Ontwerpen
voor het onbekende
© Dunne and Raby
‘Designs for an overpopulated planet:
Algae Digester’, 2009
Referentiekader
Duurzaam
Hoger Onderwijs
Dit ‘Referentiekader Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ maakt deel uit van een tweedelige publicatie van Ecocampus, een project van het Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie van de Vlaamse overheid. Het andere deel van de publicatie is het
‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’.
Deze publicatie kadert in het proces ‘Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs – de Kennis Voorbij’ waar de Ecocampusploeg samen met
de Afdeling Hoger Onderwijs en Volwassenenonderwijs, van het Departement Onderwijs en Vorming, op inzet. De medewerkers van beide departementen hopen hiermee de hogeronderwijsinstellingen, overheden en andere organisaties te inspireren
bij de transitie naar een duurzaam hoger onderwijs.
Zie ook het deel ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ voor een uitgebreide inleiding en achtergrondinformatie over
het gevoerde proces en de rol van Ecocampus.
Uitgebreide
samenvatting
Het hoger onderwijs wordt algemeen beschouwd als een belangrijke (mogelijke) katalysator voor
duurzame ontwikkeling (DO), voornamelijk via haar klassieke opdrachten van onderwijs, onderzoek
en openbare dienstverlening. De voorbije twee decennia hebben hogeronderwijsinstellingen wereldwijd en in Vlaanderen internationale verklaringen ondertekend (bv. het COPERNICUS handvest)
om hun engagement aan te tonen, en ze hebben verschillende DO-initiatieven geïmplementeerd.
Het doel van dit artikel is het debat te stimuleren en om de transitie naar DO in het Vlaamse hoger
onderwijs in beweging te krijgen. We bieden ijkpunten aan voor verschillende stakeholders, instellingen en individuen in het hoger onderwijs door vier cruciale vragen te beantwoorden:
1. waarover gaat DO?;
2. hoe kan de rol van het hoger onderwijs in DO worden ingevuld?;
3. wat zijn de sleutelaspecten van duurzaam hoger onderwijs?;
4. wat zijn de belangrijkste barrières en mogelijkheden tot vooruitgang om het Vlaamse
hoger onderwijs in een (meer) duurzame richting te bewegen?.
Duurzame ontwikkeling
DO is ontstaan naar aanleiding van globale milieucrises en omvattende sociale ongelijkheden, en
wordt als hoogst noodzakelijk beschouwd voor het huidig en toekomstig welzijn van de mensheid
en de staat van de planeet.
Hoewel er vele definities bestaan, moeten conceptualiseringen van DO de volgende vier ‘principes’
of ‘actieregels’ bevatten die steeds moeten worden gevolgd, ongeacht welke visie men aanhangt:
1. normativiteit;
2. rechtvaardigheid;
3. integratie;
4. dynamisme.
In essentie staat DO voor een oplossing voor milieu- en ontwikkelingsproblemen, een reeks beginselen die positieve doelstellingen impliceren, een focus voor positieve verandering, een kritiek op
het conventionele denken en de praktijk.
Ondanks toezeggingen uit het verleden en diverse DO-maatregelen die zijn genomen, schiet de
praktische uitvoering op maatschappelijke of mondiale niveaus tekort en zijn ingrijpende veranderingen in het systeem nodig.
Sustainable Higher Education 3
Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs: Redenen & Holisme
De dringende maatschappelijke behoefte aan en brede oproep voor DO laten het hoger onderwijs
toe een fundamentele en morele verantwoordelijkheid op te nemen in het bijdragen aan DO. Via
hun maatschappelijke opdrachten in het bevorderen van kennis, het opleiden van leiders, en het
bevorderen van maatschappelijke vooruitgang en betrokkenheid, zouden instellingen voor hoger
onderwijs morele visionairs en centra van duurzaamheidsinnovatie en uitmuntendheid moeten zijn.
Als ‘leerlaboratoria’, dienen de campussen de werkelijke beleving van duurzame gemeenschappen
te doen ervaren. Dit is een uitdagende taak, in het besef dat het hoger onderwijs (nog) bijdraagt
aan de duurzaamheidscrisis en die soms zelfs versnelt. Er zijn verschillende redenen voor het hoger
onderwijs om het engagement aan te gaan: de belangstelling van studenten, de financiering van
onderzoek, kwaliteitszorg, dienstverlening aan de maatschappij inzetbaarheid op de arbeidsmarkt,
verantwoordelijkheid, morele verplichting.
DO heeft gevolgen voor het hele hogeronderwijssysteem en op organisatorisch niveau voor de
gehele instelling, inclusief: hogeronderwijsoverheidsbeleid; zijn traditionele drievoudige opdracht
van onderwijs, onderzoek, openbare dienstverlening; internationalisering; democratisering, innovatie; campusbeheer; studentenleven; organisatiestructuren en -culturen; rapportage en evaluatie;
en ethiek.
Duurzaam hoger onderwijs dient verder te gaan dan een integratie van duurzame ontwikkeling
in het hoger onderwijs die resulteert in DO als ‘add-on’ aan bestaande praktijken, door in plaats
daarvan hoger onderwijs in DO te integreren wat fundamentele veranderingen impliceert en wat
een holistische en systemische visie vereist.
Duurzaam hoger onderwijs vraagt om een holistische en systemische aanpak, omdat het zich richt
op het hele systeem op macroniveau en op micro- / instellingsniveau, en omdat het fundamentele
of systeemtransformaties vereist die verder gaan dan een ‘add-on’ uitvoering en fragmentatie.
Onderwijs
Een van de cruciale rollen van het hoger onderwijs in DO is om (alle) studenten --de huidige en
toekomstige beleids- en besluitvormers-- uit te rusten met de nodige competenties (kennis,
vaardigheden, waarden / houdingen) om om te gaan met complexe duurzaamheidsuitdagingen.
­Natuurlijk, duurzaam onderwijs gaat verder dan het bereiken van een ‘kennisbasis’ over DO.
Competentiegericht onderwijs biedt kansen om het onderwijsbeleid en de onderwijssystemen­
­opnieuw te onderzoeken en te heroriënteren naar duurzaamheid. Competenties voor DO omvatten:­
­competentie voor systeemdenken en omgaan met complexiteit, competentie voor antici­perend
denken, competentie voor kritisch denken, competentie voor eerlijk en ecologisch h
­ andelen,
compe­
tentie voor samenwerking in (heterogene) groepen, competentie voor participatie,­
competentie­voor empathie en verandering van perspectief, competentie voor interdisciplinair
werken, competentie­voor de communicatie en het gebruik van media, competentie voor het
plannen­en realiseren­van innovatieve projecten, competentie voor evaluatie, en competentie voor
ambiguïteit en tolerantie van frustratie.
4
Sustainable Higher Education
Merk op dat duurzame ontwikkeling meestal wordt gezien als een zaak van individueel leren,
als problemen die aangepakt kunnen worden door het toepassen van de juiste leerstrategieën.
Echter, het vertalen van duurzaam onderwijs naar een proces van kwalificatie verloopt niet zonder
­problemen. In het kader van duurzaamheid zijn kant-en-klare oplossingen en onbetwiste waarheden zeldzaam. Dit daagt onze dominante opvatting van onderwijs uit en verschuift de focus
van de competenties die studenten moeten verwerven naar het democratische karakter van de
educatieve­praktijken waaraan studenten kunnen deelnemen.
DO vergt alternatieve manieren van lesgeven en leren: van transmissief leren naar leren door
middel van ontdekking, van een docent-gecentreerde benadering naar student-gerichte aanpak,
van ­individueel leren naar samenwerkend leren, van theorie gedomineerd leren naar praktijk­gericht
leren (theorie en ervaring), van de nadruk op enkel cognitieve doelstellingen naar ­cognitieve
­affectieve en op vaardigheden gerichte doelstellingen, van institutioneel, personeel-gebaseerd
onderwijs / leren naar leren met en van buitenstaanders, van low-level cognitief leren naar
­cognitief leren op hoger niveau, van het accumuleren van kennis en inhoud naar zelf-sturend leren
en oriëntatie­op echte problemen.
Onderzoek
Het wordt algemeen erkend dat onderzoek als bron van nieuwe kennis, met inbegrip van het
onderzoek uitgevoerd aan universiteiten, cruciaal is voor DO. Echter, er is een toenemende erkenning dat de conventionele en de heersende onderzoekspraktijk tekortschiet en niet adequaat de
onderzoeks­eisen van DO aanpakt. Een nieuw sociaal contract voor onderzoek is geboden.
Anticiperend op de onderzoekseisen van DO, is een ‘levendige beweging’ van de verschillende
­disciplines in opkomst die onder de paraplu van de ‘duurzaamheidswetenschap’ kan worden
onderge­bracht. Het past een grote verscheidenheid aan wetenschappelijke benaderingen toe, vaak
door middel van multi-, inter- en transdisciplinaire modi, als een manier sociaal leren. Sociaal leren
gaat over het ontwikkelen van creatieve antwoorden op uitdagingen die nieuw zijn, onverwacht,
onzeker, tegenstrijdig en moeilijk te voorspellen. Het begrip ‘sociaal leren’ wijst op de mogelijkheid in het echte leven om (a) de reflectieve capaciteiten van onderzoekers te vergroten, en (b) de
voorwaarden van democratische participatie te scheppen waardoor een maximale mobilisatie van
de capaciteiten van de verschillende belanghebbenden mogelijk wordt.
Duurzaamheidswetenschap vervangt conventionele benaderingen van wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet, maar vormt er eerder een aanvulling op, die nodig is als het gaat om DO. Duurzaamheidswetenschap wordt gekenmerkt door multi-, inter- en intra-disciplinariteit, co-productie van
kennis en participatie (transdisciplinariteit), normativiteit, systemische integratie, een verkennend
karakter, de eigen beperkingen en veronderstellingen erkennen, leren-georiënteerd perspectief, de
productie van sociaal robuuste en maatschappelijk relevante kennis, en aandacht voor systeem­
innovatie en transitie.
Uitgaande van een perspectief op het hele systeem, gaat het niet alleen over de oprichting van
een nieuwe en aanvullende ‘bruisende arena’ van duurzaamheidswetenschap, maar eerder over
de (her)oriëntatie van al het onderzoek naar DO. Dit houdt in rekening houden met de specifieke
gevolgen van DO voor diverse gevestigde manieren van wetenschapsbeoefening, zoals: actie­
Sustainable Higher Education 5
gerichtheid, continuïteit, milieu-, veiligheids-management, onafhankelijkheid, kennisoverdracht,
lokaal-globaal schaalniveau, lokale kennis, multidimensionaliteit, multi-/interdisciplinariteit,
participatie, voorzorgsprincipe en onzekerheid, openbaar belang, perspectief op korte, middellange
en lange termijn (intergenerationaliteit), maatschappelijke peer review, duurzaamheidsimpact,
duurzaamheidsrelevantie, en transparantie.
