-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Sustainability in Higher Education: An Assessment of Washington State Colleges and Universities, 2005-2016
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2016
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Presler, April Danae
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGER EDUCATION:
AN ASSESSMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES, 2005-2016
by
April Danae Presler
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
September 2016
©2016 by April Danae Presler. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
April Danae Presler
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shangrila Joshi Wynn, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Sustainability in Higher Education:
An Assessment of Washington State Colleges and Universities, 2005-2016
April Danae Presler
The purpose of this research project was to assess the integration of sustainability
in Washington State higher education from 2005 to 2016. Both the extent of integration
and the focus of sustainability efforts (environmental/social/economic) were evaluated
for three core areas of higher education: institutional commitments, curriculum, and
student engagement.
A total of 50 undergraduate institutions were represented, including all but two
public baccalaureate, independent, and community colleges in Washington State. Data
was derived from five surveys conducted by the Curriculum for the Bioregion over the
twelve year period, and administered to faculty, administrators and staff with knowledge
and familiarity of sustainability efforts at their institution. Website content and three
semi-structured interviews with survey respondents supplemented the data. Assessment
was based on a longitudinal research design and summative content analysis approach.
Four key findings are suggested: (1) sustainability has been widely but variably
integrated at higher education institutions across Washington State, with some
institutions demonstrating a strong commitment to sustainability while others have shown
little to none; (2) there are signs of overall decreased interest and coordination for
integrating sustainability, though it is highly context dependent; (3) sustainability
initiatives have primarily been associated with environmental aspects but recent trends
indicate shifts with emerging interest in social aspects (e.g., social justice, equity, and
diversity) and to a lesser extent economic aspects; and (4) sustainability remains most
closely associated with environmental aspects in Washington State higher education and
has not been well-integrated with social and economic aspects— social aspects are often
framed as relevant to but distinct from sustainability.
Ultimately, this study indicates a need to further integrate sustainability within
and across institutions and to refocus efforts to holistically consider social,
environmental, and economic concepts and concerns. This will require broader support
and coordination for sustainability initiatives at most institutions in Washington State.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Structure of Thesis ...........................................................................................................6
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Sustainability Emerges on the Global Stage ..............................................................8
2.2 The Three Pillars of Sustainability: Environmental, Social and Economic .............14
2.3 The Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future .............................21
2.4 Extent of Integration and Focus of Sustainability Efforts in Higher Education ......26
2.5 Significance and Contributions of this Research .....................................................37
Chapter 3. Research Methodology.................................................................................... 40
3.1 Longitudinal Research Design .................................................................................40
3.2 Research Methodology.............................................................................................43
Participant Selection .................................................................................................. 43
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 45
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 49
3.3 Limitations of Research Design ...............................................................................56
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 57
4.1 Institutional Commitments .......................................................................................58
Extent of Integration .................................................................................................. 60
Focus of Sustainability Efforts .................................................................................. 74
4.2 Curriculum ...............................................................................................................85
Extent of Integration .................................................................................................. 86
Focus of Efforts ......................................................................................................... 96
4.3 Student Engagement ...............................................................................................106
Extent of Integration ................................................................................................ 107
Focus of Efforts ....................................................................................................... 112
Chapter 5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 117
Key Finding #1: Widely but variably integrated. .........................................................118
iv
Key Finding #2: Signs of overall decreased interest and coordination. .......................119
Key Finding #3: Focus shifted as social aspects emerged. ..........................................122
Key Finding #4: Social, environmental, and economic aspects not well integrated. ...125
Suggested Areas of Future Research ............................................................................126
Summary ......................................................................................................................129
