change.
Against this backdrop, there are endless discussions about what constitutes education
for sustainability (Dawe et al., 2003). Proponents of ESD “are not a single homogeneous
group with similar beliefs, values, politics, and practices” (Huckle, 1999, p. 41). Many
academics have agreed that there is no single framework, conceptualization, and
understanding of either sustainable development or sustainability. They think that the
concept is rather an evolving one (Hopkins and Mckeown, 2002; Sauvé 1996, Selby,
2006).
The Centre for Sustainable Futures at the University of Plymouth
Following a successful bid to HEFCE for a five-year Centre for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning[2], the Centre for Sustainable Futures (CSF)[3] at the University of
Plymouth was opened on 1 June 2005. The University of Plymouth locates in the
South West of England. It is one of the largest universities in the UK and is
consistently ranked as one of the top five modern universities[4] in the UK. The
university consists of seven faculties: arts, education, health and social work, social
science and business, science, technology and a partner colleges faculty.
The goal of CSF is to:
. . . transform the University of Plymouth from an institution characterized by significant
areas of excellence in ESD to an institution modelling university-wide excellence and, hence,
able to make a major contribution to ESD regionally, nationally and internationally (Dyer and
Selby, 2004b, p. 7).
CSF takes a holistic concept of sustainability which embraces the “complementary
notions of environmental security, intra-generational and inter-generational equity,
economic betterment, and social and environmental justice” (Dyer and Selby 2004a,
p. 1). To achieve the goal of transformation, CSF takes a whole university approach to
sustainability through simultaneous engagement with four key aspects of university
life in order to build synergies and energy flows between different change initiatives:
.
Curriculum (i.e. developing curriculum content/modules which address
sustainability and which use a pedagogy predicated on sustainability
IJSHE principles; providing continuing professional development programmes for
8,3 sustainability; building student action research and work placements with local
and regional sustainability organizations).
.
Campus (i.e. greening of the campus; enabling active student participation in
decision making and student-led sustainability projects on campus; creating a
sustainability-oriented “pedagogy of place”).
320 .
Community (i.e. building a network of partnerships with local and regional
communities and organizations to advance the sustainability agenda in the
South West of England).
.
Culture (e.g. identifying and challenging the hidden curriculum of the university
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
for members of the public. In 2006, HEA conducted an online national survey focusing
on UK university students’ skills associated with corporate social responsibility and
sustainable development. At the time of writing, the result is not available yet, but the
findings of this study will give important insights for people addressing issues of
sustainable development in higher education.
The survey
A main aim of the survey described here is to explore University of Plymouth students’
current understandings and perceptions of, and attitudes towards, sustainable
development, and related concepts and issues. To optimize the impact of the various
initiatives of CSF, it was considered critical to understand students’ current
perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability, as they represent the key
stakeholder group. Prior to this survey, no survey of the whole University of Plymouth
student population with regard to their perceptions of sustainable development
and sustainability had been conducted. As the section above reported, university
students’ perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability have been
under-researched, so it was anticipated that this survey research would produce useful
data and insights for those who are working in the field of ESD in the UK and beyond.
The three key research questions are as follows:
RQ1. What are students’ understanding of sustainable development and
sustainability?
RQ2. What are students’ attitudes towards and concerns with respect to
sustainability-oriented challenges?
RQ3. What actions are students prepared to take towards realizing a more
sustainable lifestyle?
An online web questionnaire was developed in autumn 2005. In designing the
questionnaire, special attention was paid to including various sustainability-related
issues (e.g. environment, development, human rights, peace, inter/intra-generational
equity, social justice) at different levels (i.e. personal, university, regional/national,
international). The statements about the future of society were developed based on a
model suggested by Robertson (1983). Five open-ended questions were included in
order to elicit a fuller expression of student views. After a pilot test with a small sample
of students, adjustments were made. A central issue in the wake of the pilot concerned
whether definitions of sustainable development and sustainability should preface
IJSHE the questionnaire. In the end it was decided that no definitions should be included so as
8,3 not to influence students’ own understandings and definitions of the terms. The online
questionnaire survey was administered over four weeks during the period of October
and November 2005 through the University of Plymouth Student Portal as well as via
the University e-mail message system with a covering note inviting responses.
A final total of 1,889 responses was received, an 8 per cent response rate. Although
322 the return rate was low, it is, nonetheless, significant that there were 1,889 voluntary
student responses in the face of so-called student survey fatigue and with no monetary
incentives in play. In addition, although the sample is not totally representative in
terms of age and faculty affiliation, it was relatively representative in terms of gender
balance across the total University of Plymouth student population[6].
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Results
Students’ perceptions and understandings of sustainable development and sustainability
When asked about their familiarity with the terms sustainable development and
sustainability, a preponderance of respondents reported familiarity with both: about
one-third of respondents declared themselves “very familiar” with either term
(sustainable development 34.2 per cent; sustainability 40.7 per cent), one-third identified
themselves as “quite familiar” (sustainable development 36.5 per cent; sustainability
35.8 per cent) and approximately a third reported that they were either “quite
unfamiliar” or “not at all familiar” (sustainable development 29.3 per cent; sustainability
23.5 per cent) (Figure 1).
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 1. Very familiar Quite familiar Quite unfamiliar Not at all
Familiarity with the terms: familiar
sustainable development
or sustainability sustainable development (n=1865) sustainability (n=1864)
As to gender, more male respondents claimed that they were more familiar with the Dissonance in
terms sustainable development and sustainability than female respondents. In terms of students’
familiarity with the term, sustainable development, 40.5 per cent of the male
respondents answered “very familiar” while 29.3 per cent of the female respondents perceptions
chose “very familiar”. Almost twice as many female students (23 per cent) chose “not at
all familiar” as against male respondents (12.1 per cent) ( p , 0.000). Similarly, female
respondents were less likely to declare themselves “very” or “quite familiar” with the 323
term sustainability (male 83.7 per cent; female 71 per cent) and more likely to say that
they were “not at all familiar” (male 9.6 per cent; female 19.1 per cent) ( p , 0.000).
A slightly higher percentage of respondents under 24-years old indicated they were
“very familiar” with the term sustainable development (over 35 per cent) and a
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
slightly higher percentage of respondents over 30 years old chose “not very familiar”
(22.3 per cent) compared with other age groups ( p , 0.013). In the same vein, a slightly
higher percentage of respondents under 24-years old described themselves as “very
familiar” with the term sustainability (42.9 per cent) while a slightly higher percentage
of the students under 20 (17 per cent) and over 30 (17.7 per cent) opted for “not at all
familiar” compared with other age groups ( p , 0.010).