Campusactiviteiten
Campusactiviteiten ondersteunen de academische missie van het hoger onderwijs, en moeten
ook (her)afgestemd zijn op DO voor ten minste twee redenen. Ten eerste kan de ‘vergroening’ van
campusactiviteiten de milieu-, institutionele en sociaal-economische prestaties van een instelling
verbeteren. Ten tweede, door campusactiviteiten te heroriënteren richting DO staat de instelling
model voor pro-duurzaam gedrag en biedt zo een informele manier van leren over duurzaamheid
voor de academische gemeenschap - ‘practice what you preach’.
Duurzame campusactiviteiten omvatten zowel het milieu (lucht, water, bodem, materialen,
­energie) als sociale aspecten (kennis, gezondheid en welzijn, economie en welvaart, het bestuur,
de gemeenschap). Het moet de traditionele noties van milieubeheer van de campus overstijgen en
de menselijke elementen van duurzaamheid omvatten om de volle betekenis van het woord echt
te belichamen.
Veranderingsmanagement
De implementatie van DO aan hogeronderwijsinstellingen betekent zich van een huidige
situatie­naar een gewenste situatie bewegen (een periode van transitie). Een dergelijk proces van
ver­andering vereist ten minste zes kernelementen om succesvol te zijn: pleidooi is de aanzet tot
de veranderingsbeweging; een beleid voor de aanpak van de voorgestelde wijziging(en) is vereist;
middelen voor de veranderingsbeweging zijn noodzakelijk; leiderschap is de sleutel voor een
succesvolle veranderingsbeweging; welomschreven middelen en overeengekomen doelen zijn
belangrijke succes­factoren; educatie binnen en buiten de aula voor zowel studenten als personeel
is het primaire middel en doel.
Verschillende barrières voor een hoger onderwijs dat werk maakt van DO kunnen worden
­geïden­ti­fi­ceerd: disciplinaire organisatiestructuur, DO gezien als een ‘add-on’, gebrek aan visie
en prioritering / leiderschap, gebrek aan bewustzijn, gemeenschappelijk begrip en kennis van
­duurzaamheid in het hoger onderwijs, gepercipieerd gebrek aan wetenschappelijke basis van
­duurzaamheid, verwarring over DO, breedheid van DO, gebrek aan coördinatie en visie op overheidsniveau om het duurzaamheids- en onderwijsbeleid te veranderen, weinig of geen motivatie of
realiteitszin, DO beschouwd als radicaal, veranderingen in de curricula worden vertaald in budgetvorderingen, overvolle leerplannen, DO wordt geacht weinig of geen relevantie voor de discipline,
haar ­opleidingen en onderzoek te hebben, gebrek aan (financiële) middelen en de onzekerheid
over de benodigde inspanningen / middelen om duurzaamheid te implementeren, bedreiging voor
academische geloofwaardigheid van studenten en docenten.
6
Sustainable Higher Education
Ways Forward
Om vooruit te komen in de transitie naar duurzaam hoger onderwijs, zijn diverse concrete stappen in
kaart gebracht, ook in reactie op de verschillende barrières voor verandering: beoordelen en meten,
communiceren, stakeholders betrekken, concretiseren, vermenigvuldigen, voldoen aan behoeften,
bevorderen van begrip, opnemen in kwaliteitsvol onderwijs, belonen, instellingsbreed opleiden,
‘empowerment’ bevorderen, managementfuncties creëren, ontwikkelen van en p
­ articiperen in
netwerken, deelnemen aan regionale DO-initiatieven, onderzoeksprioriteiten ontwikkelen, en
(her)oriënteren van het overheidsbeleid en -financiering van het hoger onderwijs.
Bovendien wordt een simpel maar effectief ‘eerste stap’ model voorgesteld --het 4 R’en-model-om de richting van het hoger onderwijs naar DO te wijzigen: behouden (retain), herzien (revise),
weigeren (reject), vernieuwen (renew).
Sustainable Higher Education 7
Dunne and Raby
© Dunne and Raby, ‘Between reality and the impossible’, 2010
For more information please refer to p.6 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
Sustainable Higher
Education
Understanding and
Moving Forward
Sustainable Higher Education
Brandon Ballengée
© Brandon Ballengée,
‘Cleared and stained Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus’, 2001-03
Unique chromogenic print mounted on acrylic 13 by 40 inch
For more information please refer to p.115 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
10
Sustainable Higher Education
* Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York
Contents
Executive summary
1. Introduction
2. Sustainable development
2.1 A Society in Transition
2.2 Definition and Principles
3. Sustainable Higher Education
3.1 Why Schould Higher Education Engage in Sunstainable Development?
3.2 Declarations
3.2 A Whole systems Approach
4. Sustainable Education
4.1 Definition, Concepts and Principles
4.2 Competences and Learning/Teaching Approaches
5. Sustainable Research
5.1 Research Needs
5.2 Research Characteristics
13
17
19
19
21
23
23
24
25
29
29
30
33
33
33
6. Sustainable Campus Operations
37
7. Managing Change in Institutions
47
7.1 A General Framework
7.2 Barriers to Sustainability in Higher Education
7.3 Ways Forward
47
48
50
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
53
9. Authors and References
55
Colophon61
Sustainable
SustainableHigher
HigherEducation
Education 11
Arne Hendriks
© Arne Hendriks, ‘Sunflower Table’*, expo ‘Food Forward’ , Stroom Den Haag, 2012
For more information please refer to p.23 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
12
Sustainable Higher Education
* photo © Rob Kollard, Courtesy De Stroom Den Haag
Executive
summary
Higher education is generally seen as a major (potential) catalyst towards sustainable development (SD), in particular through its traditional missions of education, research and public ­service.
During the last two decades higher education institutions worldwide and in Flanders signed
­international declarations (e.g. the COPERNICUS Charter) to demonstrate their commitment and
have ­implemented various SD-initiatives.
The aim of this paper is to stimulate the debate and to move Flemish higher education forward in
its transition towards SD. We provide points of reference for various higher education stakeholders,
institutions and individuals by dealing with four crucial questions:
1. what is SD about?;
2. how to conceive the role of higher education in SD?;
3. what are the key aspects of sustainable higher education?;
4. what are the major barriers and ways forward in moving Flemish higher education in a
(more) sustainable direction?.
Sustainable Development
SD emerged in response to global environmental crises and vast social inequalities and is deemed
highly imperative for the current and future well-being of humanity and the planetary state.
While definitions abound, SD conceptualizations must contain the following four ‘principles’ or
‘rules of action’ that must always be respected no matter which view one amounts to:
1. normativity,
2. equity,
3. integration and
4. dynamism.
In essence, SD stands for a solution for environmental and development problems, a set of p
­ rinciples
implying positive objectives, a focus for positive change, a critique on conventional thinking and
practice.
Despite past commitments and various SD-measures taken, the practical implementation on
­societal or global levels falls short and far-reaching system changes are needed.
Sustainable Higher Education 13
Sustainable Higher Education: Reasons & Holism
The urgent societal need and broad call for SD allow higher education to assume a fundamental­
and moral responsibility in contributing to SD. Through their societal mandate of advancing
­knowledge, educating leaders, and furthering societal progress and engagement, institutions
of higher e­ ducation should be moral visionaries and centres of sustainability innovation and
­excellence. As ‘learning laboratories’, campuses are to provide the lived experience of sustainable
­communities. This is a challenging task, recognizing that higher education (still) contributes to and
sometimes even accelerates the sustainability crisis. There are several reasons for higher education
to engage: student interest, research funding, quality assurance, community outreach, employability, a­ ccountability, moral obligation.
SD has implications for the entire higher education system and at the organizational level for
the entire institution, including: higher education public policy; its traditional threefold mission
of ­education, research, public service; internationalization; democratization; innovation; campus/
physical operations; student life; organizational structures and cultures; reporting and assessment;
and ethics.
Sustainable higher education needs to go beyond integrating SD in higher education that results
in SD becoming an ‘add-on’ to existing practices, by instead integrating higher education in SD
­implying fundamental changes and requiring a holistic and systemic view.
Sustainable higher education requires a holistic and systemic approach because it targets the whole
system at the macro level and at the micro/institutional level, and because it requires fundamental
or deep system transformations going beyond ‘add-on’ implementation and fragmentation.
Education
One of the critical roles of higher education in SD is to equip (all) students –current and future
policy- and decision makers– with the necessary competences (knowledge, skill, values/attitudes)
to cope with complex sustainability challenges. Obviously, sustainable education goes beyond
­establishing a ‘knowledge base’ for SD.
Competence based education offers opportunities to re-examine and reorient educational p
­ olicy
and systems towards sustainability. Competences for SD include: competency for systemic
­thinking and handling of complexity, competency for anticipatory thinking, competency for critical
­thinking, competency for acting fairly and ecologically, competency for cooperation in (heterogeneous) groups, competency for participation, competency for empathy and change of perspective,
competency for interdisciplinary work, competency for communication and use of media, competency for planning and realising innovative projects, competency for evaluation, and competency
for ambiguity and frustration tolerance.
Note that sustainable development is usually seen as matters of individual learning, as problems
that can be tackled by applying proper learning strategies. Yet, translating sustainable education
into a process of qualification is not unproblematic. In the context of sustainability, ready-made
solutions and uncontested truths are rare. This challenges our dominant conception of education
and shifts the focus from the competences that students must acquire to the democratic nature of
14
Sustainable Higher Education
educational practices in which students can participate.
SD requires alternative ways of teaching and learning: from transmissive learning to learning
through discovery, from teacher-centred approach to learner-centred approach, from individual
learning to collaborative learning, from theory dominated learning to praxis-oriented learning
(theory & experience), from emphasis on cognitive objectives only to cognitive affective and skillsoriented objectives, from institutional, staff-based teaching/learning to learning with and from
outsiders, from low-level cognitive learning to higher-level cognitive learning, from accumulating
knowledge and content to self-regulative learning and real issue orientation.
Research
It is generally acknowledged that research, as a generator of new knowledge, including the one
conducted at universities, is pivotal for SD. However, there is an increasing recognition that
­conventional and prevailing research practice falls short and does not adequately address the
­research requirements of SD. A new social contract for research is called for.
Anticipating the research requirements of SD, a ‘vibrant movement’ of various disciplines is
­emerging that can be considered under the umbrella of ‘sustainability science’. It applies a wide
­variety of scientific approaches, often through multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary modes, as a
way of social learning. Social learning is about developing creative answers to challenges that are
new, unexpected, uncertain, conflicting and hard to predict. The notion of ‘social learning’ points
at the ­opportunity in real life settings to (a) increase the reflective and reflexive capacities of
researchers­, and (b) create conditions of democratic participation enabling a maximum mobilization of ­capa­c­ities of different stakeholders involved.
Sustainability science does not replace but rather complements conventional approaches to
­scientific inquiry, which are necessary when it comes to SD. Sustainability science is characterized­
by multi-, inter- and intra-disciplinarity, co-production of knowledge & participation (trans­
disciplinarity), normativity, systemic integration, exploratory character, recognizing its own
limitations­and assumptions, learning-oriented perspective, production of socially robust and
socially­relevant knowledge, and attention to system innovation and transition.
