A practical example of integrating sustainable development into higher education: Green Dragons,City University London Students’ Union

Abstract

Education for Sustainable Development is to ‘equip the younger generation with leadership skills, management capabilities, and the broad knowledge needed to make informed decisions for the benefit of themselves and others, now and for the future, and to act upon those decisions’. This paper examines how an innovative student-led sustainability project of extracurricular activities with a bottom-up basis and a top-down motivation and capacity building support structure can deliver sustainability outcomes and inspire other institutions of higher education and policy makers in the UK. Green Dragons project for City University London aims to establish pro-environmental behaviours and facilitate empowerment, while engaging academics, creating community links and affecting operations management. To test the effectiveness of this new model, qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The paper concludes with the actions needed by institutions like City University London for exploiting the full potential of Green Dragons project as a sustainability model that could deliver sustainable development in the curriculum, research, operations community outreach, while empowering the future sustainability leaders and facilitating environmental behaviours.

Keywords

bottom-up approach capacity building Education for Sustainable Development employability empowerment pro-environmental behaviour

Need of innovative sustainability models in higher education

Over the past 20 years, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has grown from an idea to a global movement; it has evolved in both maturity of understanding and in the variety of its implementation formats – from new corporate training programs to the reorienting of higher education degrees. Countries, provinces, states, regions and cities have undertaken massive strategies to use the potential of engaging their education, public awareness and training systems to improve life for all on this planet (Hopkins, 2012). The most important result of these initiatives is that everyone recognises the need to include the concept of sustainability at all levels of education (Arima, 2009; Jones et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2009).

ESD has been so far mainly approached through top-down initiatives in both the developed and developing countries. The main focus has been on operations management as well as on research and integration of sustainability into the curriculum ‘ranging from courses about sustainability to total curriculum redesign’ (Lozano et al., 2006; Sterling and Scott, 2008). However, there has been little progress so far. As Martin et al. (2005: 80) comment: ‘many universities have made a commitment to incorporating sustainability into higher education, but the practical implementation of these principles has proven to be more difficult and progress is frustratingly slow’.

Introducing new models of sustainability in higher education with different priorities and approach could boost the practical implementation of ESD both in the UK and the rest of the world. This paper introduces an innovative student-led sustainability project of extracurricular activities with a bottom-up basis and a top-down motivation and capacity building support structure that can serve as a model of sustainability in higher education. Green Dragons project, City University London Students’ Union, was launched on the summer of 2013 as part of Students’ Green Fund (NUS, 2013). This innovative project aims to primarily achieve pro-environmental behaviours and empowerment, while engaging academics, creating community links and affecting operations. The empowered students define the new sustainability structures, processes and operations.

The paper describes the genesis of the project, its main characteristics and how its objectives fit well with the idea that ESD is about empowering the younger generation with sustainability skills (UNESCO, 2014) and that building capacity in individuals is fundamental in integrating sustainability into education (O’Rafferty et al., 2014). It concludes with suggestions as to actions needed by institutions like City University London for exploiting the full potential of Green Dragons project and for increasing its impact as a sustainability model that could inform the current practice and policy in the UK.

ESD and higher education

The first Earth Summit in 1992 identified education as fundamental for sustainable development. The idea of ESD germinated through the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) entitled ‘Our Common Future’ (IISD, 2014; UNESCO, 2005a). In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro produced ‘Agenda 21’ that further highlighted the role and importance of education as a tool to achieve sustainable development and identified four main areas: basic education, EDS, public awareness and training and understanding of the importance of environmental responsibility (Kommiyama and Taguchi, 2006). A few years later, the International Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) was established pursuing changes in behaviour for a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society for present and future generations (UN, 2005; UNESCO, 2005b, 2005c). The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 with its outcome document ‘The future we want’ (HEFCE, 2013; Paden, 2012; UN, 2012) recognised the significance of ‘education at all levels’. It encourages institutions to adopt good practice, to teach sustainable development as an integrated component across disciplines and to undertake research in this area.