Only a very small percentage (9.3 per cent) of respondents from the Health and
Social Work Faculty declared themselves “very familiar” with sustainable
development, while a high-percentage of students in the Faculty (39.8 per cent)
opted for “not at all familiar”. A lower proportion of respondents from the Arts and
Science Faculties declared themselves “not at all familiar” (arts 14.3 per cent; science 13
per cent) than respondents from other faculties ( p , 0.000). Similarly, respondents
from arts (53.5 per cent) and social science and business (48.3 per cent) identified
themselves as “quite familiar” with the term sustainability, compared with only 16.1
per cent of health and social work students (Figure 2).
100%
80%
60%
Very familiar
Quite familiar
Quite unfamiliar
Not at all familiar
40%
20%
0%
Figure 2.
Development
Sustainability
Development
Sustainability
Development
Sustainability
Development
Sustainability
Development
Sustainability
development
Sustainability
Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainable
development. Those who answered in the affirmative were further asked to give an
example of a previous formal curriculum area in which sustainable development or
sustainability was addressed.
Geography dominates, making up 62.8 per cent of responses. Returns for other
subjects all fall below 10 per cent of total responses (e.g. biology 8.7 per cent;
environmental science 7.6 per cent; economics 3.2 per cent; tourism 1.8 per cent; design
1.6 per cent; construction 1.4 per cent) (Table I).
Only 19.1 per cent of respondents reported involvement in out-of-school
sustainability-related activities (Figure 3). Those who answered in the affirmative
were asked to give an example of their involvement. Table II show categories of
student’s sustainability-related past experience outside of school and percentage of
students falling within each category. The five most frequently occurring categories are
Yes
Formal curriculum
Out-of-school activities
Figure 3.
Previous experience in No
terms of sustainable
development and
sustainability
0 20 40 60 80 100 (%)
nature conservation (39.6 per cent), education (12.7 per cent), recycling (11.4 per cent), Dissonance in
community/local work (9.4 per cent), political action (5.8 per cent). students’
There were 3,857 responses to the request to write up to four keywords conveying
personal understandings of sustainable development. A total of 1,018 keywords were perceptions
offered by those distinguishing between sustainability and sustainable development.
This discrepancy in numbers could imply that the majority of the respondents did not
distinguish these terms very strictly. This view is confirmed since the contents of 325
responses to the keywords for sustainable development and sustainability overlap as
Figure 4 shows (Table III).
What stands out is that the environmental dimension is strongly identified within
respondents’ conceptions of both terms. In contrast, the social and economic
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
(%)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
l ial mic ture term nt ity ent on nt gy tasis tude ocal obal ions
nta oc me bil cti me olo
n me o u - m
2 S Econ he f ong rove 7 Sta vern and a nage echn meo n at
s ti L l
14 15 G erce
pt
iro 3 4 T 5 L Imp Go ing a T o a P
nv 8 M 1 H u m 6
1E 6 n 10 1 12 3 H 1
ear 1 Figure 4.
9L Keywords for sustainable
development and
sustainable development ( n=3857) sustainability (n=1018) sustainability
IJSHE
Categories Examples
8,3
Aspects
1. Environmental Alternative/clean energy; biodiversity; conservation;
environment/environmental; environmental/eco-
friendly; earth; green; organic food; permaculture;
326 recycle
2. Social Diversity; equality; equity; public transport; people;
quality of life society; social; social justice
3. Economic Economy; fair trade; poverty; production;
Temporal (including time projection and rhythm)
4. The future Future; future generations; future needs; our
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
children; tomorrow
5. Long-term Constant; continuation; long-term; overtime;
on-going
6. Improvement Advancement; betterment; growth; improvement;
progress
7. Stability Consistent; stable; stay the same
Approaches towards sustainable development/sustainability
8. Governance, policy, politics Agenda 21; Brundtland report; government; UN; EU
9. Learning and action Action; awareness; consideration; education;
empowerment; research
10. Management Control; maintain; manage; plan; prevent; support
11. Technology, building, and design Alternative technology; eco-design technology
12. Homeostasis Balance; cycle; harmony; self-sufficiency
13. Human attitude Accountability; altruism; commitment ethical;
health; moral; responsibility; well-being
Scale/level
Table III. 14. Local Community; local
Categories used to code 15. Global/international Global; worldwide
keywords for sustainable Perceptions of sustainable development/sustainability
development and 16. Perceptions/feelings Beneficial; challenging; controversial; essential;
sustainability good; needed; necessary; positive
they are commonly identified as key factors alongside the environment by a range of
authorities including UNESCO (2004) and McKeown (2002). Returns for other
keywords all fall under 10 per cent of responses. Interestingly, 5.5 per cent of keyword
responses for sustainable development and 9.3 per cent of the responses for
sustainability earmarked specific characteristics of respondents’ answers, which were
comments on rather than explanations of the terms (e.g. “good” “beneficial”
“challenging” “necessary” “positive” “essential” “controversial” “needed”). Such
descriptions could be construed as confirming that respondents’ understandings of
sustainable development and sustainability are vague or wooly (Darnton, 2004).
and 22.9 per cent) did not know whether to avoid buying from an ecologically
unconcerned company and whether the ecological crisis had been greatly exaggerated
(Figure 6).
More than 80 per cent of respondents opposed retention of a dominant
growth-oriented economic policies. In the two statements directly referring to the
University of Plymouth, 60.8 per cent of respondents supported the exclusive use of
locally produced food in the university cafeteria and 68 per cent supported the
exclusive use of Fair Trade products on campus (Figure 7).
Almost 90 per cent of respondents acknowledged the importance of learning from
cultures living harmoniously with nature. About 80 per cent also supported socially
inclusive local public transportation and more than 90 per cent favoured supporting
and celebrating cultural diversity among the University of Plymouth populations.
Respondents’ opinions were divided when it came to their views on whether they
preferred a society based on competition. In sum, the above results of 12 attitudinal
questions show that respondents generally support pro-sustainability positions under
each identified key aspect of sustainability (Figure 8).
It is OK if others want to do it
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 6.
Environmental aspect Strongly agree Agree I do not care I do not know Disagree Strongly disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 7.
Economic aspect Strongly agree Agree I do not care I do not know Disagree Strongly disagree
achieving a better future society (male 13.2 per cent; female 1.2 per cent). A slightly
higher percentage of female than male students opted for the formation of local
economies as the way forward (female17.9 per cent; male 10.9 per cent). This result
interestingly somewhat synchronizes with Robertson’s (1983, p. 23) observation
The University of Plymouth should
Dissonance in
strongly support and celebrate
cultural. religious and linguistic
students’
diversity among students and staff
members. (n=1840)
perceptions
A dynamic society based on
competition is most preferable.
(n=1829)
329
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 8.