Adopting a whole systems perspective, it is not only about the establishment of a new and
additional­‘vibrant arena’ of sustainability science, but rather about the (re)orientation of all
research­towards SD. This implies taking into account the particular implications of SD for various­
established­ways of scientific practice, such as: action orientation, continuity, environmental,
safety­and security management­, independence, knowledge transfer, local–global level of scale,
local ­
knowledge, multi­
dimensionality, multi-/interdisciplinarity, participation, precautionary
principle­and uncertainty­, public interest, short, medium and long term perspective (intergenerationality), societal peer review, sustainability impact, sustainability relevance, and transparency.
Sustainable Higher Education 15
Campus Operations
Campus operations are supportive to the scholarly mission of higher education, and should also be
(re)-oriented towards SD for at least two reasons. First, ‘greening’ campus operations can ­improve
an institution’s environmental, institutional and socio-economic performances. Second, by
­reorienting campus operations toward SD the institution models pro-sustainability behaviour and
provides an informal way of learning about sustainability for the academic community –’practice­
what you preach’.
Sustainable campus operations include both environmental (air, water, land, materials, energy) and
social aspects (knowledge, health & well-being, economy & wealth, governance, and community­).
It must transcend traditional notions of environmental management of campus to include human
elements of sustainability in order to truly embrace the full meaning of the term.
Change Management
Implementing SD in institutions of higher education implies moving from a current situation
towards­a desired situation (a period of transition). Such a process of change requires at least six key
elements for success: advocacy is the impetus to begin the change movement; policy addressing­
the proposed change(s) is required; resources for the change movement are imperative; leader­
ship is the key for a successful change movement; well-defined means and agreed upon ends are
­important success factors; education in and out of the classroom for students and employees is the
primary mean and end.
Various barriers that higher education encounters working towards SD can be identified:
­disciplinary organizational structure, SD perceived as an ‘add-on’, lack of vision and prioritization/
leadership, lack of awareness, common understanding and knowledge of sustainability in higher
education, perceived lack of scientific basis of sustainability, confusion about SD, broadness of
SD, lack of ­coordination and vision to change sustainability policies and education at government
level, little or no motivation or realism, SD is considered to be radical, changes into curricula are
translated into budget claims, overcrowded curricula, SD considered to have little or no relevance
to the discipline, its courses and research, lack of (financial) resources and uncertainty about the
required e­ fforts/resources to engage and implement sustainability, threat to academic credibility
of ­scholars and teachers.
Ways Forward
To move forward in the transition towards sustainable higher education, various concrete steps
have been identified, also in response to several change barriers: assess & measure, communicate,
engage stakeholders, make concrete, multiply, meet needs, promote understanding, incorporate
in quality education, reward, educate university wide, promote empowering, create management
positions, develop and participate in networks, engage in regional SD initiatives, develop research
priorities, and (re)orient public higher education policy and funding.
Additionally, a simple but effective ‘first step’ model –the ‘4 Rs model’– to change the direction of
higher education towards SD is proposed: retain, revise, reject, renew.
16
Sustainable Higher Education
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to stimulate the debate about higher education as a (potential) major catalyst
towards sustainable development. Reviewing the contemporary literature related to sustainable
­development and higher education we want to understand better this role as (potential) catalyst and
move Flemish higher education forward in its sustainability transition. It should be noted that while this
paper will provide a broad understanding of the literature, it is beyond its scope to deal with each aspect
in full depth. Interested readers are therefore encouraged to use the cited literature in this paper as a
source to guide them in a more in-depth examination of the literature.
What we aim at is to provide points of reference for various higher education stakeholders, institutions
and individuals by dealing with four crucial questions:
1. what is sustainable development about?
2. how to conceive the role of higher education in sustainable development?
3. what are the key aspects of sustainable higher education?
4. what are the major barriers and ways forward in moving Flemish higher education in a
(more) sustainable direction?
Higher education is generally seen as a major (potential) catalyst towards sustainable development,
in particular through its traditional missions of education, research and public service [2-4]. During
the last two decades higher education institutions worldwide have implemented various sustainable
development initiatives. In Flanders for example, most universities have signed the COPERNICUS
­Charter which dedicates universities to becoming leaders in SD through their various activities, inclu­
ding research, education, public service and campus operations. There have been numerous other
­sustainability initiatives at the institutional level in Flanders, and some regional overarching ones
have been undertaken (for example “Ecocampus”, “Fenix”, “Sociale Economie op de Campus” and
­“Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs Vlaanderen”) [5].
Ecocampus, currently in its second term, is a project of the Environment, Nature and Energy Department
of the Flemish Government that aims to catalyze the implementation of environmental ­management
and SD in Flemish higher education. In support of this objective, Ecocampus initiated a participatory
process in 2012 (“Sustainable Higher Education – Beyond Knowledge” or in Dutch “Duurzaam Hoger
Onderwijs – De Kennis Voorbij”) involving different stakeholders such as the higher education sector
itself and other policy areas [6]. This paper is part of that process.
Sustainable
Sustainable
Higher
Higher
Education
Education
17
Thomas Lommée
© Thomas Lommée
‘Open Structures grid’* - ‘Blockbox Toy’
For more information please refer to p.54 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
18
Sustainable Higher Education
* photo © Kristof Vrancken / Z33
2. Sustainable development
2.1 A Society in Transition
In response to global environmental crises and vast social inequalities, world political leadership
formally adopted sustainable development (SD) as a leading development model at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 [7-10].
Embraced by many stakeholders worldwide (e.g. governments, businesses, non-governmental
organizations, higher education, and citizens), SD is deemed highly imperative for the current
and future well-being of humanity and the planetary state (box 1).
Box 1: Sustainable Development State and Objective
Human Development Report, 2009
1212
1010
World average biocapacity per capita in 1961
6
6
4
4
Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)
88
Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)
Human Development Index data from UNDP,
UNDP threshold for high human development
Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006
African countries
Asian countries
World average biocapacity per capita in 2006
European countries
2
2
Latin American and
Caribbean countries
High human development
within the Earth’s limits
North American countries
Oceanian countries
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure: adapted from [11]
The Ecological Wealth of Nations
13
This figure measures SD through two leading indicators, the ecological footprint [12] as a measure for the environmental
state and the human development index (HDI) [13] as a measure of human development (in terms of life expectancy, education, and income). It demonstrates that the current situation is (largely) unsustainable and that global society should
move towards a situation within the environmental limits of the planet and a high human development in terms of HDI.
In essence, SD stands for: [14]
• asolution for environmental and development problems
• asetofprinciplesimplyingpositive objectives
• afocusforpositive change
• acritique on conventional thinking and practice
In spite of past commitments and various SD measures taken, the practical implementation of SD
on societal or global levels falls short [15-19]. Humanity is increasingly exceeding environmental
limits [12, 20, 21] and extreme poverty remain widespread [13]. “Business-as-usual” measures
do not suffice for sustainable development to succeed. Far reaching system changes are needed,
7
Sustainable Higher Education 19
do not suffice for sustainable development to succeed. Far reaching system changes are needed,
which challenge and fundamentally alter our prevailing ways of development, including our fundamental beliefs, values and assumptions regarding what constitutes development [18]. The first
essential and logical step should be to eliminate clearly unsustainable practices [22].
“True, “triple bottom-line” corporate planning is now fairly commonplace; various protocols for
“green-building” compete to influence building codes; “new urbanism,” “smart growth,” and the eco­
cities movement are gaining ground everywhere; hybrid and electric vehicles are increasing their ­market
share; and green consumerism is becoming mainstream in many developed countries—but none of this
activity has made much difference (apart from fostering the illusion of progress).” [18]
From a transition perspective (box 2), society is currently in the beginning of a chaotic and turbulent period of transformation towards a new equilibrium, where structural changes become visible
through the accumulation of various system changes (e.g. socio-cultural, economy, environment,
institutions, technology) – “early acceleration” [23, 24]. However, it is unclear whether or not SD,
understood as a dynamic equilibrium, will be achieved. An unsustainable future is still looming at
the horizon. To many, this depends on society’s “willingness to act”, the choices yet to be made and
the actions yet to be undertaken [24]
Box 2: Transition and Transition Phases
A transition is a shift in a system (e.g. society) from an initial dynamic equilibrium to a new dynamic
equilibrium, in the form of a set of connected and reinforcing changes in different subsystems (e.g. economy, environment, institutions, technology and culture). A transition is a gradual, continuous process of
co-evolution that takes 25 (at least one generation) to 100 years. We can distinguish four phases:
ËËPredevelopment: a dynamic equilibrium where the status quo does not visibly change; there is substantive individual experimentation
ËËTake-off: a process of change gets under way because the state of the system starts to shift
ËËAcceleration: visible structural changes take place through an accumulation and implementation of
socio-cultural, economic, environmental and institutional changes; there is collective learning
ËËStabilization: the speed of societal changes decreases and a new dynamic equilibrium is reached
Figure: Rotmans et al. in [25]
Source: adapted from [23, 25, 26]
20
Sustainable Higher Education
2.2 Definition and Principles
The most popular definition of SD is the one of the report “Our Common Future” [27] also known as
the “Brundtland report” (box 3).
Box 3: Brundtland Definition
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” [27]
The report continues stating:
“It contains within it two key concepts:
ËËthe concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
ËËthe idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.” [27]
While essential for a proper interpretation the two key concepts of the Brundtland definition are
mostly not quoted and often not considered. However, this clarification is important because it
prioritizes the basic needs of the large number of people living in extreme poverty and argues that
failure to meet (basic) human needs and aspirations does not lie with the environmental capabilities
to meet these needs – it is not a problem of physical environmental limits or resource availability –
but is due to humanity’s social organization and state of technology – or in other words a shortcoming of human decision making.
The report also clarifies the content of the required change processes and as such renders its famous
sustainability definition more concrete and operational:
“In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resour­
ces, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional
change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and
aspirations.” [27]
While definitions abound, SD conceptualizations must contain several “principles” or “rules of
­action” (box 4) that must always be respected no matter which view one amounts to. Nevertheless,­
SD, also requires “interpretative flexibility” that allows to take into account the local socio-­
environ­mental­context (e.g. the view of local stakeholders) but always respecting its principles [28,
29].
Sustainable Higher Education 21
Box 4: Sustainability Principles or Rules of Action
ËËNormativity (SD is a social construct and basically amounts to making normative decisions and
­choices, which are ultimately based on the values we maintain about the way we develop)
ËËEquity (refers to “justice/fairness” in the way we develop and includes inter/intra-generational equity
(not compromising the ability of future and current generations to meet their own needs/aspirations),
interspecies equity (environmental stewardship that refers to the survival of other species on an equal
basis to human survival), geographical equity (global responsibility in a spirit of “shared but differentiated responsibility”), and procedural equity (democratic and participatory governance)
ËËIntegration (of the different sustainability principles in an harmonious manner to reconcile socioeconomic and development objectives with environmental ones)
ËËDynamism (SD is a process of change because the environment and society change continuously,
­entailing uncertainties and risks that need a precautionary approach)
Source: [28]
22
Sustainable Higher Education
3. Sustainable Higher Education
3.1 Why Should Higher Education Engage in ­
Sustainable Development?