It is difficult to imagine the individual and societal changes needed to ensure a sustainable future could occur without the assistance of institutions of higher education (Cortese, 1999). With 17,000 universities in the world, higher education is a global enterprise operating collaboratively through the exchange of ideas, students and staff. The role of universities is significant not only because their research and teaching generates and transfers knowledge about sustainability, but because they also educate future professionals to enable them to contribute to a sustainable future (Barth et al., 2007; Niu et al., 2010). Numerous studies in the last few years have described a variety of approaches to implementing EDS in higher education, ranging from courses about sustainability to total curriculum redesign (Lozano et al., 2006; Sterling and Scott, 2008).

The UK Higher Education Academy acknowledges four major barriers to the successful embedding of sustainability into many of the subject disciplines (Sterling and Witham, 2008): overcrowded curriculum, perceived irrelevance by academic staff, limited staff awareness and expertise and limited institutional drive and commitment. Embedding sustainability in mainstream curricula is one of the main challenges, as it needs to be supported by the development of ‘credible teaching materials which are fully contextualised and relevant’ (O’Rafferty and Davison, 2011). Lozano (2006) believes that even though sustainable development is a radical innovation within universities, it is necessary to incorporate it incrementally to avoid resistance and unnecessary conflict. Leal Filho (Filho, 2010; Zint, 2011) also supports that many universities perform activities in the area of environmental protection, neglecting the fact that campus operations are important contributions but not the only ones.

Generally research shows that basic education is to nation’s abilities to develop and achieve sustainable targets (Tilbury et al., 2002). The different contexts where ESD is practiced differ greatly in terms of their socio-political, historical, socio-cultural, ecological and economic realities that respectively affect the settings and priorities of their educational institutions (Kopnina and Meijers, 2014). For instance, some types of ESD with a focus on social equity and health have been more appropriate in developing countries, whereas an ecological focus and behaviour change has been more appropriate in more affluent Western societies (Zarger, 2010). Different contexts also mean different challenges and barriers (Arima, 2009; Jones et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2009). For example, some of the barriers identified in European countries include inflexible education systems, problems coordinating interdisciplinary education and the reconciliation of long-term sustainability objectives with short-term political expediency (UN, 2005). In England and Northern Ireland, there is a lack of policy emphasis on sustainable development which inhibits the wider adoption of good practice regarding ESD, while there is a lack of coherent policy and practice (UNESCO, 2009).

Green Dragons: An innovative model of student-led sustainability

Green Dragons (www.green-dragons.co.uk) is the first student-led sustainability project in City University London commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the National Union of Students (NUS, 2013). City University London (2014) is an institution of higher education in the United Kingdom with 17,000 students from more than 150 countries. As part of Green Dragons project, City students are motivated by professional staff to deliver practical sustainability solutions in the campus and/or the local community by receiving funding, training and support. Students are encouraged to mainly address issues of energy and emissions reduction, waste and recycling, ethical procurement, elimination of retail plastic bottles, sustainable food and fair trade, food waste reduction and community engagement. A survey commissioned by City University in association with the NUS – entitled ‘Insight into student and staff environmental attitudes, behaviors and the impact of existing schemes’ – clearly demonstrated that these were areas with significant student disengagement in the university.

However, students are the ones who finally decide what sustainability issues they are going to address and in what way (bottom-up structure).Waste reduction, sustainable food, emissions reduction and community engagement have currently been the main focus of student leaders.¹

The establishment of pro-environmental behaviours is one of the main objectives of Green Dragons project. Student leaders are expected to adopt pro-environmental behaviours by actually working on their sustainability project with the support of professional staff and academics; the direct and/or indirect engagement of other City students/staff in the leaders’ projects is expected to facilitate a spillover of sustainable behaviours in the whole campus. This is practically achieved through the pledges each project should get from City students/staff in order for the project leaders to receive their delivery funding. This approach is consistent with DEFRA’s 4Es model (Encourage–Enable–Engage–Exemplify) on changing behaviour (DEFRA, 2010). It also agrees with Lozano’s (2006) approach suggesting that for successful behaviour change incremental integration of sustainability within universities is needed to avoid resistance and unnecessary conflict.