Strongly agree Agree I do not care I do not know Disagree Strongly disagree Social aspect
Statements Percentages
Technological progress will overcome all ecological problems we face and eliminate
extreme poverty 8.0
We are headed straight for ecological catastrophe and in my lifetime I will see the
consequent collapse of our social and economic systems 19.1
The best way forward is the formation of local economies of exchange centred around
the values of smallness, justice, eco-concern and living in voluntary simplicity 18.4
Recent government policies about the environment, trade and social services combined
with a better educated youth will ensure a safe, healthy, sustainable society living within Table IV.
ecological limits 28.4 Which one of the
Only through strong authoritarian government will we be able to establish justice and following most nearly
equality which will ensure a safe, healthy and sustainable society living within represents your personal
ecological limits 13.9 view of the future of
I do not have a personal view of the future of society 12.1 society? (n ¼ 1,524)
quickly, face[d] with global warming and the ongoing environmental devastation. It is only a
strong and clear political will that will drive society towards sustainability. Without this, we
are headed to potential catastrophe.
Another interesting point is that 96 respondents wrote about crises and disasters. The
characteristics of crises which student respondents described were more global than
local, more environmental or ecological than socio-political. Their opinions were
divided when it came to when such disasters would take place. Some thought they
could happen during their lifetime, while others thought they could happen during
their children’s or grandchildren’s lifetimes. The US Government, western counties,
globalization and lack of economic justice, consumerism, capitalism, human greed, and
underlying worldviews were variously identified as causes of current and potential
disasters.
Deep concern, even some pessimism, about the future of the society was expressed
by 67 respondents. For instance, one student wrote:
I do feel that with nations such as the USA declaring war on every nation they feel they have
to interfere with, the world is going to become a war zone and will be on the verge of collapse.
Another student stated that “Ecological catastrophe is inevitable. We can’t reverse
the damage done, it’s just too late. We will have to learn to live another way”. In the
same token, some students pessimistically felt that necessary changes would only
be instigated after serious disasters happened. In the words of one respondent:
Our culture is going to hell in a hand basket, our government’s attempts at curbing the
pending disaster seem to centre around waiting for the disaster to occur before actually
getting on with doing anything.
In the words of another, “When a catastrophe happens then we will take notice as we
will have no other choice”.
In contrast, there were respondents who considered that potential disasters could be
pre-empted fully or to some extent. For some, technological solutions (e.g. developing
alternative energies) were the key (60 responses) while, for others, education and
awareness raising were considered as crucial for positive change (79 responses). One
student for instance, wrote: “Education of all generations, but particularly younger
ones, is necessary in overcoming environmental and social problems, prejudice and
injustice”.
However, it is critical to note that students’ overall feelings could not be simply cast
as either optimistic or pessimistic. It seems that a small number of students were in a
process of internal struggle, balancing their feelings towards conflicting future Dissonance in
scenarios with, on the one hand, despair and, on the other, hope (14 responses). For students’
instance, one student wrote:
perceptions
It’s too late for many species to escape extinction. I think wars will become more frequent,
resulting from competition for resources and space. But it’s not completely hopeless, at least I
hope not!
331
Another stated:
I don’t hold out much hope. Maybe this is all part of evolution. The animals seemed to be
doing fine before we came along. Frankly the world would be better off without a single
human being existing on this planet. It’s too late . . . we have [disrupted] everything. All I can
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
do is deal with the day-to-day challenge and bring it down to a smaller picture and do what I
can to salvage what is left. Contribution for my life time is what I can do. That’s why I’ve
chosen to study . . . to do what I can in my life time.
economic? (And are these separable?) What changes are required to achieve sustainability
and how are they to be achieved? What are the implications for economic growth? Are there
limits to economic growth in a sustainable society and, if so, what are they?
Those critical questions need to be raised in order to deepen and expand students’
current understanding of sustainable development and sustainability.
There also exist dissonances in terms of student respondents’ perceptions of
sustainability and their reported behaviour determinations. It seems that respondents
tend to agree with critical or even radical statements on behalf of environmental and
social justice. For instance, more than 80 per cent of respondents strongly agreed or
agreed with the statement, “We, as a society, should radically change our way of living
to offset the danger of climate change” and more than 80 per cent of respondents
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement, “The UK should maintain high
and stable levels of economic growth, even if it disregards the environment”. However,
when it comes to personal behaviour changes, their proposed individual lifestyle
changes do not necessarily align with their critical or radical “in principle” stances.
Most frequently mentioned actions – actions addressing responsibilities as consumers,
recycling, energy and/or water saving, changing forms of transport – fall under the
umbrella of reformist responses, in other words, “light green” on a “light” to
“dark green” spectrum (Porritt and Winner, 1988; Selby, 2000a, b). “Dark green”
responses offering “a radical, visionary and fundamentalist challenge to the prevailing
economic and political world order” (Porritt and Winner, 1988, p. 11) were less
frequently articulated by respondents. Those “dark green” responses tended to
embrace radical proposals for institutional and political change, critiquing
taken-for-granted assumptions, but only a small percentage of respondents (0.8 per
cent) critically addressed the fundamental issue of consumerism by articulating a “not
being a consumer” stance. The above-mentioned “light green” actions are indeed
meaningful steps, and accumulations of such changes could make a significant
difference. However, are they “feel good actions”[8] emanating from “feel good
sustainability” (Wals and Heymann, 2004) and only delaying solutions which are
urgently required, and even buttressing the status quo?
It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with the huge area of behavioural change
toward pro-sustainability behaviours. In fact, the process which facilitates any
behaviour change is very complex, as Folke (2003, p. 227) states:
. . . directing human behaviour towards improved environmental performance and
sustainability is not just a simple matter of providing information and policy prescriptions
IJSHE but a complex socio-cultural process. It will require understanding of the contexts that form,
shape and reshape habits of thought and action.
8,3
Increasing knowledge by itself will not automatically facilitate individual behavioural
change as Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) and Darnton (2004), among others, have
already pointed out. There are multiple factors which influence the process of
behavioural change and further investigation of dissonance between students’
334 perception of sustainability and their individual actions needs to be explored.
As described above, student respondents expressed a mixture of optimism and
pessimism towards the future of society in relation to sustainability-oriented
challenges. Some expressed a probable future, the future which is likely to happen,
while some expressed a preferred future, the future they would like to see happen (Pike
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
and Selby, 1988). In their descriptions of the probable future, a sense of frustration,
anxiety, sadness, even cynicism, were commonly intermingled. On the other hand,
descriptions of preferred futures were infused with optimism and notions of active
participation and engagement.
According to Hicks (2002) and Macy (1983), it is not unusual for young people to
express their sadness, anxiety, personal insecurity, cynicism and sometimes denial, in
learning about the state of the planet. Hicks (2002, p. 70) notes that “the emotional
impact of global issues on students’ leaning is still a neglected area of research” and
points out that there is an urgent need to develop and implement pedagogies which
provide a sense of hope, liberation and empowerment among students. Based on his
research and his own teaching experiences, Hicks (2002) emphasizes that it is
important for educators to support young learners who articulate pessimistic probable
futures by envisioning preferable futures. In that process, educators need to
acknowledge that “learning about global issues can never be solely a cognitive matter”
(p. 99) and an affective aspect plays an important role. However, this could be a
challenging task for higher education institutions where learning is “still largely
treated as a cognitive affair, with some attention possibly being paid to attitudes and
values where this seems appropriate” and, in turn, the learners “resist the affective”
(p. 108).