References ....................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix I. Institutions Surveyed .................................................................................. 139
Appendix II. Survey and Interview Questions ................................................................ 141
Appendix III. Academic Degree Programs ..................................................................... 148
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. United Nations Agenda 2030: Sustainable Development Goals…..…………….13
2. The three pillars of sustainability………………………………………………...20
3. Presence of sustainability plans………………….…………………………...… 61
4. Status of sustainability committees and task forces……………..……………….63
5. Status of sustainability committees in 2016……………………………………...64
6. Formal public declarations with sustainability language………………..……….66
7. Membership status with AASHE……………………………...…….……...........67
8. Signatories to the Presidents’ Climate Commitment………………...…….…….69
9. Focus of institutions mission and values statements…………………………….78
10. Focus of sustainability committees’ activities………………….……………..…83
11. Proportion of sustainability committees with different foci…………….……….82
12. Sustainability in the curriculum general trends……………………………...…..88
13. Sustainability-related general education requirements………………….…...…..88
14. Focus of sustainability-related degree programs…………….……………….….98
15. Focus of student organizations…………………………………….……………113
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Fifteen strategic perspectives of the UNDESD………………………………25-26
2. Factors, measurements and sources included in analysis of extent
of integration of sustainability…………………………………….………….50-51
3. Factors, measurements and sources included in analysis of focus
of sustainability efforts………………………………….……………………….53
4. Coding structure of content analysis……………………………………………..55
5. List of institutions surveyed in 2016 and their reported institutional
commitments to sustainability in four categories……………………..….…..72-73
6. Institutions with sustainability language in mission or values
statements, as reported in 2016……………………………………………….…76
7. Institutions with sustainability language in mission or values
statement as reported in 2012………………………………...……...…………..77
8. Institutions with sustainability-related institution-wide learning outcomes……..92
9. Percent of institutions offering different types of faculty development
support to integrate sustainability into curriculum………………………...…….94
10. Phrasing of institution-wide learning outcomes…………………………...101-102
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Like a sailboat, this thesis could not have gone anywhere without an ocean of
support beneath its hull, winds of motivation to fill its sails, and a team of dedicated
crewmembers to help navigate and weather the storms through to the end. I owe heartfelt
thanks to many individuals and wish to recognize a number of them here.
First, I express deep gratitude to Shangrila Wynn for wholeheartedly agreeing to
be my thesis reader and advisor, despite my late request and her already full schedule.
Her thoughtful feedback and attention to detail helped me critique, refine, and improve
my work. Peter Dorman also deserves a special thank you for working with me on my
initial thesis project before I charted a new course.
To Jean MacGregor, I cannot extend enough appreciation for all the inspiration,
mentorship, and resources she provided. Jean was instrumental to the development of this
thesis as well as to my own professional development. I am also forever indebted to the
Curriculum for the Bioregion Steering Committee for their contribution in developing
and completing the surveys, as well as their enthusiasm in this project and willingness to
help. So too, do I want to acknowledge Larry Geri for his help in developing the online
survey instrument.
Another thank you goes to the MES community of faculty, staff, and peers, who
together provided me with an unforgettable and rich interdisciplinary academic
experience. And lastly, I extend a bounty of gratitude to my family, partner, friends, and
furry companion who were my ocean and my winds throughout this journey. I was
incredibly fortunate to have their constant support and encouragement and an endless
supply of comic relief.
vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Society needed a plan. Faced with complex and interconnected issues such as
poverty, environmental degradation, climate change, and social inequities spanning
geographic and generational scales, world leaders, scholars, organizations and citizens
have sought to create a plan of action for a brighter future. Through international
conferences, declarations, treaties, and action reports, the concept of sustainable
development took root, and higher education had a particular role to play. As the United
Nations launched the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, colleges and
universities the world over were called on to be educators, researchers, leaders, and
models of sustainability (UNESCO, 2006). The terms sustainable development and
sustainability are used interchangeable in this thesis, however, issues that arise from this
are discussed later on. In general, the term sustainability is more frequent in common
vernacular in the United States, whereas the term sustainable development is more
prevalent in ‘developing countries’.
The precise definition of sustainable development and sustainability has been
thoughtfully contested since its introduction into the global dialogue in the 1970s and
‘80s. The conventional definition, derived from the Brundtland Report in 1987, states that
“Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without
compromising the ability to meet those of the future” (WCED, 1987, p. 39). Though
heavily contested, this remains the most commonly cited definition. Its vagueness has
made it frustratingly difficult to operationalize but has also fueled continued thought and
debate nearly thirty years later (Gibson, 2006). Debate notwithstanding, there is general
consensus around the conceptual basis of sustainability as an integration of
1
environmental, social, and economic concepts and concerns and a recognition that
decisions and (in)actions of the current generation will impact future generations
(Edwards, 2006 & 2010). The three major systems, social, environmental, and economic,
are commonly referred to as the three pillars of sustainability.