Sustainable higher education has emerged in response to calls for universities to lead society
towards a sustainable future [30-34] and is considered a distinct but interdisciplinary
specialization of study and practice within sustainability science [35, 36] and education for SD
[36, 37]. Higher education is generally seen as a major (potential) catalyst to work towards
SD [2-4]. The urgent societal need and broad call for SD allow higher education to assume a
fundamental and moral responsibility in contributing to SD [3, 30]. Through their societal
mandate of advancing knowledge, educating leaders, and furthering societal progress and
engagement [38], institutions of higher education should be moral visionaries and centres of
sustainability innovation and excellence. As ‘learning laboratories,’ campuses are to provide the
lived experience of sustainable communities [39].
As major contributors to the values, health and well being of society, higher education has a
fundamental responsibility to teach, train and do research for sustainability. We believe that
the success of higher education in the twenty-first century will be judged by our ability to put
forward a bold agenda that makes sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic
practice. [40]
This is a challenging task, recognizing that higher education (still) contributes to and sometimes
even accelerates the sustainability crisis [41, 42], which is visualized in box 1.
The scope and range of the negative impacts of university-educated people on the natural
systems that sustain Earth are unprecedented. [43] and as Orr [31] states, the sustainability
crisis is not so much the work of ignorant people but “[…] largely the result of work by people
with BA’s, B.Sc.’s, LLB’s, MBA’s and PhD’s.” [31]
Several reasons to take up this challenging task are listed in box 5.
7
Sustainable Higher Education 23
Box 5: Reasons to engage
ËËStudent interest: increasingly students are expecting institutions to address sustainability
issues and consider this as a criterion in selecting a place to study
ËËResearch funding: increasingly funding agencies expect higher education to deal with SD in
their research
ËËQuality assurance: education for SD contributes to quality education and pedagogical quality
assurance
ËËCommunity outreach: SD offers the opportunity to “reach out” to the (local) community and
to contribute/provide leadership to the community’s transition towards SD
ËËEmployability: to improve employability and recruitment because employers are seeking
graduates with sustainability competences
ËËAccountability: increasingly institutions are held accountable for their sustainability performance by stakeholders
ËËMoral obligation: considering the urgent need for SD and the historical role of higher education in transforming societies and serving the greater public good, institutions have a moral
obligation to lead society towards sustainability
Source: adapted from [44, 45]
3.2 Declarations
Demonstrating their commitment since the 1990s, and as a first step on the institutional level,
higher education institutions worldwide have increasingly embraced the SD movement and more
than 1000 institutions have signed international declarations towards implementing SD: Talloires
Declaration (1990), Halifax Declaration (1991), Kyoto Declaration (1993), Swansea Declaration
(1993), COPERNICUS Charter (1994), Thessaloniki Declaration (1997), Lüneburg Declaration
(2000), Barcelona Declaration (2004), Graz Declaration (2005), Turin Declaration (2009) and Abuja
Declaration (2009) [33, 34]. Box 6 describes the major themes that occurred in these declarations.
In Flanders, most universities have signed the COPERNICUS Charter [5] which commits the university to implement SD in all their activities including research, education, public service and campus
operations (and other higher education institutions). Further, the International Association of
Universities [46] considers SD as an integral part of the higher education mission, next to democratization and internationalization.
Becoming a signatory to a declaration is only the beginning of the process toward achieving
sustainability within universities. Much remains to be done for SD to become genuinely and fully
implemented and for higher education to become a true leader in SD [3, 33].
24 doelgroepenbeleid@vlaanderen.be
Sustainable Higher Education
| 02 553 27 71
Box 6: Declaration’s Points of Action
ËËFocus on environmental degradation, threats to society, and unsustainable consumption
ËËMoral obligation of higher education to engage in SD
ËËInclusion of SD in curricula in all disciplines
ËËEncouragement of sustainability science
ËËMove towards more sustainability oriented physical operations
ËËCollaboration among institutions of higher education and with stakeholders
ËËEngage in public outreach for SD
ËËPromoting transdisciplinarity
ËËImplementing sustainability through campus experiences, by incorporating sustainability
into the day-to-day activities of institutions
ËËEducating-the-educators on education for SD
ËËIncluding sustainability in the institutional framework, where sustainability should evolve as
the “golden thread” integrating all of these
Source: adapted from [33, 34]
3.3 A Whole Systems Approach
SD has implications for the entire higher education system and at the organizational level for the
entire institution, including: higher education public policy; its traditional threefold mission of
education, research, public service; internationalization; democratization; innovation; campus/
physical operations; student life; organizational structures and cultures; reporting and assessment;
and ethics [47-51].
To date, most efforts in the emerging field of sustainable higher education have been focused
on education (curricula/teaching) and campus operations, in particular environmental courses/
programs and environmental management [3]. However, this field is increasingly dealing with
research as well as assessment and reporting. Public service as a cross-cutting issue [52] is also
addressed. The attention paid to the establishment of “Regional Centres of Expertise” as platforms
for local collaborative learning for SD, involving all types of learning (formal, non-formal and
informal) is a good example. In this paper we focus on education, research, public service as a
transversal theme and physical operations.
Sustainable higher education needs to go beyond integrating SD in higher education that results
in SD becoming an “add-on” to existing practices by instead integrating higher education in SD
implying fundamental changes and requiring a holistic and systemic view (see box 7) [48, 49, 51,
53]. From this perspective, sustainable higher education deals with the (re)orientation of higher
education towards SD through the implementation of its principles. Therefore, and after Sterling [51,
54] we prefer the term “sustainable higher education” over “sustainability “in” higher education”,
Sustainable Higher Education 25
similar for education, research and campus operations used hereafter.
Sterling [51] states it as follows:
“[…] the effect of patterns of unsustainability on our current and future prospects is so pressing that the
response of higher education should not be predicated only on “the integration of sustainability” into
higher education, because this invites a limited, adaptive, response. […] we need to see the relationship
the other way around – that is, the necessary transformation of higher education towards the integrative
and more whole state implied by a systemic view of sustainability in education and society […]” [51]
In this sense Rees [55] speaks of “reinventing” instead of “changing” higher education:
“Schools, colleges and universities should be engaged in a deliberate process of reinventing themselves
and, in the process, helping to reinvent society. If our prevailing cultural myth has become maladaptive,
we should be engaged in constructing another, one whose derivative political philosophies will better
map to biophysical reality.” [55]
The University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF), which was during the 1990s a leading
organization regarding sustainable higher education and the secretariat of the Talloires declaration
states it this way:
“[Sustainable higher education] implies that the critical activities of a higher education institution
are ecologically sound, socially just and economically viable, and that they will continue to be so for
future generations. A truly sustainable college or university would emphasize these concepts in its
curriculum and research, preparing students to contribute as working citizens to an environmentally
healthy and equitable society. The institution would function as a sustainable community, embodying
responsible consumption of energy, water, and food, and supporting sustainable development in its
local community and region.” [40]
26
Sustainable Higher Education
Box 7: Whole Systems Approach
Sustainable higher education requires a holistic and systemic approach for at least the following
reasons:
ËË1. it targets the whole system at the macro level and at the micro/institutional level
ËË2. it requires fundamental or deep system transformations going beyond “add-on” implementation and fragmentation
A whole-systems approach addresses the whole system, recognizes that higher education is composed of interdependent subsystems and implies that all subsystems and their interlinkages should
be considered together for sustainable higher education as a dynamic equilibrium to be achieved
[49, 51]. This conceptualization is presented in the graph below.
In general a number of shifts moving “from” – “to” could be identified: [51]
ËËIncoherence and fragmentation
ËËLarge scale, loss of connectivity
ËËClosed community
ËËTeaching organization
ËËMicrocosm of unsustainable society
è
è
è
è
è
Systemic coherence and positive synergy
Human scale, high connectivity
Open, ‘permeable’ community
Learning organization
Microcosm of sustainable society
n m e nt
o
r
i
v
En
Education
Campus
Operations
Hi
gher
Research
Public Service
Edu
n
o
i
cat
Sustainable Higher Education 27
Buster Simpson
© Buster Simpson, ‘Host Analog 1991’*, Oregon Convention Center, Portland, Oregon
For more information please refer to p.43 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
28
Sustainable Higher Education
* © Buster Simpson
4.Sustainable Education
4.1 Definition, Concepts and Principles
SD requires alternative ways of learning and education (see box 8) [56-58] and whilst in general
all education is considered as a good thing and the more of it the better “the truth is that without
significant precautions, education can equip people merely to be more effective vandals of the
Earth” [59].
Formal education is a type of learning that is institutionalized and that aims at realizing
defined learning competences (values/attitudes, skills and knowledge) for defined target
groups. Learning is the result of continuous interaction of an individual or a group with its
physical and social environment, and includes formal (e.g. the educational system), nonformal (e.g. training on the job), and informal learning (e.g. family life and leisure time) [60].
To address the need for alternative ways of learning and education, sustainable higher
education emerged during the 1990s [61] and at the beginning of this century the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched the Decade
for Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). The objective of the decade is:
[…] to integrate the principles, values and practices of sustainable development into all aspects
of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes in behaviour that will
create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability and a
just society for present and future generations. [62]
Box 8: Definition, Concepts and Principles of Education
“Education for sustainable development aims to help people to develop the attitudes, skills,
­perspectives and knowledge to make informed decisions and act upon them for the benefit of
themselves and others, now and in the future. ESD helps the citizens of the world to learn their way
to a more sustainable future.” [63]
Concepts or key words that often appear in definition of education for SD include: [64]
ËËcreation of awareness
ËËlocal and global vision
ËËresponsibility
ËËlearning to change
ËËparticipation
ËËlifelong learning
ËËcritical thinking
ËËsystemic approach and understanding complexity
7
Sustainable Higher Education 29
4.2 Competences and Learning/Teaching Approaches
ËËdecision-making
ËËinterdisciplinarity
ËËproblem-solving
ËËsatisfying the needs of the present without compromising future generations
The following principles of education for SD could be distinguished: [64]
ËËa transformative and reflective process that seeks to integrate values and perceptions of
­sustainability into not only education systems but one’s everyday personal and professional life;
ËËa means of empowering people with new knowledge and skills to help resolve common issues
that challenge global society’s collective life now and in the future;
ËËa holistic approach to achieve economic and social justice and respect for all life;
ËËa means to improve the quality of basic education, to reorient existing educational programmes
and to raise awareness
4.2 Competences and Learning/Teaching Approaches
One of the critical roles of higher education is to prepare future policy- and decision makers in taking
up an active role in society (Cortese, 2003). Taking into account this crucial role of higher education,
(all) students should be equipped with the necessary competences to cope with complex sustainability challenges [65-67]: [68]
ËËstudents should know about sustainability (knowledge)
ËËstudents should have the skills to act sustainably (skills)
ËËstudents should have the personal and emotional attributes that require them to behave
sustainably (values/attitudes)
Obviously, sustainable education goes beyond establishing a “knowledge base” for SD [56, 69].