Taking into consideration the research findings of students’ mixed feelings towards
the future of society, there is an urgent need to develop empowering pedagogies so that
each student can act as a change agent in their own life and community as well as in
their future professional life. It is important to increase knowledge of multi-faceted
sustainability but simply accumulating knowledge about sustainability by itself is not
enough. Problem solving skills, creative and critical thinking, and self-reflection are
vital as HEA (2006) and Wals (2005), among others, point out. Pedagogies also need to
help students envision their preferred futures. Not only encouraging visioning of, but
also supporting actions towards desired futures, as well as pre-empting undesired
futures, will be key in this regard. Furthermore, students should be encouraged to
examine critically multiple perspectives in sustainability debates within a “no single
right answer” culture.
Conclusions
So what are the principal findings in the light of the three research questions set out?
First, this study has found that student respondents strongly associate the concepts of
sustainable development and sustainability with their environmental as against their
economic and social aspects. Put another way, they associate the concepts Dissonance in
uni-dimensionally with the environment rather than embracing a holistic students’
(multi-dimensional) interpretation. Such results suggest that curriculum
development work to embed sustainability needs to address more explicitly the perceptions
interconnectedness of different aspects of sustainability, by linking the environmental
(natural environment, in particular) aspect of sustainability with economic, social,
cultural, inter/intra generational aspects of sustainability in order to help students 335
understand the complexity of sustainability-oriented concepts, understandings and
challenges.
Second, this study has also found that respondents possess general
pro-sustainability attitudes, and they harbour mixed feelings regarding the future of
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Notes
1. The HEA is an independent organization mainly funded by the four UK higher education
funding bodies and higher education institutions. It aims at helping higher education
institutions to provide best learning experience for their students.
2. Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) were created in England. Each one
of them addresses a particular educational issue or theme. The Centre for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning in Education for Sustainable Development (CETL ESD) is called the
Centre for Sustainable Futures (Dyer et al., 2006).
IJSHE 3. CSF’s staff members include a Professor for Education for Sustainability/ Director, an
Associate Director, a Business Manager, a Schumacher Reader in Education for
8,3 Sustainability, four researchers, an Administrative Assistant, and Centre Fellows from a
range of Schools within the University.
4. “Modern Universities” or “New Universities” were created in or after 1992 from polytechnics
and colleges of higher education in the UK.
336 5. The author would like to express special thanks to an anonymous ten colleagues from
Australia, Canada, the UK and the US who provided useful information and suggestions
through e-mail communications between February-May 2006.
6. Additional data collection was undertaken on campus in April 2006 to investigate the
generalisability of the on-line questionnaire survey with a wider University of Plymouth
student population, since it is plausible that the student respondents in the on-line survey
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
tend to be those who are more familiar with or positive towards sustainable development
and sustainability. A number of 150 students were randomly asked to complete a slightly
simplified and paper- based version of questionnaire on campus. In a nutshell, a high
correspondence between the results of the online and paper-based surveys was observed. So
the on-line questionnaire survey results and analysis can be taken as indicative of a wider
Plymouth student population.
7. The four age groups used in the survey are under 20; 20-24; 25-29; over 30 years of age.
8. The idea was expressed by Jo Matthews of the Somerset College of Arts and Technology in
her video message at an HEA Regional Seminar, “The Sustainability and the Higher
Education Response” at the Centre for Sustainable Futures, 3 May 2006.
References
Azapagic, A., Perdan, S. and Shallcross, D. (2005), “How much do engineering students know
about sustainable development? The findings of an international survey and possible
implications for the engineering curriculum”, European Journal of Engineering Education,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Carew, A. and Mitchell, C. (2002), “Characterizing undergraduate engineering students’
understanding of sustainability”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 349-61.
Darnton, A. (2004), “The impact of sustainable development on public behaviour: report 1 of desk
research commissioned by COI on behalf of DEFRA”, available at: www.sustainable-
development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/desk-research1.pdf (accessed 15 May 2005).
Dawe, G., Grand, R. and Taylor, R. (2003), “Kingston University: sustainability in the
curriculum”, available at: www.kingston.ac.uk/environment/final%20report.pdf (accessed
20 July 2006).
Dyer, A. and Selby, D. (2004a), Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning: Education for
Sustainable Development Stage One, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
Dyer, A. and Selby, D. (2004b), Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning: Education for
Sustainable Development Stage Two, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
Dyer, A., Selby, D. and Chalkley, B. (2006), “A centre for excellence in education for sustainable
development”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 309-14.
Environmental Audit Committee (2005), Environmental Education: Follow-up to Learning the
Sustainability Lesson, House of Commons, London.
Fien, J. and Tilbury, D. (2002), “The global challenge of sustainability”, in Tilbury, D., Stevenson,
R., Fien, J. and Schreuder, D. (Eds), Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global
Challenge, IUCN, Gland, pp. 1-11.
Folke, C. (2003), “Social-ecological resilience and behavioural responses”, in Biel, A., Hansoon, B. Dissonance in
and Martenensson, M. (Eds), Individual and Structural Determinants of Environmental
Practice, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 226-42. students’
Haigh, M. (2005), “Greening the university curriculum: appraising an international movement”, perceptions
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
HEA (2006) Sustainable Development in Higher Education Current Practice and Future
Development: Progress Report for Senior Managers in Higher Education, Higher 337
Education Academy, Heslington.
HEFCE (2005), “Sustainable development in higher education: consultation on a support strategy
and action plan”, Higher Education Funding Council for England, available at: www.hefce.
ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_01/05_01.pdf (accessed 22 June 2006).
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Hicks, D. (2002), Lessons for the Future: The Missing Dimension in Education, RoutledgeFalmer,
London.
HM Government (2005), “Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy”,
available at: www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/strategy/
SecFut_complete.pdf (accessed 23 June 2006).
Hopkins, C. and Mckeown, R. (2002), “Education for sustainable development: an international
perspective”, in Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R., Fien, J. and Schreuder, D. (Eds), Education and
Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge, IUCN, Gland, pp. 13-24.
Huckle, J. (1999), “Locating environmental education between modern capitalism and
postmodern socialism: a reply to Lucue Sauve”, Canadian Journal of Environmental
Education, Vol. 4, pp. 36-45.
Kagawa, F. (2005), “Emergency education: a critical review of the field”, Comparative Education,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 487-503.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002), “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?”, Environmental Education
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 239-60.
McKeown, R. (2002), “Education for sustainable development toolkit: version 2”, available at:
www.esdtoolkit.org/esd_toolkit_v2.pdf (accessed 24 July 2006).
Macy, J. (1983), Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, Now Society Publishes,
Philadelphia, PA.