In considering some of the perils of the world, David Orr (2004) made a
provocative criticism of higher education, observing that the staggering rates of
deforestation, desertification, anthropogenic contributions to climate change, and loss of
biodiversity were “largely the results of work by people with BAs, BSs, LLBs, MBAs
and PhDs” (p. 7). On the other hand, if colleges and universities can prepare students
with the knowledge, skills, and mindsets to understand and address challenges of the
twenty-first century, they will have played a key role in helping lead society towards a
more sustainable future (AASHE, 2010). With more than 18 million students enrolled in
colleges and universities in the United States alone, the potential for change is
monumental (AASHE, 2010).
The ways in which higher education institutions can promote and demonstrate
sustainability are numerous. They include, but are not limited to, integrating
sustainability into the curriculum; research; campus operations and facilities; student
engagement opportunities; community outreach and partnerships; institutional mission
and planning; and faculty and staff development, hiring, and rewards processes (Calder &
Clugston, 2003). Proponents of integrating sustainability into higher education call for a
comprehensive approach believing institutions must take action on all of these fronts
(Calder & Clugston, 2003; UNESCO, 2006; ULSF, 1990). However, integrating
sustainability into higher education is not without significant challenges. For one, higher
2
education is generally organized into specific disciplines, while the concept of
sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary. Major international organizations,
associations, and scholars across disciplines and regions have echoed the need for reorienting education and, as many see it, integrating sustainability presents an opportunity
to galvanize these efforts (Bawden, 2009; Hoover & Harder, 2014; Koehn & Uitto, 2013;
Sachs, 2015; Sterling, 2004). In short, sustainability has been advocated as a vehicle for
both educational and societal transformation. Given this ambitious goal, it is prudent to
assess what progress has been made.
This thesis project set out to explore how sustainability has been integrated into
higher education institutions in Washington State since 2005. It was specifically guided
by the following research questions.
1) To what extent has sustainability been integrated into Washington State higher
education over the past decade (2005-2016) with respect to institutional
commitments, curriculum, and student engagement?
2) How has the focus of sustainability efforts in Washington State higher education
reflected the three pillars of social, environmental, and economic sustainability?
To answer the research questions, a longitudinal research design was developed and
qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis employed. Data was derived from five
surveys conducted between 2005 and 2016, administered to faculty, administrators, and
staff from undergraduate colleges and universities in Washington State. Additionally, it
was supplemented with website content and three semi-structured interviews with survey
respondents. Informants to this study were selected for their knowledge and familiarity
3
with sustainability efforts at their respective institutions. A total of 50 institutions were
represented in this study.
The conceptual idea for this thesis and the foundation of work it builds upon grew
from a project with the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative of the Washington Center
for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. The Initiative was established in
2005 to support the integration of sustainability concepts and content across
undergraduate curriculum. In December of 2015, I was hired as a Graduate Research
Assistant for the Curriculum for the Bioregion to help design, conduct, and analyze a
longitudinal study assessing the state of sustainability on colleges and universities in
Washington State, working under the supervision of Senior Scholar and Director, Jean
MacGregor.
The Curriculum for the Bioregion had conducted several surveys and interviews
and convened numerous conferences and workshops over the years, partnering with
another nonprofit, E3 Washington (the E’s stand for Education, Environment, and
Economy), on a couple of occasions. They amassed a substantial amount of data on
sustainability efforts at higher education institutions in Washington State over the past
decade. While this organization focuses primarily on sustainability in the curriculum, it
has consistently researched other aspects of sustainability in higher education as well,
including many that are outside the scope of this thesis. With MacGregor slated to retire
in 2017, the Steering Committee of this initiative (comprised of 27 faculty and
administrators at 17 colleges and universities in the Puget Sound region) commissioned a
self-study to understand the state of sustainability education in Washington’s higher
education system, and to generate ideas for ways to continue to support sustainability in
4
higher education.