Acknowledging that building capacity in individuals is an integral part of integrating sustainability into education (O’Rafferty et al., 2014), students are provided with weekly mentoring and training (empowerment) by professionals from across City University, i.e. Students’ Union, Marketing, Energy and Environment, Careers and Enterprise teams in order to design and deliver their sustainability solutions (project plans). Students gain sustainability skills such as environmental knowledge, leadership, collaboration, project management, entrepreneurship, team building, communication and civic skills, while boosting their confidence and employability (Barth et al., 2007; Cohen, 2007; HEA, 2013; Sterling and Thomas, 2006; Warburton, 2003). Students are also being given the opportunity to practice sustainability skills (‘skill-acts’), as empowerment also involves the opportunities for developing and gaining skills, competence and confidence (Brady et al., 1995; Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). This active learning that focuses on student engagement, interaction with topics and reflection on learning (Martin et al., 2005; Zeegers and Clark, 2014) offers a balanced perspective on sustainability. Students also participate in another empowering process important for capacity building (Minkler, 1990: 293), which is the creation of links (social capital) with internal and external stakeholders according to students’ own initiatives and ideas (Putnam, 1993). Finally, practical support such as resources, information and networking is being offered by professionals in the university based on the leaders’ individual needs for the successful implementation of their sustainability projects (Stoker, 2004: 214).

Research methodology

Qualitative and quantitative method

The methodology employed during this study was based on the collection of qualitative and quantitative data in order to test the hypothesis that a sustainability model for higher education such as Green Dragons (see Figure 1) can integrate sustainability into higher education by primarily achieving pro-environmental behaviours and empowerment (sustainability skills). Qualitative investigation recognises the importance of the subjective and its experiences (Silverman, 2000: 20), while interviews are one of the major approaches in collecting data in qualitative research (Kvale, 2007: 2). For this study, the eight student leaders were asked open-ended questions (17–21 March 2014) that captured their beliefs and attitudes in regard to how their environmental behaviour and skills changed during their participation in Green Dragons project. In March, the eight Green Dragons Leaders also completed a skills self-assessment questionnaire, also filled out at the beginning of their projects (November 2013) that allowed for useful comparisons.

Figure 1.

Green Dragons model.

The skills self-assessment questionnaire (see Table 1) captured students’ attitudes and behaviours (environmental awareness was also examined as a skill). The quantitative data collected address the limitations of the qualitative method such as the issues of anonymity, confidentiality and bias (Burns, 2000: 13–14). The findings have the precision of quantitative analysis (Burns, 2000: 9–10) supported by qualitative analysis, while students’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are equally captured (Ajzen, 1971; Gollwitzer, 1999). The secondary objectives–outcomes (academic engagement, community links and operations) are investigated through examples as they occur from the current practice. The data presentation strategy is thematic under the main and secondary objectives of Green Dragons project.

Table 1.

Abstract of Green Dragons skills self-assessment questionnaire.

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Count
Skilis and competences (November 2013)
1 meet oil my deadlines	1	4	2	0	1	8
1 am confident with prioritising multiple demands on my time	2	2	4	0	0	8
1 work well under pressure	2	6	0	0	0	8
1 wort well without supervision	4	2	2	0	0	8
1 wort well with other people	2	5	1	0	0	8
1 am confident with taking responsibility for making decisions	3	3	0	2	0	8
1 am good at motivating others	1	2	4	1	0	8
1 am confident with putting forward new ideas to Improve a project	2	5	1	0	0	8
1 am confident with managing projects	2	2	2	2	0	8
1 am confident with organising events	1	2	4	1	0	8
1 am confident with managing/planning a budget	2	4	0	1	1	8
1 am confident giving presentations	1	3	1	2	1	8
1 am confident at chairing or speaking in formal meeiings.	1	3	2	1	1	8

Integrating sustainability into higher education

Findings

This section discusses the findings of the eight students’ interviews and skills self-assessment questionnaires completed by Green Dragons Leaders at City University London in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. The findings are discussed under pre-existing codes, which are the Green Dragons main objectives (pro-environmental behaviour and empowerment) and secondary ones (academic engagement, community links and operations). It becomes obvious that the students perceive their lifestyles as more environmentally friendly, while they have actually adopted more sustainable habits since their involvement in Green Dragons project. Green Dragons Leaders have also become more empowered by developing leadership, project management, communication, team and civic skills. As for the secondary objectives, a network of community partners has already being formed around the leaders’ projects, academics are engaged as mentors in the research projects and students’ sustainability solutions have also affected operations in the university.