Pike, G. and Selby, D. (1988), Global Teacher Global Learner, Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Porritt, J. and Winner, D. (1988), The Coming of the Greens, Fontana, London.
Robertson, J. (1983), The Sane Alternative, Spring Cottage, Ironbridge.
Sauvé, L. (1996), “Environmental education and sustainable development: a future appraisal”,
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 1, pp. 7-34.
Selby, D. (2000a), “A darker shade of green: the importance of ecological thinking in global
education and school reform”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 88-96.
Selby, D. (2000b), “Global education as transformative education”, Zeitschrift fur internationale
Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspadagogik (Journal for International Educational
Research and Development Education), Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 2-10.
Selby, D. (2005), “Curriculum, campus and community: transformative change towards
sustainability in a university and its region”, available at: www.otic.jp/englishdocument/
images/Dr.Selby’spresentation.doc (accessed 15 May 2006).
Selby, D. (2006), “The firm and shaky ground of education for sustainable development”, Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 353-67.
IJSHE SQW Ltd (2006), “Specialist review and evaluation of the higher education partnership for
sustainability (HEPS) programme: final report to the UK higher education funding bodies
8,3 (HEFCE, SFC,HEFCW and DEL) from SQW Ltd”, available at www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/
rdreports/2006/rd08_06/rd08_06.pdf (accessed 15 May 2006).
Sterling, S. (2004), “Whole system thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education:
exploration in the context of sustainability”, available at: www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling.
html (accessed 1 February 2006).
338
Stir, J. (2006), “Restructuring teacher education for sustainability: student involvement through a
strength model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 830-6.
Summers, M., Corney, G. and Ghilds, A. (2004), “Student teachers’ conceptions of sustainable
development: the starting-points of geographers and scientists”, Educational Research,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 163-82.
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
UNESCO (2004), United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014:
Draft International Implementation Scheme, UNESCO, Paris.
Wals, A. (2005), “Introduction”, in Wals, A. (Ed.), Curriculum Innovations in Higher Agricultural
Education, Elsevier Overheid, Hague, pp. 11-17.
Wals, A. and Heymann, F. (2004), “Learning on the edge: exploring the change potential of
conflict in social learning for sustainable living”, in Wenden, A. (Ed.), Education for a
Culture of Social and Ecological Peace, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY,
pp. 123-44.
WCED (1987), Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and
Development/Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Further reading
Mertig, A. (2001), MSU Environmental Survey of Freshmen Fall 2000 and Spring 2003,
unpublished.
Raid, A. and Petocz, P. (2006), “University lecturers’ understanding of sustainability”, Higher
Education, Vol. 51, pp. 105-23.
Wals, A. and Jickling, B. (2002), “Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and
newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-32.
1. Nazan Okur, Canan Saricam. The Impact of Knowledge on Consumer Behaviour Towards Sustainable
Apparel Consumption 69-96. [Crossref]
2. Cecilia M. S. Ma, Daniel T. L. Shek, Pecky P. K. Li. Through Serving Socially Deprived Students:
Experience Gained from Corporate–Community–University Partnership (Project WeCan) 83-112.
[Crossref]
3. Annor da Silva Junior, Priscilla de Oliveira Martins-Silva, Katia Cyrlene de Araújo Vasconcelos, Vitor
Correa da Silva, Sarah Luiza Martins Silva de Brito, José Michel Rocha Monteiro. 2019. Sustainability
and corporate social responsibility in the opinion of undergraduate students in management programs:
Between the concrete and the abstract. Journal of Cleaner Production 207, 600-617. [Crossref]
4. Lucia Gatti, Markus Ulrich, Peter Seele. 2019. Education for sustainable development through business
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students' learning
outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production 207, 667-678. [Crossref]
5. Marios Stanitsas, Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, Elise Vareilles. 2019. Facilitating sustainability transition
through serious games: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 208, 924-936.
[Crossref]
6. Amy A. Kim, Hessam Sadatsafavi, Lysandra Medal, Marilyn J. Ostergren. 2018. Impact of communication
sources for achieving campus sustainability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 139, 366-376. [Crossref]
7. Wim Lambrechts, Paul W.Th. Ghijsen, Ann Jacques, Hilde Walravens, Luc Van Liedekerke, Peter Van
Petegem. 2018. Sustainability segmentation of business students: Toward self-regulated development of
critical and interpretational competences in a post-truth era. Journal of Cleaner Production 202, 561-570.
[Crossref]
8. David Conner, Amanda Falkner, Nathan Lantieri, Betsy McGavisk, Bridgette McShea. 2018. Stakeholder
Perceptions of Campus Sustainability Efforts: Lessons from Vermont. Sustainability 10:11, 3849.
[Crossref]
9. Mustafa Öztürk. 2018. Response of educational research in Turkey to the UN Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development. Asia Pacific Education Review 22. . [Crossref]
10. Nathan McWhirter, Tripp Shealy. 2018. Pedagogy and Evaluation of an Envision Case Study Module
Bridging Sustainable Engineering and Behavioral Science. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice 144:4, 05018012. [Crossref]
11. Takuro Uehara, Alayna Ynacay-Nye. 2018. How Water Bottle Refill Stations Contribute to Campus
Sustainability: A Case Study in Japan. Sustainability 10:9, 3074. [Crossref]
12. Heather Elliott, Tarah Wright. 2018. Canadian Student Leaders’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability and
Sustainable Universities. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 12:2, 103-119. [Crossref]
13. Anu Vehmaa, Meeri Karvinen, Marko Keskinen. 2018. Building a More Sustainable Society? A Case Study
on the Role of Sustainable Development in the Education and Early Career of Water and Environmental
Engineers. Sustainability 10:8, 2605. [Crossref]
14. Elise Barrella, Elisabeth Spratto, Eric Pappas, Robert Nagel. 2018. Developing and Validating an Individual
Sustainability Instrument with Engineering Students to Motivate Intentional Change. Sustainability 10:8,
2885. [Crossref]
15. Jens Christian Benninghaus, Kerstin Kremer, Sandra Sprenger. 2018. Assessing high-school students’
conceptions of global water consumption and sustainability. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education 27:3, 250-266. [Crossref]
16. Manda PutraRidwan, Ridwan Manda Putra, Muhammad TangUsman, Usman Muhammad Tang, Ikhwan
SiregarYusni, Yusni Ikhwan Siregar, Thamrin, Thamrin. 2018. Sustainability analysis of the management
of Lake Baru in Buluh Cina Village, Indonesia. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 7:2, 182-211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. PanatsaVasiliki Maria, Vasiliki Maria Panatsa, MalandrakisGeorgios, Georgios Malandrakis. 2018. Student
teachers’ perceptions about the social pillar of urban sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education 19:5, 998-1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Djin Liem, Giovanni Turchini, Uracha Wanich, Russell Keast. 2018. Sustainability Descriptive Labels on
Farmed Salmon: Do Young Educated Consumers Like It More?. Sustainability 10:7, 2397. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
19. Andreja Istenic Starcic, Maja Terlevic, Lin Lin, Maja Lebenicnik. 2018. Designing Learning for
Sustainable Development: Digital Practices as Boundary Crossers and Predictors of Sustainable Lifestyles.