Working on the Curriculum for the Bioregion project piqued my own intellectual
curiosities. As I worked through the analysis, I was struck by a couple of reoccurring
observations. First, there were indications that leadership and coordination for
sustainability efforts had declined in recent years on many campuses. Second, social and
economic aspects of sustainability were rarely mentioned; environmental aspects
dominated. Through the course of my interdisciplinary graduate studies, I had been
exposed to the three pillar framework of sustainability shaped by influential international
events and documents. It appeared to me that there may be some disconnect between the
theoretical ideals of sustainability as a balanced multi-dimensional concept and the way
sustainability was being interpreted and practiced at colleges and universities. I resolved
to investigate these areas further. For my thesis, I designed an independent research
project building upon the sturdy foundation of information provided by the Curriculum
for the Bioregion and E3 Washington and taking it to new heights.
This study contributes to the body of scholarship in several ways. First, it captures
sustainability trends at the state level, specifically within Washington State higher
education where this is the first known assessment of its kind. Second, it may serve to
deepen understanding of how sustainability is being construed at institutions that would
not otherwise report on their sustainability efforts. Perhaps more importantly, though, this
study is unique in that it examines both the extent of integration and the focus of
sustainability efforts in relation to social, environmental, and economic dimensions of
sustainability. The underlying implication is that understanding what sustainability means
is equally imperative to understanding if it is being integrated. During the review of the
5
literature, no other studies were found that considered these aspects in concert. As such,
this research serve to help fill a gap in the literature and provoke thought and discussion
on how sustainability is being framed, perceived, and modeled on college and university
campuses in Washington State and elsewhere around the world.
Structure of Thesis
The remainder of this thesis unfolds as follows. Chapter 2: Literature Review
describes the body of scholarship that frames this thesis project. It presents an overview
of how and why sustainability and the three pillar framework emerged on the global
stage, introduces the role of higher education in creating a sustainable future, and reviews
the integration and focus of sustainability efforts in higher education institutions in the
United States and elsewhere. The scope then narrows with a brief explanation of how this
thesis fits within and contributes to a growing body of knowledge.
Chapter 3. Research Methodology details the research design, participant
selection, data collection, and analysis methods that shaped this study. It describes the
longitudinal research design that frames this assessment, discusses the existing sources
that were drawn upon for this study as well as original data collected. It then considers
limitations of this study design, and how these have been taken into account.
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion guides the reader into the belly of the study. It
presents a wide breadth of findings, broken down into the three core areas examined
(institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement). Findings are further
digested into the extent of integration of sustainability and the focus of these efforts.
6
Chapter 5. Conclusion provides a synthesis of the study, condenses results into
four key findings, and suggests areas of future research. A short summary concludes this
work. References and appendices follow.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The intent of this literature review was to understand the context in which
sustainability and the three pillar framework were first conceived, how sustainability was
incubated within the higher education sector, and how the integration of sustainability
into higher education and the focus of these efforts have evolved. The sections are
organized to first provide a foundational understanding of how and why sustainability
emerged on the global stage, providing an account of key international events and
documents beginning in the 1970s and leading up to the time of this study. Next, an
attempt is made to define the three pillars of sustainability – social, environmental, and
economic, in order to provide some common understanding and context relevant to the
analysis of this research project. A short discussion on the role of higher education in
creating a sustainable future follows and serves to introduce the next section. Here, the
review turns to literature on the extent of integration and focus of sustainability efforts in
higher education, with particular emphasis on colleges and universities in the United
States as well as some comparisons to other parts of the world. The review concludes by
summarizing the significance of this thesis research and how it contributes to the greater
body of knowledge.