Pro-environmental behaviours

In their interviews, the student leaders expressed the belief that their involvement in the project helped them adopt more sustainable habits. ‘Green Dragons remind me of the “green” theme anytime. I walk longer every day to reduce the emissions, recycle more than before, and switch off the monitor of my computer. I am also trying to persuade others to do that’ (City Green Monitor Leader).

The students also learnt more about sustainability. ‘This project has taught me a lot about sustainability … it is a great experience’ (Smart Sugar Crystals Leader).

The skills self-assessment questionnaire data are represented in column charts. Column chart (1) shows that five students strongly agreed with recycling their cups in March in comparison to four students who strongly agreed in November. No students disagreed in March, whereas one student strongly disagreed in November. Based on the data of Table 1, two out of eight students recycle more since the beginning of the project, and six out of eight students recycle the same. Column chart (2) shows that five students in March strongly agreed that car users should pay higher taxes in contrast with just one in November. Table 1 shows that six out of eight students have a more pro-environmental behaviour, and two out of eight have the same behaviour. The findings of column chart (3) show that seven students in March strongly agreed with knowing how to reduce their carbon emissions in comparison to only two in November. All students knew how to reduce their carbon footprint in March. Table 1 shows that three out of eight students have developed more pro-environmental behaviours, while five out of eight have not seen any difference in their behaviour. Overall, students have developed more pro-environmental behaviours during their participation in the project (11 positive changes in total – see Table 3).

Column Chart 1.

Behavior change (I).

Column Chart 2.

Behavior change (II).

Column Chart 3.

Behavior change (III).

Table 3.

Summary table – pro-environmental behaviour and empowerment, Green Dragons model.

	Positive changes	Negative changes
Behaviour change	11 in total	–
Empowerment skills	33 in total	1 in total
Leadership skills	11 in total	–
Project management skills	7 in total	–
Communication skills	8 in total	–
Team skills – collaboration	5 in total	1 in total
Civic skills	2 in total	–

Besides the pro-environmental changes in the leaders’ behaviour, it is important to mention that more than 2500 students/staff members have been involved in the project both directly and indirectly (see Table 2). Even though there are currently no data to prove a wider behaviour change in the university at this phase of the project, the current impact remains promising.²

Empowerment

Table 2.

Green Dragons Impact (November 2013–March 2014), updated 30 March 2014.

Impact of Green Dragons project, City University London Students’ Union November 2013–March 2014
1949 Unique page views of Green Dragons microsite
1080 Pledges on Green Dragons microsite
105 Facebook ‘likes’
118 Twitter followers
1101 students engaged across the challenge:
–40 directly engaged –1061 indirectly engaged
20 staff engaged across the challenge:
–18 directly engaged –2 indirectly engaged

Green Dragons Leaders supported in their interviews that they have more confidence to manage their own sustainability projects since they took part in Green Dragons project. ‘I am now doing something about an issue that was concerning me, I feel in control. The project has given me more confidence to do something positive […] it is good for me as well’ (Waste No More Leader). All the students supported that their participation in the project has equipped them with project management, communication and team skills, while increasing their confidence and employability opportunities. ‘It made me much more employable and confident to follow ideas, meet a lot of people, develop management and business skills’ (Hydrovillage Leader). PIEL Leader also said ‘I learnt new skills such as blogging. I am aware about how people interact in a business sense, how to write formal emails, how to network with different people’ and Meat Free Mondays Leader emphasised gaining time management skills. ‘I am doing something that I am feeling positive about. I learnt how to deal better with my time … This project is developing so many crucial skills such as communication, time and money management’.