Sustainability 10:6, 2030. [Crossref]
20. Manuel Larrán, Javier Andrades, Jesús Herrera. 2018. An examination of attitudes and perceptions of
Spanish business and accounting students toward corporate social responsibility and sustainability themes.
Revista de Contabilidad . [Crossref]
21. Matthias Thürer, Ivan Tomašević, Mark Stevenson, Ting Qu, Don Huisingh. 2018. A systematic review
of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula. Journal of Cleaner Production
181, 608-617. [Crossref]
22. TangKuok Ho Daniel, Kuok Ho Daniel Tang. 2018. Correlation between sustainability education and
engineering students’ attitudes towards sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 19:3, 459-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Al-NaqbiAli Khalfan, Ali Khalfan Al-Naqbi, AlshannagQasim, Qasim Alshannag. 2018. The status of
education for sustainable development and sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of UAE
University students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19:3, 566-588. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
24. Orana Sandri, Sarah Holdsworth, Ian Thomas. 2018. Vignette question design for the assessment of
graduate sustainability learning outcomes. Environmental Education Research 24:3, 406-426. [Crossref]
25. Erin Redman, Arnim Wiek, Aaron Redman. 2018. Continuing Professional Development in
Sustainability Education for K-12 Teachers: Principles, Programme, Applications, Outlook. Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development 12:1, 59-80. [Crossref]
26. Valentina Brečko Grubar, Gregor Kovačič. 2018. Odnos do trajnostnega razvoja in viri znanja o trajnostnem
razvoju študentov geografije v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 89:1. . [Crossref]
27. Cameron T. Whitley, Bruno Takahashi, Adam Zwickle, John C. Besley, Alisa P. Lertpratchya. 2018.
Sustainability behaviors among college students: an application of the VBN theory. Environmental
Education Research 24:2, 245-262. [Crossref]
28. Keren Mintz, Tali Tal. 2018. The place of content and pedagogy in shaping sustainability learning
outcomes in higher education. Environmental Education Research 24:2, 207-229. [Crossref]
29. Luis V. Casaló, José-Julián Escario. 2018. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental
attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production
175, 155-163. [Crossref]
30. Hannah V. Uren, Peta L. Dzidic, Lynne D. Roberts, Zoe Leviston, Brian J. Bishop. 2018. Green-
Tinted Glasses: How Do Pro-Environmental Citizens Conceptualize Environmental Sustainability?.
Environmental Communication 19, 1-17. [Crossref]
31. Luciana A. Farias, Jailson A. Silva, Elaine A. Colagrande, Agnaldo Arroio. 2018. Opposite shores: a
case study of environmental perception and social representations of public school teachers in Brazil.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 27:1, 43-55. [Crossref]
32. PerraultEvan K., Evan K. Perrault, ClarkScott K., Scott K. Clark. 2018. Sustainability attitudes and
behavioral motivations of college students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19:1,
32-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Pinar Gokcin Ozuyar, Tugce Baykent-Beyhan. Aligning Sustainable Development Principles and Sectoral
Education 925-940. [Crossref]
34. Lutz Becker, Thorsten Daubenfeld, Elisabeth Hackspiel-Mikosch, Svetlana Harms, Amit Ray. Die
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Integration von CSR in die Lehre: ein Erfahrungsbericht der Hochschule Fresenius 233-250. [Crossref]
35. Ingrid Molderez, Elsa Fonseca. 2018. The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for
fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production 172,
4397-4410. [Crossref]
36. S. Pätäri, H. Arminen, L. Albareda, K. Puumalainen, A. Toppinen. 2017. Student values and perceptions
of corporate social responsibility in the forest industry on the road to a bioeconomy. Forest Policy and
Economics 85, 201-215. [Crossref]
37. KalsoomQudsia, Qudsia Kalsoom, KhanamAfifa, Afifa Khanam, QuraishiUzma, Uzma Quraishi. 2017.
Sustainability consciousness of pre-service teachers in Pakistan. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 18:7, 1090-1107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. ChakrabortyArpita, Arpita Chakraborty, SinghManvendra Pratap, Manvendra Pratap Singh,
RoyMousumi, Mousumi Roy. 2017. A study of goal frames shaping pro-environmental behaviour in
university students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 18:7, 1291-1310. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ester M. Pereira, Reidar J. Mykletun. 2017. To what extent do European tourist guide-training
curricula include sustainability principles?. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 17:4, 358-373.
[Crossref]
40. Elham Faham, Ahmad Rezvanfar, Seyed Hamid Movahed Mohammadi, Meisam Rajabi Nohooji. 2017.
Using system dynamics to develop education for sustainable development in higher education with the
emphasis on the sustainability competencies of students. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123,
307-326. [Crossref]
41. Nicola Walshe. 2017. An interdisciplinary approach to environmental and sustainability education:
developing geography students’ understandings of sustainable development using poetry. Environmental
Education Research 23:8, 1130-1149. [Crossref]
42. Dimitrios Stokas, Elena Strezou, George Malandrakis, Penelope Papadopoulou. 2017. Greek primary
school children’s representations of the urban environment as seen through their drawings. Environmental
Education Research 23:8, 1088-1114. [Crossref]
43. Andreas Fleig, Jale Tosun. 2017. Political Parties' Rhetoric Signaling of Sustainable Development.
Sustainable Development 25:5, 431-442. [Crossref]
44. Thao Phuong Nguyen. 2017. Education for Sustainable Development in Vietnam: exploring the
geography teachers' perspectives. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 1,
1-16. [Crossref]
45. Johanna L?nngren, ?ke Ingerman, Magdalena Svanstr?m. 2017. Avoid, Control, Succumb, or Balance:
Engineering Students? Approaches to a Wicked Sustainability Problem. Research in Science Education
47:4, 805-831. [Crossref]
46. Alessandro Bonadonna, Chiara Giachino, Elisa Truant. 2017. Sustainability and Mountain Tourism: The
Millennial’s Perspective. Sustainability 9:7, 1219. [Crossref]
47. Michael A. Pelch, David A. McConnell. 2017. How Does Adding an Emphasis on Socioscientific Issues
Influence Student Attitudes About Science, Its Relevance, and Their Interpretations of Sustainability?.