7
2.1 Sustainability Emerges on the Global Stage
The UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 is often
credited as the entry point for the concepts of sustainable development into the global
dialogue (e.g., Dresner, 2008; Edwards, 2005). The declaration that followed the
conference (referred to in short as the Stockholm Declaration) states in Principle 1, that
“Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in
an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a
solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future
generations” (UNEP, 1972). The Stockholm Conference and Declaration began a forum
that linked environmental concerns and development issues, both in developing and
industrialized nations (UNEP, 1972). For instance, the fourth proclamation of the
Stockholm Declaration states:
In the developing countries most of the environmental problems are caused by
under-development. Millions continue to live far below the minimum levels
required for a decent human existence, deprived of adequate food and clothing,
shelter and education, health and sanitation. Therefore, the developing countries
must direct their efforts to development, bearing in mind their priorities and the
need to safeguard and improve the environment. For the same purpose, the
industrialized countries should make efforts to reduce the gap themselves and the
developing countries. In the industrialized countries, environmental problems are
generally related to industrialization and technological development. (p. 1)
The Stockholm Conference and Declaration resulted in the establishment of the United
Nations Programme on the Environment (UNEP) and numerous national environmental
8
protection agencies (Edwards, 2005).
In the wake of the Stockholm Conference, the World Council of Churches hosted
a conference in 1974 entitled Science and Technology for Human Development, where
they defined the concept of a ‘sustainable society.’ A sustainable society, as they defined,
envisioned an equitable distribution of resources, participatory democracy, living within
the ecological means of the planet, and being able to adapt to changing global climate (as
cited in Dresner, 2002). Reflecting on this early, but often overlooked, work by the World
Council of Churches, Simon Dresner (2002) notes, “What is most interesting is that the
original definition started, not with environmental conditions, but with social conditions
for sustainability: the need for equity and for democracy. The debate about sustainability
could be defined as the ideas that emerge when concern for the global environment and
concern for global social justice meet” (p. 33).
Sustainability as a global concept and goal arose at a time when there was
growing tension between environmentalism and economic growth, especially as it related
to poverty, justice, and human well-being (Dresner, 2002). Environmentalism was
receiving heavy criticism by some scholars and human rights advocates as putting
environmental concerns above the needs of people, often disenfranchising marginalized
communities (i.e. by class, gender, or ethnicity) (e.g., Robbins, 2012). As political
ecologist Paul Robbins (2012) explained, “officials and global interests seeking to
preserve the “environment” have disabled local systems of livelihood, production, and
socio-political organization.” (p. 178). A path forward, then, was to unite the ideals of
environmentalism and social justice by envisioning an improved world that took into
account the needs for equity, human development, and environmental protection.
9
Sustainability was brought to the public’s attention in the early 1980s through the
written work of Robert Allen, with his book How to Save the World (1980), and Lester
Brown’s Building a Sustainable Society (1981) (Edwards, 2005). At the international
level, the term ‘sustainable development’ emerged around this same time in the World
Conservation Strategy of 1980, which integrated the concepts of conserving nature and
natural resources with the concepts of meeting the needs and aspirations of present
generations while ensuring potential for future generations to meet their own needs and
aspirations (Dresner, 2002).
One of the most pivotal moments for the global emergence of sustainable
development came in 1987, when the World Commission on the Environment and
Development (WCED) published a report titled Our Common Future, which became
commonly known as the Brundtland Report, after its primary author Gro Harlem
Brundtland (Dresner, 2002). According to Nitin Desai, a senior adviser and key author of
the Brundtland Report, “The report came at a time when the oil shocks of the seventies,
droughts in Africa, concerns about tropical forests, the depletion of the ozone layer and
several other problems were posing great challenges to policy at every level, and it
offered a way of looking at these problems in a holistic way” (as cited in UNCSD, 2007,
p. 1). Twenty years after publication, Desai describes “The main long-term impact of the
report is that we can no longer talk of economic and environmental policy in separate
compartments” (as cited in UNCSD, 2007, p. 1).
The Brundtland Report is most remembered for its famous definition of
sustainable development, which states that “Sustainable development seeks to meet the
needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the
10
future” (WCED, 1987, p. 39). Though frequently contested, this remains the most
commonly cited definition. Its vagueness can be seen as both a blessing and a curse,
simultaneously frustrating to operationalize, yet ultimately fueling continued thought and
dialogue nearly thirty years later (Gibson, 2006).