Competence based education offers opportunities to re-examine and reorient educational policy
and systems towards sustainability [70].
Competences for SD exist in various forms, definitions, settings and interpretations. Several authors
defined these competences [57, 67, 71, 72], offering a complete set of knowledge, skills, values, and
attitudes, necessary to ensure that students are able to cope with the complexity and uncertainty
of sustainability issues. We introduce the partial list of competences developed by Rieckmann [67]
(box 9) because this list reflects the consensus view on most important competences, developed by
an international group of education for SD experts.
30
Sustainable Higher Education
Box 9: Competences of Education for Sustainable Development
ËËCompetency for systemic thinking and handling of complexity
ËËCompetency for anticipatory thinking
ËËCompetency for critical thinking
ËËCompetency for acting fairly and ecologically
ËËCompetency for cooperation in (heterogeneous) groups
ËËCompetency for participation
ËËCompetency for empathy and change of perspective
ËËCompetency for interdisciplinary work
ËËCompetency for communication and use of media
ËËCompetency for planning and realising innovative projects
ËËCompetency for evaluation
ËËCompetency for ambiguity and frustration tolerance
Source: [67]
Important to note is that both in international policy discourse and in the sustainable education
literature, issues of sustainable development are usually seen as matters of individual learning, as
problems that can be tackled by applying proper learning strategies. Yet, translating sustainable
education into a process of qualification is not unproblematic. In the context of sustainability, readymade solutions and uncontested truths are rare. Nevertheless, the consequences of sustainability
issues are far-reaching and cause social controversy. Wals [73] highlights this as a paradox between
the sense of urgency emerging from a deep concern about the state of the planet and the conviction
that it is wrong to persuade people to adopt pre- and expert-determined ways of thinking and acting.
This challenges our dominant conception of education and shifts the focus from the competences
that students must acquire to the democratic nature of educational practices in which students
can participate. What it means to be a citizen should not be defined in advance. It can only emerge
within the engagement in all kind of educational practices. Lawy and Biesta [74] call this perspective
‘citizenship-as-practice’. It is a perspective on citizenship that touches upon the ambivalence of
belonging to a globalising and diverse society today. A world where there is no universal, rational
answer to contemporary challenges, but a plurality of voices. Central to this second concept is a
more direct concern with the contingency of deliberation and the interactional base of citizenship.
It requires alternative ways of teaching and learning [51, 57, 75, 76] as summarized in box 10.
Sustainable Higher Education 31
Box 10: Shifts in Learning and Teaching Approaches for Sustainable Development
è
ËËTransmissive learning
ËËTeacher-centred approach è
ËËIndividual learning è
ËËTheory dominated learning è
ËËEmphasis on cognitive objectives only
è
ËËInstitutional, staff-based teaching/learning è
ËËLow-level cognitive learning
è
ËËAccumulating knowledge and content
è
orientation
Learning through discovery
Learner-centred approach
Collaborative learning
Praxis-oriented learning (theory & experience)
Cognitive affective and skills-oriented objectives
Learning with and from outsiders
Higher-level cognitive learning
Self-regulative learning and real issue orientation
Source: [76]
We should underline that sustainable education targets “all” students. Therefore, and adopting a
holistic perspective, sustainable education is not solely about separate courses or programs but
also, and more fundamentally about, integrating SD and its implications for education in existing
and traditional ones [77].
32
Sustainable Higher Education
5. Sustainable Research
5.1 Research Needs
It is generally acknowledged that research, as a generator of new knowledge, including the
one conducted at universities, is pivotal for SD. The ‘‘Declaration on Science and the Use of
Scientific Knowledge’’, adopted at the World Conference on Science, held in Budapest in 1999
and co-organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU), firmly states:
The sciences should be at the service of humanity as a whole, and should contribute to providing
everyone with a deeper understanding of nature and society, a better quality of life and a
sustainable and healthy environment for present and future generations. [78]
However, there is an increasing recognition that conventional and prevailing research practice
falls short and does not adequately address the research requirements of SD [79]. New
approaches are needed because the organizing principles of SD (e.g. its normative nature
and the integration of environment and development) require specific scientific demands
[80]. Being part of the problem, simply more of the same kind – “business as usual” – cannot
be considered the solution [3].
Conventional research is based on static and reductionist approaches, whereas SD requires
dynamic and holistic ones. Imperative is the need to focus on linkages between the biological,
chemical, economic, geological, physical, political and social systems, and to search for
dynamic and cross-systemic explanations [79]. In this sense, Lubchenko [81] calls for a new
‘‘social contract’’ for research. By recognizing the extent of human domination of the planet,
the new social contract should express a commitment: [81]
ËËto harness the full power of the scientific enterprise in discovering new knowledge
ËËin communicating existing and new understanding to the public and to policy-makers
ËËin helping society to create a more sustainable world
5.2 Research Characteristics
Anticipating the research requirements of SD, a “vibrant movement” of various disciplines is
emerging [82] applying a wide variety of scientific approaches, often through multi-, inter- and
transdisciplinary modes, as a way of social learning. Social learning is about developing creative
answers to challenges that are new, unexpected, uncertain, conflicting and hard to predict
[83]. The notion of ‘social learning’ points at the opportunity in real life settings to (a) increase
the reflective and reflexive capacities of researchers, and (b) create conditions of democratic
participation enabling a maximum mobilization of capacities of different stakeholders involved.
7
Sustainable Higher Education 33
Sustainability science can be applied as a generic term describing research performed in a solutionoriented context of social relevance, characterized by complexity, uncertainty and the importance
of values in support of SD [84]. Scholars have proposed specific terms & initiatives describing the
characteristics of sustainability science (box 11):
• mode 2 science [85]
• post-normal science [80]
• sustainability science [86]
Box 11: Characteristics of Sustainability Science
ËËMulti-, inter- and intra-disciplinarity
ËËCo-production of knowledge & participation (transdisciplinarity)
ËËNormative
ËËSystemic integration
ËËExploratory character
ËËRecognizing its own limitations and assumptions
ËËLearning-oriented perspective
ËËProduction of socially robust and socially relevant knowledge
ËËAttention to system innovation and transition
Source: [84]
Sustainability science does not replace but rather complements conventional approaches to
scientific inquiry, which are necessary when it comes to SD. For example, disciplinary research
applying traditional disciplinary scientific approaches is a sine qua non for excellent multi-, interand transdisciplinary research for SD [3].
However, and similar to sustainable education if one were to adopt a whole systems perspective, it
is not only about the establishment of a new and additional “vibrant arena” of sustainability science,
but rather about the (re)orientation of all research towards SD. This implies taking into account
the particular implications of SD for various established ways of scientific practice. In this sense,
research practiced in higher education for SD could be defined as:
“all research conducted within the institutional context of higher education that contributes to
sustainable development” (adapted from [3])
While further exploration and development are necessary, several generic characteristics of such
a holistic approach for research in higher education for SD are introduced in box 12. It should be
noted, however, that several tensions remain, such as the need for inter-/transdisciplinary versus
disciplinary research; problem-oriented (applied) versus knowledge-oriented (fundamental)
34
Sustainable Higher Education
research; and the fundamental question whether or not all characteristics should be considered
together [3].
Box 12: Holistic Characteristics of Sustainable Research
ËËAction orientation
ËËContinuity
ËËEnvironmental, safety and security management
ËËIndependence
ËËKnowledge transfer
ËËLocal–global level of scale
ËËLocal knowledge
ËËMultidimensionality
ËËMulti-/interdisciplinarity
ËËParticipation
ËËPrecautionary principle and uncertainty
ËËPublic interest
ËËShort, medium and long term perspective (intergenerationality)
ËËSocietal peer review
ËËSustainability impact
ËËSustainability relevance
ËËTransparency
Source: [3]
Sustainable Higher Education 35
Koen Vanmechelen
36
© Koen Van Mechelen, Mechelse Silky - CCP14*, 2010
For more information please refer to p.82 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
photo © Koen Vanmechelen
6. Sustainable Campus Operations
Campus operations are supportive to the scholarly mission of the university, and should also
be (re)-oriented towards SD for at least two reasons. First, “greening” campus operations
can improve an institution’s environmental, institutional and socio-economic performances.
Second, by reorienting campus operations toward SD the institution models pro-sustainability
behaviour and provides an informal way of learning about sustainability for the academic
community – “practice what you preach”.
Sustainable campus operations up until now mostly dealt with the environmental management
of higher education institutions [3] in order to reduce the environmental impact of their
various activities. However (re)orienting campus operations towards SD is much broader
than recycling programs and energy efficiency and includes socio-economic objectives and
stakeholder participation as well [87, 88].
For example, the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) [88], adopts such a
broad perspective and distinguishes two broad categories. The first is Environment, which
is subdivided into the following dimensions: 1) air, 2) water, 3) land, 4) materials and 5)
energy. The second category is People which is subdivided into the following: 1) knowledge,
2) community, 3) governance, 4) economy and wealth, and 5) health and well-being. Each of
these is further subdivided in a number of elements (box 13) [89].
7
Sustainable Higher Education 37
Box 13: Characteristics of Sustainable Campus Operations
Environmental Dimensions
Elements
Air
Indoor
Indoor air quality is largely concerned with
human health. Older buildings often have
poor ventilation, and may have mold, asbestos and other pollutant issues. New spaces
can have materials that off-gas potentially
hazardous chemicals in to the air. By ensuring
good quality indoor air, a healthier and more
productive work force and academic community will result.
Outdoor
Outdoor air quality deals with outdoor
air quality issues, including both negative
­impacts, and potential improvements that
campuses can make to enhance outdoor
air quality. Although many campuses will
be ­affected by outdoor air quality impacts
that are not directly caused by the campus
community, this is still an important issue
to understand and take action on. It deals
with greenhouse gases, and other emissions
­produced by campus energy consumption,
and also the quality of air being vented to the
exterior environment from specific high-risk
locations.
Water
Consumption
Water consumption is concerned with the
amount of water (re)used on campus, in
­particular water savings and the appropriate
use of potable and rain water.
Management
The active management of water infrastructure and use is important for understanding the system, operating it at maximum
efficiency, and minimizing water use and
­
38
Sustainable Higher Education
waste (e.g. leaking fixtures, leaking water distribution infrastructure, management of water use information at an appropriate scale,
on-site wastewater treatment, and water
­
­efficient fixture installation).
Wastewater
Wastewater quality is an important sustainability issue for the campus, the surrounding
community, and the receiving ecosystem. It
is an ecosystem and human health issue that
is often not effectively addressed by university campuses.
Land
Managed greenspace
Managed greenspace includes all permeable
(i.e. not paved, and water can penetrate)
­surfaces on campus that are managed in some
way, including lawns, landscaped beds (with
both native and non-native plant species),
gardens, agricultural lands, gravel walkways,
etc. Any greenspace on campus that ­requires
maintenance by university staff should be
­included. These areas are important contributors to campus sustainability both in terms
of human and ecosystem well-being.