Leadership skills

Based on the data from the skills self-assessment questionnaire, column chart (4) shows that four students strongly agreed in March that they are good at motivating others in comparison to just one in November. However, two students agreed in March in comparison to four students that agreed in November. In March, no students disagreed about their ability to motivate others. Table 1 shows that six out of eight students feel more empowered to motivate others since their Green Dragons project began, while two out of eight students feel as empowered as when the project first started. Column chart (5) shows that four students in March highly agreed that they are confident with taking responsibility for making decisions in comparison to three in November. All students were confident in making decisions in March. Table 1 shows that two out of eight students feel more empowered to take responsibility for making decisions. Column chart (6) shows that five students strongly agreed that they are confident to suggest new ideas in March (column chart 3) in comparison to only two in November. All students were confident in March. Three out of eight students feel more empowered, and five out of eight feel as empowered in November as in March regarding decision making. The data above show that Green Dragons project has helped students develop their leadership skills (11 positive changes in total).

Column Chart 4.

Leadership skills (I).

Column Chart 5.

Leadership skills (II).

Column Chart 6.

Leadership skills (III).

Project management skills

In November, two students strongly agreed that they have the confidence to manage projects (column chart 7); this figure doubled in March. Four out of eight students feel more empowered as far as project management is concerned, whereas four out of eight students feel as confident as when the project first started. According to column chart (8), three students strongly agreed that they can manage/plan a budget in November, whereas this number doubled again in March. All students felt confident to plan/manage a budget in March. In total, three out of eight students feel more confident to manage/plan a budget, and five out of eight students have the same confidence as when the project started. There have been a total of seven positive changes in relation to how empowered students feel to manage a project since November.

Column Chart 7.

Project management (I).

Column Chart 8.

Project management (II).

Communication skills

In March, five students strongly agreed that they have the confidence to give presentations, while only one student expressed such confidence in November. All students had such confidence in March (column chart 9). Five out of eight students felt that they had better communication skills after their participation in Green Dragons project. In November, two students felt very confident to talk with various people, while three students felt that level of confidence in March (column chart 10). According to the data of Table 1, three out of eight students are more empowered in terms of communicating with various people. Overall, there have been eight positive changes in students’ communication skills for the period November 2013–March 2014.

Team skills – Collaboration

At the beginning of the project, five students agreed to have the confidence to build good working relationships with various people, while six students felt the same in March (column chart 11). In that same month, there was no student disagreeing having this ability. According to Table 1, three out of eight students felt more confident to build good working relationships with various people. Even though in November only three students agreed that they sought feedback to improve the way they approach tasks (column chart 12), three more students developed this approach in March. Based on Table 1, two out of eight students seek more feedback from others, whereas one out of eight seeks less feedback. Overall, there have been five positive changes in students’ team skills and a negative one.

Column Chart 9.

Communication skills (I).

Column Chart 10.

Communication skills (II).

Column Chart 11.

Team skills – collaborations (I).

Column Chart 12.

Team skills – collaborations (II).

Column Chart 13.

Civil skills.

Civic skills

In November, four students strongly agreed that are happy getting involved in voluntary activities, whereas in March two more students expressed the same opinion (column chart 13). Table 1 shows that two out of eight students expressed a more positive attitude regarding participation in the wider community, and six out of eight feel the same. Overall, there have been two positive changes in civic skills. For a summary of the changes in empowerment skills, see Table 3.

Secondary objectives–outcomes

Academic engagement and research

City Green Monitor and Smart Sugar Crystals Leaders have linked their projects with their PhD research; they closely work with their tutors and other academics from City University London.

Community links

There is an increasing network of community partners around Green Dragons project. For example, Meat Free Mondays’ project is being mentored by the Vegetarian Society (www.vegsoc.org), Waste No More has partnered with CRISP charity (www.crispej.org.uk) and Client Earth (www.clientearth.org) has created links with PIEL team.

Operations

Waste No More Leader introduces new reuse services in the University, while City Green Monitor Leader is currently running experiments for creating the first eco-lab in City campus.