As one of the proposals of the Brundtland Report, the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
better known as the Earth Summit. As the largest international conference up to that
point, more than 180 world leaders gathered to build on the Stockholm Conference and
Brundtland Report, with many non-governmental organizations and media crews
attending as well (Edwards, 2005). The culminating document, Agenda 21, was a
blueprint for global action on sustainable development for the twenty-first century which
“made it plain that we can no longer think of environment and economic and social
development as isolated fields” (Edwards, 2002, p. 18). An important part of Agenda 21
was a transfer of technologies and funds from the “global north” to the “global south.”
However, in practice this transfer of aid and technologies never materialized (Dresner,
2002). Implementation of Agenda 21 fell under the purview of the Center for Sustainable
Development, a relatively small subcommittee that meets annually in New York for three
weeks and reports to the UN Committee on Economic and Social Affairs, which some
have called a “notoriously bureaucratic graveyard” (Dresner, 2002, p. 45). The other
three conventions that came out of the Earth Summit were intended to limit greenhouse
gas emissions, to protect biodiversity, and to hold a conference on the state of the world’s
forests. Ultimately, these conventions were never signed by the United States and other
industrialized nations, the Rio Declaration was seen to be generally less progressive than
11
its predecessor 20 years earlier, and the forest conference never came to be (Dresner,
2002). All told, the Earth Summit had great big ambitions but was met with disappointing
results.
Sequels to the Earth Summit were held in 2002 and 2012. In 2002, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg. It was intended to be
more development-focused than environment-focused in response to criticisms, primarily
from leaders from the global south, that the preceding conferences were felt to be more
focused on the environment than development (Dresner, 2002). However, it was met with
similarly disappointing results as the Earth Summit. The few international agreements
and commitments that could be made were generally weaker than previous versions
(Dresner, 2002). World leaders gathered once more in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 for the
Rio+20 Earth Summit. The primary result was a nonbinding document, The Future We
Want, which largely reaffirmed previous action plans like Agenda 21 and commitments
from the Rio Declaration. It also supported the development of a replacement set of goals
and targets for Millennium Development Goals, which were set to expire in 2015.
As was recommended in The Future We Want, nearly 200 world leaders gathered
at the historic UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York in September of 2015
and formally adopted Agenda 2030: the Sustainable Development Goals to replace the
Millennium Development Goals. With its 17 goals and their accompanying 169
measurable targets, Agenda 2030 aims to set the course for sustainable development over
the next 15 years (Sachs, 2015).
12
Fig. 1. United Nations Agenda 2030: Sustainable Development Goals
According to Jeffery Sachs (2015), a world-renowned economics professor and
senior UN advisor, “The purpose of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [see Figure 1,
above] is to have a globally agreed holistic approach to the three major pillars of
sustainable development: economic development, including ending extreme poverty;
social inclusion, meaning gender equality, human rights, and the reduction of
inequalities; and environment sustainability, including combatting human-induced
climate change, and conserving and protecting oceans and eco-systems.” (p. 56-57). The
next section further explores these three pillars of sustainability. But first, an important
yet often overlooked perspective merits consideration.
Although the term ‘sustainability’ is relatively new, having emerged in the past
few decades, its concepts have a much deeper history rooted in many Native American
and Indigenous peoples’ cultures. In comparing worldviews and use of language between
Native-American and Euro-American cultures, Doe A. S. Hain-Jamall described several
13
shared characteristics between key values of Native-American worldview and the
concepts of sustainability. She maintained that “The holistic Native-American worldview
embodies the notion of sustainability in general” and in particular, “four key values—
respect for other life forms, balance, reciprocity, and holistic thinking—overlap, the way
various life systems overlap—ecosystems, social systems, respiratory systems, political
systems.” (Hain-Jamall, 2013, p. 17). Additionally, many Indigenous groups have long
upheld ideals of intergenerational equity that is at the heart of modern sustainability
discourse, as evidenced in the long history of teachings of ‘seventh generation’ which
was described by Indigenous peoples and scholars Linda Clarkson, Vern Morrissette, and
Gabriel Régallet (1992) as follows: “The way in which we interact with the earth, how
we utilize the plants, animals and the mineral gifts, should be carried out with the seventh
generation in mind. We cannot simply think of ourselves and our survival; each
generation has a responsibility to "ensure the survival for the seventh generation".” (p.