Natural areas
Natural areas include all permeable spaces
on campus that are in a natural or semi natural state. Both degraded and healthy eco­
systems should be included. Many campuses
have large tracts of natural areas that they
should work to maintain, protect and even
enhance over time in order to protection
­local biodiversity and habitat.
Sustainable Higher Education 39
Intensity of use
The intensity of land use address the issues
of open space, sprawling versus compact
growth, built space achieved with reducing
impacts of impermeable building footprints,
and the compact/sprawling qualities of
­parking facilities.
Materials
Buildings
Buildings deal with the sustainable
construction­and use of building on campus.
Buildings require an immense amount of resources in their design and use, especially
when aggregated over the whole lifetime
that the building is in use.
Paper
Paper may seem like a relatively arbitrary
material to focus on, but universities tend
to use an extraordinary amount of paper in
their day-to-day operations and functions.
It ­represents a large environmental impact
of most universities and changes in the purchase and use of this material offer great
­otential for environmental improvements.
Food
The ecological and socio-economic impact of
foods consumed on most campuses is huge,
including its choice, production and transportation. Local food, produced in a sustainable
way should be preferred reducing the negative
environmental impact and socio-economic
effects, while promoting the local economy.
Equipment
Equipment purchases are major investments,
and purchase decisions should be based on
40
Sustainable Higher Education
a range of issues, not just the cheapest initial
purchase price. Product durability and ease
of repair are important for longevity. Energy,
water, and other resource consumption over
time should also be considered in product
purchase. Life-cycle assessment approach is
an appropriate way to deal with it.
Waste
Solid waste reduction and waste management are important campus sustaina­
bility
issues. Hazardous materials – in minute
concentrations – can have devastating
­
­effects on both humans and the ecosystems.
Campuses tend to use a large volume of
­hazardous materials, primarily for laboratory
teaching and research purposes. Often they
are even stockpiled for many years, creating a
potential hazard for the campus community.
Energy
Sources
Energy sources deals with the sources of
­energy that fuel educational institution, and
how far they must travel before reaching
your campus. There are many energy source
options available today, and some are much
more ecologically and socially responsible
than others (e.g. renewables versus non-­
renewables)
Management
There are many management options
available to campuses to greatly reduce
­
energy consumption. Energy conservation
­
has long been a sustainability issue, especially in terms of cost-efficiency but also to allow
renewables to replace unsustainable energy
sources.
Sustainable Higher Education 41
People Dimensions
Elements
Knowledge
Training
Ongoing training for campus community
members on social and ecological sustainability issues is important for continued
learning on these topics as new and em­erging
information becomes available. Training in
general is also important as part of human
resource management in terms of personnel
development and job satisfaction.
Research
See section 5
Curriculum
See section 4
Health & well-being
Recreation
Physical and social activity leads to improved
human wellbeing through activation of the
body and mind. It is important for c­ ampuses
to support and encourage recreation on
­campus for these reasons.
Food
Access to healthy, nutritious, safe, and
sustainable food products on campus
­
is ­
critical to the wellbeing of a campus
­community.
Safety
All campuses should work to protect the
personal safety of their students, staff,
­
­faculty and visitors, as this is essential for
long-term social sustainability.
Health services
The provision of on-campus services to
­promote and protect the physical and mental wellbeing of the campus community is an
­important aspect of campus sustainability.
42
Sustainable Higher Education
Environmental Dimensions
Elements
Environment
As a vital convergence in sustainability work
on campus environmental issues should be
specifically linked with human well-being.
Issues that have potential impacts on both
humans and ecosystems together should be
addressed (e.g. accessible green space, noise
and light pollution)
Economy & wealth
Individual (accessibility, university as employer)
Post-secondary education should be fairly
accessible for students (democratization). It
deals with the balance between the costs of
education, and the financial support available
to students to counter these costs. It also
­addresses how the university performs as an
employer in terms of pay equity, wage gap,
and benefits provided.
Institutional (income, expenditures, investments)
Higher education institutions are often
showing a trend of incomes shifting away
from government sources towards student
and corporate sources. CSAF promotes
­government financed post-secondary education as the sustainability choice.
The power of a campus’ investments is an
often underrated or unexamined element of
campus sustainability. As societal innovators,
a campus has a responsibility to both the­­
on- and off-campus communities to invest
in a socially and ecologically responsible
­manner.
Sustainable Higher Education 43
Governance
Policy (university
go­vern­ment)
government,
student
To manage institutions of higher educations
various policies, including those ­
specific
to SD are required. However, a policy is
only ­arguably as good as the mechanisms
in place to ensure its implementation and
­enforcement. Nevertheless it represents an
important commitment by high-level uni­
versity management and students to certain
­issues.
Implementation (university
student government)
government,
Implementation deals with how well the
­university’s and student’s policies are ­working:
do they have working groups, are the working
groups inclusive of different i­nterest groups,
and do the working groups have the ear of
a high-level campus administrator. Sustainability in terms of governance ­requires both a
strong policy and implementation structure.
Both staff and funding are required to ­deliver
on policy objectives, and their associated­
­implementation plans. All three must work
in harmony to make ­progress toward sustainability.
Monitoring (university government, student
government)
The performance of campus sustainability
policies should be monitored and reported.
Transparency in university and student
governance is an important sustainability­
­
issue, and both the on- and off-campus
­
communities affected by the campus
­
­operations and functions should have access
to information on performance, and ideally
to influence future policy and implementation planning decisions as well.
44
Sustainable Higher Education
Community
Involvement & cohesion
A community with involved and ­
engaged
citizens has a much better chance of ­making
coordinated and cooperative ­
­
progress
­towards sustainability. Community ­cohesion
is the on-going process of d
­eveloping
a ­
community of shared values, shared
­challenges, and equal opportunity, based on
a sense of trust, hope, and reciprocity.
Diversity (disabilities, ethnicity, gender)
Active promotion of employment equity for
faculty and staff, and for recruitment and
­accessibility equity for students for people
living with disabilities is a vital component of
social sustainability on the campus.
The hiring and recruitment policies and
practices of universities should be designed
to fully include this diversity in the campus
community to promote equity, and the crosscultural sharing of ideas and knowledge for
enhanced learning.
Services
Provision of accessible services that are
available on campus promote campus
­
commu­
nity, well-being, and thus sustain­
ability.
Source: [89]
As illustrated above, characteristics of sustainability in higher education must transcend
traditional notions of environmental management of campus to include human elements of
sustainability in order to truly embrace the full meaning of the term.
Sustainable Higher Education 45
Cesar Harada
© Cesar Harada
‘Protei: Open Hardware for the Ocean’
For more information please refer to p.59 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
46
Sustainable Higher Education
* © 3D image: Cesar Harada
7. Managing Change in Institutions
7.1 A General Framework
Implementing SD in institutions of higher education implies moving from a current situation
towards a desired situation (a period of transition). Research shows that such a process of
change requires at least six key elements for success: [1, 90]
ËËAdvocacy is the impetus to begin the change movement
ËËPolicy addressing the proposed change(s) is required
ËËResources for the change movement are imperative
ËËLeadership is the key for a successful change movement
ËËWell-defined means and agreed upon ends are important success factors
ËËEducation in and out of the classroom for students and employees is the primary mean and
end
Box 14: Change Management
Figure 1. Model for institunional change
Impetus to begin change
Advocacy
Leadership
(quasi-institutionalized)
Policy
ËËStudents / Faculty
ËËDiffuse
ËËIrregular
ËËIn the ‘shadows’
ËËBottum-up & top-down
convergence
ËËPersonnel
ËËMoney
ËËInformation / Data
ËËPower
ËËIncentives
ËËConsensual
ËËSupport/Justification
ËËCommunication
ËËApplied, not rhetorical
(Mean/End/Education)
Powerfull
Communicator/
Facilitator
Leader(s)
(institutionalized)
Ends
ËËImplementation plans
ËËGoals to achieve
ËËCannot be rigid
ËË(Education)
Source: [1]
Advocate/Lobbyist
Supported by
institution
Change Agent
Charismatic
Means &
Resources
Education
ËËActive, not spontaneous
ËËEducate decision makers
ËËAddress resistance
ËËCommunicate to campus
ËËEventually, reaches society
7
Sustainable Higher Education 47
7.2 Barriers to Sustainability in Higher Education
Implementing sustainability is not an easy task [50]. It is complex, confusing and time ­consuming,
and there are many uncertainties and various stakeholders should be involved [41]. There is often
resistance to change, evident through the large number of barriers to change, which should be
­identified, addressed and overcome.
There are many barriers that higher education encounters in working toward sustainability. Box 15
provides an overview of challenges and barriers.
Box 15: Barriers to change
ËËDisciplinary organizational structure hindering integrative thinking and interdisciplinary cooperation and learning
ËËSD is perceived as an “add-on”, not a built-in aspect of higher education
ËËLack of vision and prioritization/leadership of SD among higher education leaders
ËËLack of awareness, common understanding and knowledge of sustainability in higher education and
its consequences
ËËPerceived lack of scientific basis of sustainability
ËËConfusion about SD
ËËBroadness of SD
ËËLack of coordination and vision to change sustainability policies and education at government level
ËËLittle or no motivation or realism
ËËSustainability is considered to be radical
ËËChanges into curricula are translated into budget claims
ËËOvercrowded curricula
ËËSustainability is considered to have little or no relevance to the discipline, its courses and research
ËËLack of (financial) resources and uncertainty about the required efforts/resources to engage and
implement sustainability
ËËThreat to academic credibility of scholars and teachers
Source: adapted from [91-95]
In addition to documenting barriers, we provide in box 16 some answers to criticisms of sustain­
ability sceptics often heard within academia [45].
48
Sustainable Higher Education
Box 16: Typical Criticisms and Potential Answers to Sustainability Sceptics
Academic freedom (“Being expected to integrate sustainability into my teaching interferes with
­academic freedom.”)
è
It is perhaps debatable just how free universities and individual academics are given Government,
funding council and internal policies, and tied funding sources, but this point aside, most academics
have considerable choice over if, how and where to embed sustainability, even if it is part of their
­university’s policy.
Ideology (“Promoting sustainability is promoting an ideology and that is not the job of higher education.”)
è
Most academics would agree that it is the job of higher education to promote critical inquiry and
reflection. This particularly applies to sustainability issues, which are often contentious and complex.
That said, there are a broad range of ideological positions associated with sustainability/unsustain­
ability debates and higher education is well placed to bring a critical lens to the discourses associated
with this field of inquiry.
Floodgates (“If sustainability, why not a whole raft of other areas – where’s it going to stop?”)
è
This view tends to see sustainability as a separate and contained area competing for attention,
whereas it is more accurately seen as a dimension, backdrop, approach or context that can inform and
enrich most areas of curriculum concern.
Apathy (“If students aren’t interested, it’s not my job to sell sustainability.”)
è
It’s not higher education’s job to ‘sell’ anything, but arguably, it’s higher education’s responsibility
to anticipate and prepare graduates for the world they will inherit and give them competencies to cope
with and shape the social, economic, environmental and political pressures and influences they will
undoubtedly encounter.