Conclusion

Can a student-led sustainability project of extracurricular activities significantly contribute to the integration of sustainability into higher education by empowering students and building new sustainability structures, processes and operations based on students’ ideas? A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the above findings confirms that students participating in the project actually developed pro-environmental behaviours and sustainability skills. Green Dragons project has clearly empowered the student leaders with an impact on more than 2500 City University students. It has also encouraged new procedures and structures, i.e. Green Dragons steering group meetings bring together different teams from across the university to work towards sustainability, new partnerships have been established with the community, academics are engaged in Green Dragons research projects, and new environmental friendly operations are being introduced. Finding the right communication tools for effective engagement, partnering with strategic stakeholders, tailoring unique engagement approaches based on the portfolio of each partner, understanding internal politics and overcoming people’s natural resistance to change through insistence and consistency have been the key actions to address limited staff awareness, the lack of institutional drive (Sterling and Witham, 2008) and clashing values and mentalities.

However, Green Dragons project has not yet exploited its full potential. For the eight months of the project, the more than 2500 students engaged shows a significant impact, but taken that about 15,000 City students have not been engaged directly or indirectly means that a large part of the student body neither has participated in sustainability skill-acts/training and mentoring or has it influenced the creation of new sustainability capacity building structures. To fully exploit the potential of Green Dragons project, especially after the end of the two-year NUS funding, it should be officially recognised and promoted by the senior management of the university. For example, by being included in the University’s Vision 2016 (City University London, 2014), more streams of funding could be encouraged, new internal and external collaborations could be pursued and integration between the different university teams could be easily achieved. The new joint-up processes, structures and communication channels as well as the enriched skill sets available to student leaders could result in greater student engagement as well as in more effective top-down support and empowering opportunities.

Academic involvement in the project has so far been limited to research projects. Therefore, there has not been any development of ‘credible teaching materials which are fully contextualised and relevant’ (O’Rafferty and Davison, 2011). Sustainability has not been integrated into the curriculum through Green Dragons extracurricular activities and, therefore, defined and ‘legitimised’ by students. If academics had linked Green Dragons with their students’ coursework or if they had mentored students taking part in Green Dragons or even if they had just encouraged students to integrate sustainability into their coursework, student engagement would have been greater and more consistent throughout. Sustainability would have been more ‘legitimised’ at a senior level in the university, and there would have been a better understanding of students’ interest and approach in sustainability. This is why academics have been strategically targeted during the second year of the project. This has resulted in greater academic involvement and even commitment for the creation of new modules based on Green Dragons, taken that the legacy of the project continues.

Green Dragons project is an innovative student-led sustainability project of extracurricular activities with a bottom-up basis and a top-down motivation and capacity building support structure that encourages behaviour change for ‘a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations’. Green Dragons can serve as a model of holistic integration of sustainability into higher education which could inform current policy and practice supporting employability, society and the environment in the UK.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agent in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors

Notes

References

Ajzen

(1971) Attitudinal vs. normative messages: An investigation of the differential effects of persuasive communications on behaviour. Sociometry 34: 263–280.

Arima

(2009) A plea for more education for sustainable development. Sustainability Science 4: 3–5.

Barth

Godemann

Rieckmann

(2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8(4): 416–430.

Brady

Verba

Schlozman

(1995) Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review 89(2): 271–294.

Burns

(2000) Introduction to Research Methods, 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Chavis

Wandersman

(1990) Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 55–81.

City University London (2014) The city vision 2016. Available at: www.city.ac.uk (accessed 24 February 2014).

Cohen

(2007) Developing educational indicators that will guide students and institutions toward a sustainable future. New Directions for Institutional Research 134: 83–94.

Cortese AD (1999) Education for Sustainability – The University as a Model for Sustainability. Boston, MA: Second Nature. Available at: http://secondnature.org/pdf/snwritings/articles/univmodel.pdf (accessed 26 February 2014).

10.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2010) Understanding and influencing behaviours: A review of social research economics and policy making in Defra. Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/series/documents/understand-influence-behaviour-discuss.pdf (accessed 2 March 2014).

11.

Filho

(2010) Teaching sustainable development at university level: Current trends and future needs. Journal of Baltic Science Education 9(4): 273–284.

12.

Gollwitzer

(1999) Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist 54: 493–503.

13.