Journal of Geoscience Education 65:2, 203-214. [Crossref]
48. Evan K. Perrault, Scott K. Clark. 2017. Sustainability in the University Student's Mind: Are University
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
Endorsements, Financial Support, and Programs Making a Difference?. Journal of Geoscience Education
65:2, 194-202. [Crossref]
49. K. S. Chiong, Z. F. Mohamad, A. R. Abdul Aziz. 2017. Factors encouraging sustainability integration
into institutions of higher education. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 14:4,
911-922. [Crossref]
50. Leo Cleverdon, Simon Pole, Roger Weston, Sindy Banga, Terry Tudor. 2017. The Engagement of
Students in Higher Education Institutions with the Concepts of Sustainability: A Case Study of the
University of Northampton, in England. Resources 6:1, 3. [Crossref]
51. Sharon Boyd. Practical Strategies for Engaging Dissonance in Veterinary Medical Education 173-190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
52. Blanca A. Camargo, Ulrike Gretzel. 2017. What do tourism students know about sustainability and
sustainable tourism? An exploratory study of Latin American students. Journal of Teaching in Travel &
Tourism 1-17. [Crossref]
53. ÖztürkMustafa, Mustafa Öztürk. 2017. Edges of sustainability through numbers, themes and discourse.
International Journal of Comparative Education and Development 19:1, 35-47. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
54. Mary Katherine Watson, Elise Barrella. 2017. Using Concept Maps to Explore the Impacts of a Learning-
Cycle-Based Sustainability Module Implemented in Two Institutional Contexts. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice D4016001. [Crossref]
55. Gretchen R. Miller, Kelly Brumbelow. 2017. Attitudes of Incoming Civil Engineering Students toward
Sustainability as an Engineering Ethic. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
D4016002. [Crossref]
56. Amelia Tan, Chika Udeaja, Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Damilola Ekundayo. 2017. Sustainable
development in a construction related curriculum – quantity surveying students’ perspective. International
Journal of Strategic Property Management 21:1, 101-113. [Crossref]
57. Patrick Baughan. Variation in Sociologists’ Perspectives About Sustainability in Higher Education:
Outcomes from a Phenomenographic Study 313-325. [Crossref]
58. Maurice I. Wee, Fatin Nabilla Ariffin, Theam Foo Ng, Ahmad Firdaus Ahmad Shabudin. Awareness and
Attitudes Towards Sustainable Development Amongst Higher Education Students in Penang, Malaysia
49-64. [Crossref]
59. César Tapia-Fonllem, Blanca Fraijo-Sing, Víctor Corral-Verdugo, Anais Ortiz Valdez. 2017. Education
for Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions. SAGE Open 7:1, 215824401667629.
[Crossref]
60. Jochen Strähle, Katharina Hauk. Impact on Sustainability: Production Versus Consumption 49-75.
[Crossref]
61. Claudia E. Henninger, Pallavi Singh. Ethical Consumption Patterns and the Link to Purchasing
Sustainable Fashion 103-126. [Crossref]
62. B. Sharma, B. Steward, S.K. Ong, F.E. Miguez. 2017. Evaluation of teaching approach and student
learning in a multidisciplinary sustainable engineering course. Journal of Cleaner Production 142,
4032-4040. [Crossref]
63. Fikret Korhan Turan, Saadet Cetinkaya, Ceyda Ustun. 2016. A methodological framework to analyze
stakeholder preferences and propose strategic pathways for a sustainable university. Higher Education 72:6,
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
743-760. [Crossref]
64. António Almeida, Beatriz García Fernández, Gema Sánchez Emeterio. 2016. Assessment of pre-service
teachers’ knowledge of the impact of livestock production on global warming: a comparative study between
Portugal and Spain. International Journal of Environmental Studies 73:6, 939-953. [Crossref]
65. Eunhye Park, Heejin Kim, Sunyoung Yu. 2016. Perceptions and Attitudes of Early Childhood Teachers
in Korea About Education for Sustainable Development. International Journal of Early Childhood 48:3,
369-385. [Crossref]
66. Mary Katherine Watson, Joshua Pelkey, Caroline Noyes, Michael Rodgers. 2016. Assessing impacts of
a learning-cycle-based module on students' conceptual sustainability knowledge using concept maps and
surveys. Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 544-556. [Crossref]
67. Ethan D. Schoolman, Mike Shriberg, Sarah Schwimmer, Marie Tysman. 2016. Green cities and ivory
towers: how do higher education sustainability initiatives shape millennials’ consumption practices?.
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6:3, 490-502. [Crossref]
68. Leigh Wilks, Neil Harris. 2016. Examining the conflict and interconnectedness of young people’s ideas
about environmental issues, responsibility and action. Environmental Education Research 22:5, 683-696.
[Crossref]
69. Dolors Setó-Pamies, Eleni Papaoikonomou. 2016. A Multi-level Perspective for the Integration of Ethics,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability (ECSRS) in Management Education. Journal of Business
Ethics 136:3, 523-538. [Crossref]
70. Cláudia V. Viegas, Alan J. Bond, Caroline R. Vaz, Miriam Borchardt, Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, Paulo M.
Selig, Gregório Varvakis. 2016. Critical attributes of Sustainability in Higher Education: a categorisation
from literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 126, 260-276. [Crossref]
71. Pasi Pohjolainen, Petri Tapio, Markus Vinnari, Pekka Jokinen, Pekka Räsänen. 2016. Consumer
consciousness on meat and the environment — Exploring differences. Appetite 101, 37-45. [Crossref]
72. Kaisu Sammalisto, Agneta Sundström, Robin von Haartman, Tove Holm, Zhilei Yao. 2016.
Learning about Sustainability—What Influences Students’ Self-Perceived Sustainability Actions after
Undergraduate Education?. Sustainability 8:6, 510. [Crossref]
73. StarkJohnnie, Johnnie Stark, ParkJin Gyu “Phillip”, Jin Gyu “Phillip” Park. 2016. Interior design students
perceptions of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 17:3, 361-377.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Daniel Etse, Coral Ingley. 2016. Higher education curriculum for sustainability. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 17:2, 269-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Gregor Kovačič, Valentina Brečko Grubar. 2016. Knowledge of sustainable development among geography
students in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 56:1. . [Crossref]
76. Janet Richardson, Thomas Heidenreich, Carmen Álvarez-Nieto, Fabienne Fasseur, Jane Grose, Norma
Huss, Maud Huynen, Isabel M. López-Medina, Angélick Schweizer. 2016. Including sustainability issues
in nurse education: A comparative study of first year student nurses' attitudes in four European countries.
Nurse Education Today 37, 15-20. [Crossref]
77. Eugenio Pellicer, Leonardo A. Sierra, Víctor Yepes. 2016. Appraisal of infrastructure sustainability by
graduate students using an active-learning method. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 884-896. [Crossref]
78. Chamila Roshani Perera, Chandana Rathnasiri Hewege. 2016. Integrating sustainability education into
international marketing curricula. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 17:1, 123-148.