Rapid change (“There’s enough change happening in the sector – now isn’t a good time to take on any
more!”)
è
Sustainability issues – including the sustainability of any particular institution itself – are very
much part of the shifting agenda that higher education now faces. With policy advancing towards the
low carbon economy and the need for green skills, universities need to get ahead of the game.
Source: [45]
Sustainable Higher Education 49
7.3 Ways Forward
To move forward in the transition towards sustainable higher education, various concrete steps have
been identified (box 17), also in response to several change barriers.
Box 17: Ways Forward
1. Assess & Measure
Develop assessment frameworks and indicators to assess the progress of sustainability in h
­ igher
­education at the institutional, regional, national and international level. This step is key in order to
translate the concept of sustainability into a decision-making strategy. Indicators should make
­sustainable higher education measurable and demonstrable.
2. Communicate
Communicate regularly about the implementation of sustainability to all –internal and externalstakeholders. Institutions should publish regularly sustainability reports to demonstrate commitment
and accountability.
3. Engage Stakeholders
Develop innovative and creative initiatives to engage the university community (including external
stakeholders) in discussions about the role higher education can play in the transition towards SD and
in developing an institutional understanding, culture, vision, mission and planning on sustainability in
higher education. This will ultimately lead to ownership, empowerment, participation and willingness
to contribute to and be responsible for change. Public outreach, through environmental communi­
cation, is an effective vector in social change and should be used to make sustainability a cultural norm
on campuses.
4. Make Concrete
Implement sustainability into the everyday life of all on campus and go beyond abstract
­conceptualizations that do not relate to the day-to-day work.
5. Multiply
Achieve a multiplier effect by encouraging people involved in innovative sustainable experiments and
practices to share their experiences.
6. Meet Needs
Understand and meet individual needs in the quest for sustainability: customize the approach to
­sustainability in higher education for various stakeholders (academics and non-academics).
7. Promote Understanding
Promote a deeper and more meaningful understanding of SD among societal leaders and decisionmakers of all stakeholders (for example higher education actors, business, politicians and citizens). This
can be achieved through forums and discussions in which the interpretational limits of sustainability
are clarified in a participatory way.
50
Sustainable Higher Education
8. Incorporate in Quality Education
Include SD criteria in pedagogical quality insurance mechanisms.
9. Reward
Support the development of an innovative incentive system for academics: quality indicators and
­tenure criteria acknowledging and rewarding inter-and trans-disciplinary work for SD should be
­developed and adopted. This means academics have to move beyond disciplinary boundaries.
10. Educate University Wide
Promote the development of university-wide educational programmes that allow students to learn for
SD, going beyond “business as usual” disciplinary categorizations.
11. Promote Empowering
Promote the development of an active and empowering curriculum focused on creating change for
a sustainable future. Adopt new ways of teaching that incorporate experiential and transformative
learning techniques so that students can translate knowledge into positive actions.
12. Create Management Positions
Create campus sustainability manager positions to facilitate the realization of sustainability in higher
education. A sustainability officer should be standard at every higher education institution.
13. Develop and Participate in Networks
Develop regional, national, and international networks of (non-) academics engaging in research in the
field of sustainability in higher education. Higher education institutions should start to engage within
existing networks as a first step in making sustainability in higher education effective through collaborative partnership and intellectual exchange.
14. Engage in Regional SD Initiatives
Linked to this networking, engage in regional SD initiatives and participate in regional centres for
­sustainability learning (for example “Regional Centres of Expertise” supported by the United Nations
University).
15. Develop Research Priorities
Further develop research priorities and comprehensive research strategies in the field of sustainability
in higher education to gain (further) insights in critical issues necessary to advance the field.
16. (Re)orient Public Higher Education Policy and Funding
Governmental subsidy programmes should stimulate sustainability in higher education initiatives and
collaboration and networking at all levels (regional, national, international).
Source: adapted from (Granados et al., 2012, Lozano, 2006, Rikers and de Snoo et al., 2012, Wright and
Heather, 2012)
Sustainable Higher Education 51
Additionally, Sterling [45] introduces a simple but effective ‘first step’ model – the “4 Rs model” – to
change the direction of higher education towards SD: [45]
ËËRetain (keep what is useful, valid and relevant for SD)
ËËRevise (modify what is partially useful, valid and relevant but what needs some updating/
revision for SD)
ËËReject (abandon what is not useful, invalid/contradictory or irrelevant for SD)
ËËRenew (innovate regarding what is further needed for SD besides what can be retained/
modified)
52 doelgroepenbeleid@vlaanderen.be
Sustainable Higher Education
| 02 553 27 71
8. Conclusions and
Recommendations
In an era of dramatic human-induced environmental problems and failing socio-economic
and institutional systems, seriously threatening the well-being of current and future
generations, it is widely recognized that higher education has the ethical and moral
responsibility to transform itself to become a leading force in catalysing societal changes for
sustainable development. Central to its “raison d’être” higher education has always been at
the forefront of societal developments and progress through their traditional mandates of
education, research, and public service. As such an extension to sustainable development is
logical.
For more than two decades, and since Chapter 36 “Promoting Education, Public Awareness
And Training” of Agenda 21 – the global sustainability plan of action – higher education
has been examining, grapping with, and in some cases engaging with and attempting to
implement the concept of sustainable development. One public way of doing this is by signing
declarations and attempting to implement sustainability in various activities throughout the
institution. However, in transition terms, it can be argued that higher education must take its
efforts further and move towards (early) acceleration in which policy and structural changes
become visible. In order to accelerate the transition to sustainability in higher education,
institutions must (re)orient themselves “towards” SD, and use it as a constant frame of
reference.
In moving towards becoming more sustainable, higher education requires a whole systems
approach that targets the entire system and its various subsystems (all activities and the
way it is organized) in need of fundamental system changes and considering all sustainability
principles together. The proposed 4 Rs models offers simple and useful practical guidance.
Various aspects of managing change towards a desired future including the identified barriers
and concrete steps forward should be addressed. While sustainable higher education is still
an emerging field of study and practice, the acceleration process can already build upon
a sound body of knowledge of implications and approaches for various higher education
activities including education, research, public service and campus operations. Insufficient
or unavailable knowledge cannot be an argument to slow-down or postpone further action.
If any, it is more a question of priority setting, willingness and learning. We hope that this
paper contributes to the transition of Flemish higher education towards SD.
7
Sustainable Higher Education 53
Héhé - Heiko Hanssen and Helen Evans
© HéHé - Heiko Hanssen and Helen Evans - Nuage Vert*’
For more information please refer to p.94 in the other part of this
publication, ‘Inspiratieboek Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs’ (in Dutch).
54
Sustainable Higher Education
* photo © HéHé
9. Authors and References
Authors
Waas Tom
Hugé Jean
Ceulemans Kim Lambrechts Wim
Vandenabeele Joke
Lozano Rodrigo
Wright Tarah
University of Antwerp & Ghent University
University of Antwerp & Ghent University
Hogeschool – Universiteit Brussel
Hogeschool – Universiteit Brussel & Leuven University College
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Utrecht University & Organisational Sustainability
Dalhousie University
contact:
Waas Tom | Hugé Jean:
tom.waas@ua.ac.be | jean.huge@ua.ac be.
University of Antwerp
Institute of Environment & Sustainable Development
Universiteitsplein 1
B - 2610 Wilrijk – Antwerp
Tel.: +32 (0)3 265 21 14
www.ua.ac.be/imdo
Ghent University
Centre for Sustainable Development
Poel 16
B - 9000 Gent
Tel.: +32 (0)9 264 83 90
http://www.cdo.ugent.be
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Allen, A., Institutional change and leadership in greening the campus, in Sustainability and
university life, W.L. Filho, Editor. 2000, Peter Lang: Frankfurt/M.
Barth, M., G. Michelsen, and Z. Sanusi, A review on higher education for sustainable development
- looking back and moving forward. Journal of social sciences, 2011. 7(1): p. 100-103.
Waas, T., A. Verbruggen, and T. Wright, University research for sustainable development: definition and characteristics explored. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2010. 18: p. 629-636.
Fadeeva, Z. and Y. Mochizuki, Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 2010. 5(2): p. 249-256.
Waas, T., Duurzame ontwikkeling, een must voor het hoger onderwijs. Delta - Tijdschrift voor
hoger onderwijs, 2007. 4(16): p. 33-38.
Sustainable Higher Education 55
6. LNE. Ecocampus. 2012 28-11-2012]; Available from: ‌‌
http://www.lne.be/doelgroepen/onderwijs/ecocampus.
7. Carley, M. and I. Christie, Managing sustainable development. 2000, London: Earthscan.
8. Dalal-Clayton, B. and S. Bass, Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. 2002, London:
Earthscan.
9. Reid, D., Sustainable development - an introductory guide. 2005, London: Earthscan.
10. Rogers, P., K. Jalal, and J. Boyd, An introduction to sustainable development. 2008, London: Earthscan.
11. Ewing, B., et al., The ecological footprint atlas 2009. 2009, Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
12.GFN. World footprint: do we fit on the planet? 2010; Available from: http://www.footprintnet
work.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/.
13.UNDP, Human development indices - a statistical update 2008. 2008, United Nations Develop ment Programme: New York.
14. Gibson, R., Specification of sustainability-based environmental assessment decision criteria and implications for determining “significance” in environmental assessment. 2000: Canadian
Enivronmental Assessment Agency - Research and Development Monograph Series.
15. Lafferty, W. and J. Meadowcroft, Implementing sustainable development. Strategies and initia tives in high consumption societies. 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Sneddon, C., R. Howarth, and R. Norgaard, Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 2006. 57(2): p. 253-268.
17. Fergus, A. and J. Rowney, Sustainable Development: Lost Meaning and Opportunity? Journal of Business Ethics, 2005. 60(1): p. 17-27.
18.Rees, W., What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability:
Science, Practice, & Policy, 2010. 6(2): p. 13-25.
19. Quental, N., J.M. Lourenço, and F.N. da Silva, Sustainable development policy: goals, targets and
political cycles. Sustainable Development, 2011. 19(1): p. 15-29.
20.MEA, Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. 2005, Washington: Island Press.
21. Rockström, J., et al., A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 2009. 461(7263): p. 472-475.
22. Cairns, J., Will the real sustainability concept please stand up? Ethics in science and environmental
politics, 2004: p. 49-52.
23. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt, More evolution than revolution, transition management
in public policy. The journal of futures studies, strategic thinking and policy, 2001. 3(1): p. 15-31.
24. Raskin, P., et al., Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. 2002, Stockholm Envi ron­ment Institute: Boston.
25. Loorbach, D. and J. Rotmans, Managing Transitions for Sustainable Development, in Understan-­
ding Industrial Transformation, X. Olsthoorn and A.J. Wieczorek, Editors. 2006, Springer Nether
lands. p. 187-206.
26. Paredis, E., et al., Vlaanderen in transitie?, in Milieuverkenning 2030, Milieurapport Vlaanderen,
M. Van Steertegem, Editor. 2009, VMM: Aalst. p. 345-374.
27.WCED, Our common future. 1987, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.Waas, T., et al., Sustainable Development: A Bird’s Eye View. Sustainability, 2011. 3(10): p. 16371661.