HEA (2013) Student attitudes and skills for sustainable development. Available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/sustainability/2013_student_skills_final_report (accessed 5 March 2014).

14.

HEFCE (2013) Sustainable development in higher education, consultation on a framework for HEFCE. Available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201331/name,83723,en.html (accessed 5 March 2014).

15.

Hopkins

(2012) Twenty years of education for sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 6(1): 1–4.

16.

IISD (2014) National strategies for sustainable development. Available at: www.iisd.org (accessed 5 March 2014).

17.

Jones P, Selby D and Sterling S (eds) (2010) Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education. London: Earthscan.

18.

Kommiyama

Taguchi

(2006) Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1(1): 1–6.

19.

Kopnina

Meijers

(2014) Education for sustainable development (ESD), exploring theoretical and practical challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15(2): 188–207.

20.

Kvale

(2007) Doing Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

21.

Lozano

(2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11): 787–796.

22.

Lozano

GFJ

Kevany

Huisingh

(2006) Sustainability in higher education: What is happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11): 757–760.

23.

Martin

Brannigan

Hall

(2005) Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29(1): 79–89.

24.

Minkler

(1990) Improving health through community organization. In: Glanz

Lewis

Rimer

(eds) Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 257–287.

25.

Niu

Jiang

(2010) Higher education for sustainable development in China. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11(2): 153–162.

26.

NUS (2013) 25 students’ green fund projects. Available at: www. studentsgreenfund.org.uk/ (accessed 27 February 2014).

27.

O’Rafferty

Davison

(2011) Interdisciplinarity, Design Thinking & Sustainable Development: Strategies for UK Higher Education, York: Higher Education Academy.

28.

O’Rafferty

Curtis

O’Connor

(2014) Mainstreaming sustainability in design education – A capacity building framework. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15(2): 169–187.

29.

Paden

(2012) Rio+20 conference set for 20–22 June 2012. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 6: 5–7.

30.

Putnam

(1993) The prosperous community. American Prospect 4(13): 35–42.

31.

Silverman

(2000) Doing qualitative research, London: SAGE Publications.

32.

Sterling

Thomas

(2006) Education for sustainability: The role of capabilities in guiding university curricula. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 1(4): 349–370.

33.

Sterling

Scott

(2008) Higher education and ESD in England: A critical commentary on recent initiatives. Environmental Education Research 14(4): 399–412.

34.

Sterling

Witham

(2008) Pushing the boundaries: The work of the Higher Education Academy’s ESD project. Environmental Education Research 14(4): 399–412.

35.

Stoker

(2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

36.

Tilbury

Stevenson

Fien

(2002) Education and sustainability responding to global challenges, Switzerland: IUCN–The World Conservation Union.

37.

UN (2005) UN Decade of Education for sustainable development 2005–2014. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf (accessed 27 February 2014).

38.

UN (2012) The future we want. Available at: www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture (accessed 27 February 2014).

39.

UNESCO (2005a) United Nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014), Framework for the International Implementation Scheme, 32 C/INF.9. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001311/131163e.pdf (accessed 27 February 2014).

40.

UNESCO (2005b) Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability. Technical Paper, 2, 74.

41.

UNESCO (2005c) United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014): International Implementation Scheme. ED/DESD/2005/PI/01, 31, Education Sector, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

42.

UNESCO (2009) World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development. Available at: www.esd-worldconference-2009.org (accessed 27 February 2014).

43.

UNESCO (2014) Education for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://unesco.ca/en/home-accueil/esd-edd (accessed 24 February 2014).

44.

Warburton

(2003) Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4(1): 44–56.

45.

Wright

Habit

Adlerstein

(2009) Sustainability education through an interdisciplinary international case study. Sustainability Science 4: 29–36.

46.

Zarger

(2010) Learning the environment. In: Lancy

Bock

Gaskins

(eds) The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood, Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 341–369.

47.

Zint

(2011) Evaluating education for sustainable development programs. In: Filho

(eds) World Trends on Education for Sustainable Development, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 329–348.

48.

Zeegers

Clark

(2014) Students’ perceptions of education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15(2): 242–253.