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
111. Dalia Khalil, Omar Ramzy, Rasha Mostafa. 2013. Perception towards sustainable development concept:
Egyptian students' perspective. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 4:3, 307-327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Eric C. Pappas. Individual sustainability: Preliminary research 1631-1636. [Crossref]
113. Maria Tighe, Andrew Whiteford, Janet Richardson. 2013. ‘Stepping Out’: Enabling Community Access
to Green Space through Inter-disciplinary Practice Learning in Plymouth, UK. International Journal of
Practice-based Learning in Health and Social Care 1:2, 8-22. [Crossref]
114. Tammy Erlene Parece, Tamim Younos, Lawrence S. Grossman, E. Scott Geller. 2013. A study of
environmentally relevant behavior in university residence halls. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 14:4, 466-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Nikoleta Jones, Spiridon Roumeliotis, Theodoros Iosifides, Maria Hatziantoniou, Eleni Sfakianaki,
Eleni Tsigianni, Kalliopi Thivaiou, Athina Biliraki, Kostas Evaggelinos. 2013. Students' perceptions on
environmental management of HEIs and the role of social capital. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education 14:3, 278-290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Aurali Dade, David M. Hassenzahl. 2013. Communicating sustainability. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 14:3, 254-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Felita R. Figueredo, Yelena Tsarenko. 2013. Is “being green” a determinant of participation in university
sustainability initiatives?. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 14:3, 242-253.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Mary Katherine Watson, Caroline Noyes, Michael O. Rodgers. 2013. Student Perceptions of Sustainability
Education in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 139:3, 235-243. [Crossref]
119. E. Pappas, O. Pierrakos, R. Nagel. 2013. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach sustainability in multiple
contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production 48, 54-64. [Crossref]
120. Benjamin Karatzoglou. 2013. An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of
universities to Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Cleaner Production 49, 44-53. [Crossref]
121. Mostafa Nejati, Mehran Nejati. 2013. Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective
of university students. Journal of Cleaner Production 48, 101-107. [Crossref]
122. Ágnes Zsóka, Zsuzsanna Marjainé Szerényi, Anna Széchy, Tamás Kocsis. 2013. Greening due to
environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-
environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production
48, 126-138. [Crossref]
123. Matthias Barth. 2013. Many roads lead to sustainability: a process‐oriented analysis of change in higher
education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 14:2, 160-175. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
124. Tarah Wright, Gary Markle, Peter Wuench. 2013. The Goggles Project: Using Street Theatre to
Engage University Stakeholders in Discussions about Sustainability. Creative Education 04:07, 105-109.
[Crossref]
125. Mareike Burmeister, Sabine Schmidt-Jacob, Ingo Eilks. 2013. German chemistry teachers’ understanding
of sustainability and education for sustainable development—An interview case study. Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract. 14:2, 169-176. [Crossref]
126. Marc Rosen. 2013. Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability 5:1, 372-386.
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
[Crossref]
127. Jennie Winter, Debby Cotton. 2012. Making the hidden curriculum visible: sustainability literacy in
higher education. Environmental Education Research 18:6, 783-796. [Crossref]
128. Korina Katsaliaki, Navonil Mustafee. A survey of serious games on sustainable development 1-13.
[Crossref]
129. Jessica Hill, Hyun‐Hwa Lee. 2012. Young Generation Y consumers’ perceptions of sustainability in the
apparel industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:4, 477-491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. I. Nicolaou, E. Conlon. 2012. What do final year engineering students know about sustainable
development?. European Journal of Engineering Education 37:3, 267-277. [Crossref]
131. Michael J. Maloni, Shane D. Smith, Stuart Napshin. 2012. A Methodology for Building Faculty Support
for the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education. Journal of Management
Education 36:3, 312-336. [Crossref]
132. Funda Varnaci Uzun, Ozgul Keles. 2012. The Effects of Nature Education Project on the Environmental
Awareness and Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 2912-2916. [Crossref]
133. Robert L. Nagel, Eric C. Pappas, Olga Pierrakos. 2012. On a Vision to Educating Students in Sustainability
and Design—The James Madison University School of Engineering Approach. Sustainability 4:1, 72-91.
[Crossref]
134. Patricia Brackin, Richard House, Jennifer Mueller-Price, Michael DeVasher, Richard Layton, Corey
Taylor, Rebecca DeVasher, Mark Minster, Kathleen Toohey. Institutionalized: Organizational obstacles
to communicating sustainability 1-5. [Crossref]
135. Angela R. Bielefeldt. 2011. Incorporating a Sustainability Module into First-Year Courses for Civil and
Environmental Engineering Students. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
137:2, 78-85. [Crossref]
136. Richard Emanuel, J.N. Adams. 2011. College students' perceptions of campus sustainability. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12:1, 79-92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
137. Willy Legrand, Philip Sloan, Rosemarie Delgado-Krebs, Heli Tooman. Sustainable Tourism &
Hospitality Management Education: An Empirical Study on Educational Experiences in Preparation for
Professional Life 195-208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
138. Cathy A. Rusinko. 2010. Integrating Sustainability in Management and Business Education: A Matrix
Approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9:3, 507-519. [Crossref]
139. Cathy A. Rusinko. 2010. Integrating sustainability in higher education: a generic matrix. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11:3, 250-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
140. Maurie J. Cohen. 2010. Destination unknown: Pursuing sustainable mobility in the face of rival societal
aspirations. Research Policy 39:4, 459-470. [Crossref]
141. Cynthia Deale, Jane Nichols, Paul Jacques. 2009. A Descriptive Study of Sustainability Education in the
Hospitality Curriculum. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 21:4, 34-42. [Crossref]
142. Mageswary Karpudewan, Zurida Hj Ismail, Norita Mohamed. 2009. The integration of green chemistry
experiments with sustainable development concepts in pre‐service teachers' curriculum. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 10:2, 118-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Anthony Middlebrooks, Lauren Miltenberger, James Tweedy, Grant Newman, Joanna Follman. 2009.
Developing a sustainability ethic in leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies 3:2, 31-43. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia At 08:53 29 October 2018 (PT)
144. Daniel J. Sherman. 2008. Research and Solutions: Sustainability: What's the Big Idea? A Strategy for
Transforming the Higher Education Curriculum. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 1:3, 188-195.
[Crossref]
145. Paula Jones, Colin J. Trier, Jonathan P. Richards. 2008. Embedding Education for Sustainable
Development in higher education: A case study examining common challenges and opportunities for
undergraduate programmes. International Journal of Educational Research 47:6, 341-350. [Crossref]
146. Robert L. Nagel, Kyle G. Gipson, Adebayo Ogundipe. Integrating Sustainable Design and Systems
Thinking throughout an Engineering Curriculum 1607-1624. [Crossref]
147. Mona Betour El Zoghbi. Conferences as Learning Spaces on Climate Change and Sustainability 896-918.
[Crossref]
148. Mona Betour El Zoghbi. Conferences as Learning Spaces on Climate Change and Sustainability 37-59.
[Crossref]
149. Robert L. Nagel, Kyle G. Gipson, Adebayo Ogundipe. Integrating Sustainable Design and Systems
Thinking throughout an Engineering Curriculum 136-153. [Crossref]