56
Sustainable Higher Education
29. Hugé, J., et al., Impact assessment for a sustainable energy future—Reflections and practical expe-­
riences. Energy Policy, 2011. 39(10): p. 6243-6253.
30.Cortese, A.D., Education For An Environmentally Sustainable Future. Environmental Science &
Technology, 1992. 26(6): p. 1108-1114.
31. Orr, D., Ecological Literacy: Education and Transition to a Postmodern World. 1992, Albany: State
University of New York Press.
32. Orr, D., What Is Education For?, in Earth In Mind, D. Orr, Editor. 1995, island Press: Washington.
p. 7-15.
33.Wright, T., The evolution of environmental sustainability declarations in higher education, in
Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice, A. Wals
and P. Corcoran, Editors. 2004, Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht. p. 7-19.
34.Lozano, R., et al., Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders,
through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press(0).
35. Filho, W.L., Handbook of Sustainability Research. 2005, Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.
36.Beringer, A., M. Adomßent, and W. Scott, Editorial. Environmental Education Research, 2008.
14(6): p. 603-606.
37. Fien, J., Advancing sustainability in higher education: issues and opportunities for research. Interna tional Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 243-253.
38. Clugston, R., Introduction, in Sustainability and university life, W.L. Filho, Editor. 1999, Peter Lang:
Frankfurt/M.
39. M’Gonigle, M. and J. Starke, Planet U. 2006, Gabriola Island: New society publishers.
40.ULSF. Mission University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. 2012 17/10/2012]; Available from:
http://www.ulsf.org/about.html.
41. Tilbury, D., Higher education for sustainability: a global review of commitment and progress, in
Higher education in the world 4 - Higher education’s commitment to sustainability: from understan
ding to action, M. Barcelo, Editor. 2012, Global University Network for Innovation and Palgrave
Macmillan: New York.
42. Sterling, S. and W. Scott, Editorial. Environmental Education Research, 2008. 14(4): p. 383-385.
43. Corcoran, P. and A. Wals, The problematics of sustainability in higher education: an introduction, in
Higher education and the challenge of sustainability - problematics, promise, and practice, P.
Corcoran and A. Wals, Editors. 2004, Kluwer: Dordrecht.
44.Ryan, A. and D. Tilbury, Education for sustainability - a guide for university managers on needs and
opportunities. x, University of Gloucestershire: Gloucestershire.
45. Sterling, S., The future fit framework - an introductory guide to teaching and learning for sustain ability in HE. 2012, The higher education academy: Heslington.
46.IAU. 2012; Available from: http://www.iau-aiu.net.
47.Beringer, A. and M. Adomßent, Sustainable university research and development: inspecting
sustain­­ability in higher education research. Environmental Education Research, 2008. 14(6): p. 607623.
48.Ferrer-Balas, D., et al., Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for
sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2010. 18(7): p. 607-610.
49.Koester, R.J., J. Eflin, and J. Vann, Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach. Journal of
Sustainable Higher Education 57
Cleaner Production, 2006. 14(9–11): p. 769-779.
50. Lozano, R., Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers
to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14(9–11): p. 787-796.
51. Sterling, S., Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning, in Higher education
and the challenge of sustainability, P. Corcoran and A. Wals, Editors. 2004, Kluwer: Dordrecht.
p. 47-70.
52.Scott, J., The mission of the university: medieval to postmodern transformations. The journal of
higher education, 2006. 77(1): p. 1-22.
53. Ferrer-Balas, D., H. Buckland, and M. de Mingo, Explorations on the University’s role in society for
sustainable development through a systems transition approach. Case-study of the Technical
University of Catalonia (UPC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 2009. 17(12): p. 1075-1085.
54.Sterling, S., Sustainable education - re)visioning learning and change. Schumacher Briefings.
2001, Bristol: Green books.
55. Rees, W., Science, cognition and public policy. Academic matters, 2008(April-May): p. 9-12.
56.Wals, A.E.J., Learning Our Way to Sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Develop ment, 2011. 5(2): p. 177-186.
57. Jucker, R., ESD between Systemic Change and Bureaucratic Obfuscation. Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development, 2011. 5(1): p. 39-60.
58. Sterling, S., Sustainable education - re-visioning learning and change. 2004, Devon: Green books
and The Schumacher Society.
59.Orr, D., Earth in Mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. 1994, Washington
DC: Island Press.
60.Van Dam-Mieras, R., Learning for sustainable development: is it possible within the established
higher education structures?, in Drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable development in
higher education, J. Holmberg and B. Samuelsson, Editors. 2006, UNESCO: Paris.
61. Huckle, J., Sustainable Development, in The Routledge Companion to Education, J. Arthur and
A. Peterson, Editors. 2011, Routledge: New York.
62.UNESCO. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development - Mission. 2012 18/10/2012];
Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/mission/.
63.UNESCO. Education for sustainable development - three terms and one goal. 2012 18/10/2012];
Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/three-terms-one-goal/.
64. Wals, A., Learning for a sustainable world. 2009, UNESCO: Paris.
65.Wals, A.E.J., Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and Transformative Social Learning: stepping stones for
developing sustainability competence. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
2010. 11(4): p. 380-390.
66. Lambrechts, W., et al., The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher edu
cation: an analysis of bachelor programs in management. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press(0).
67. Rieckmann, M., Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 2012. 44(2): p. 127-135.
68.Shepard, K., Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes.
58
Sustainable Higher Education
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2007. 9(1): p. 87-98.
69. McKeown, R., et al., Education for sustainable development toolkit. 2006, UNESCO: Paris.
70.UNESCO, United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2004-2015): Draft International Implementation Scheme. 2005, UNESCO: Paris.
71. de Haan, G., The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’‐based model for Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 2006. 12(1): p. 19-
32.
72. Sleurs, W., Competences for ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) Teachers. A Frame
work to Integrate ESD in the Curriculum of Teacher Training Institutes. 2008: Brussels.
73. Wals, A.E.J., Between knowing what is right and knowing that is it wrong to tell others what is right:
on relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental and sustainability education. Environ mental Education Research, 2010. 16(1): p. 143-151.
74. Lawy, R. and G. Biesta, CITIZENSHIP-AS-PRACTICE: THE EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF AN
INCLUSIVE AND RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF CITIZENSHIP. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 2006. 54(1): p. 34-50.
75. Wals, A.E.J. and B. Jickling, “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to
critical thinking and meaningful learning. Higher Education Policy, 2002. 15(2): p. 121-131.
76. Sterling, S., An analysis of the development of sustainability education internationally: evolution, interpretation and transformative potentia, in The sustainability curriculum - the challenge for
higher education, J. Blewitt and C. Cullingford, Editors. 2004, Earthscan: London.
77. Holmberg, J. and B. Samuelsson, Executice summary, in Drivers and barriers for implementing sus
tainable development in higher education, J. Holmberg and B. Samuelsson, Editors. 2006, UNES
CO: Paris.
78.UNESCO-ICSU. Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. 1999 18/10/2012];
Available from: http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm.
79. Gallopín, G.C., et al., Science for the Twenty-First Century: From Social Contract to the Scientific
Core. International Social Science Journal, 2001. 53(168): p. 219-229.
80.Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz, The Emergence of Post-Normal Science, in Science, Politics and
Morality, v. Schomberg, Editor. 1993, Kluwer: London.
81.Lubchenco, J., Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science.
Science, 1998. 279(5350): p. 491-497.
82. Clark, W. and N. Dickson, Sustainability science: the emerging research paradigm. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 2003. 100(14): p. 8059-8061.
83.Wildemeersch, D., et al., Social Learning: a new perspective on learning in participatory systems.
Studies in Continuing Education, 1998. 20(2): p. 251-265.
84.Hugé, J., Are we doing the right things the right way ? Discourse and practice of sustainability as
sessment in North and South. 2012, VUB: Brussels.
85. Gibbons, M., et al., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Science. 1994, Newbury Park: Sage.
86.Kates, R.W., et al., Sustainability Science. Science, 2001. 292(5517): p. 641-642.
87. Lozano, R., A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). Journal of
Cleaner Production, 2006. 14(9–11): p. 963-972.
Sustainable Higher Education 59
88. Cole, L. and T. Wright, Assessing Sustainability on canadian University Campuses: the development
of a campus sustainability assessment framework, in Handbook of sustainability research, W.L. Filho, Editor. 2005, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main. p. 705-725.
89.Cole, L., Campus sustainability assessment framework. 2003.
90.Allen, A., Greening the campus - institutional and environmental change at Tulane university, in
Environmental studies program. 1999, Tulane University: New Orleans.
91.Granados, J., et al., Sustainability in higher education: moving from understanding to action,
breaking barriers for transformation, in Higher education in the world 4 - Higher education’s
commitment to sustainability: from understanding to action, M. Barcelo, Editor. 2012,
Global University Network for Innovation and Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
92.Lozano, R., Towards a more effective and efficient SD incorporation into universities, in Higher
education in the world 4 - Higher education’s commitment to sustainability: from understanding to
action, M. Barcelo, Editor. 2012, Global University Network for Innovation and Palgrave
Macmillan: New York.
93. Wright, T.S.A. and H. Wilton, Facilities management directors’ conceptualizations of sustainability
in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012. 31(0): p. 118-125.
94.Wright, T. and W.L. Filho, Barriers on the Path to Environmental Sustainability: European and
Canadian Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
2002. 9(2).
95. Wright, T. and N. Horst, Exploring the Ambiguity: What Faculty Leaders Really Think of Sustain­ ability in Higher Education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, in press.
60
Sustainable Higher Education
Colophon
Flemish Government
Department of Environement, Nature and Energy
Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 8
1000 Brussels
tel 0032 2 553 80 11
fax 0032 2 553 80 05
info@lne.be
http://www.lne.be
Layout and concept: Environmental Communications and information service
Depotnummer: D/2013/3241/097
This document was commissioned by the Flemish Government – Environment, Nature and Energy
Department. It reflects the view of the authors and not necessarily the view of the Environment,
Nature and Energy Department.
Users are encouraged to use, modify and adopt the content of this document for their own institution and purposes. No reproduction of the images allowed without permission of the artists
Users are kindly asked to refer to the document as follows:
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Ceulemans, K., Lambrechts, W., Vandenabeele, J., Lozano, R., Wright, T. (2012)
Sustainable Higher Education – Understanding and Moving Forward. Flemish Government – Environment, Nature and Energy Department, Brussels.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Stephen Sterling, Ilse Loots, Jef Peeters, Kristof
Dewaele and Monique Sys for their fruitful critiques and comments.
Publisher: J.P. Heirman, Secretary general Department of Environement, Nature and Energy
This publication is printed on recycled paper
Sustainable Higher Education 61
62
Sustainable Higher Education
Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie
Koning Albert II - laan 20 bus 8 - 1000 Brussel
Telefoon: 02 553 80 11 - Fax: 02 553 80 05 - info@lne.be - www.lne.be