12).
So while it is true that sustainability is a new concept to many, it is also true that it
is very old to others. This thesis focuses on the perspective of sustainability as a new
concept because it is viewed as such to most institutions of higher education within the
‘Western’ academic system. As will be discussed later in this review, sustainability began
to emerge in higher education around the 1990s and 2000s.
2.2 The Three Pillars of Sustainability: Environmental, Social and Economic
From its inception on the global stage in the 1970s and ‘80s to the many world
gatherings, documents, and decades since, sustainable development has been, and
continues to be, a multi-dimensional concept. While some critics have called sustainable
14
development an oxymoron or an idealistic illusion (e.g., Livingston, 1994, as cited in
Gibson, 2006), according to Gibson (2006), “its genius lay in recognition that combating
poverty (which is not just economic) and protecting the environment (which is not just
biophysical) were necessary to each other and both were likely to fail if not addressed
together” (p. 261). The iconic Brundtland Report of 1987 stated:
Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and their
effects were neatly compartmentalised within nations, within sectors (energy,
agriculture, trade), and within broad areas of concern (environmental, social).
These compartments have begun to dissolve. This applies in particular to the
various global “crises” that have seized public concern… These are not separate
crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis, an energy crisis. They are all
one. (WCED, 1987, p. 4)
In the years after Brundtland, three major interrelated concepts came to underpin
sustainable development: environmental, social, and economic sustainability. These are
often referred to as the three pillars of sustainability. Other variations of the term
commonly used include: the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998), three P’s – people,
profit, and planet (e.g., Fisk, 2010), and three E’s – equity, economy, and environment
(e.g., Edwards, 2005).
While there is a growing body of literature aimed at exploring aspects of the three
pillars of sustainability, there is no agreed-upon definition of what they mean or what
they entail. Furthermore, while the terms are often used in conjunction with one another,
there is substantially less scholarship on all three pillars combined than there is on each
one individually, leading Littig and Grieβler (2005) to point out that “the relationships
15
and connections between social, economic, and ecological sustainability continue to be
quite unclear in many cases.” (p. 68). According to several scholars, much of the
sustainability debate in academia to date has focused on environmental sustainability, and
to a lesser extent economic and social sustainability (Colantonio, 2009; Dempsey,
Bramley, Power & Brown, 2011; Koning, 2001; Littig & Grieβler, 2005). In attempt to
describe what the three pillars mean, literature from across the different disciplines is
drawn upon and briefly shared in the following paragraphs. As a common foundation, a
definition of each is offered as described by the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (see UNESCO, 2006).
The environmental pillar of sustainability was described by UNESCO (2006) as
“an awareness of the resources and fragility of the physical environment and the effects
on it of human activity and decisions, with a commitment to factoring environmental
concerns into social and economic policy development” (p.14). In general, the
environmental pillar primarily concerns the conservation and protection of ecosystems
and their functions (Edwards, 2005). According to Edwards (2005), who himself is
rooted in the environmental realm, environmental sustainability requires taking into
account “the long-term viability of our [natural] resource use, especially in areas such as
resource extraction, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and building” so that
these resources persist into the future, while also recognizing that the well-being of the
current generation of people relies on basic ecosystem goods and services such as clean
water and air (p. 21).
Some key aspects of environmental sustainability include preservation and
perpetuation of natural resources such as water, energy, agriculture, and biodiversity, as
16
well as the protection and restoration of essential functions and services of ecosystems
(UNESCO, 2006). Additionally, it concerns issues of global climate change and human
development in urban and rural areas. As such, environmental sustainability is inherently
connected with social and economic systems.
The social pillar of sustainability, as defined by UNESCO (2006) encompasses
“an understanding of social institutions and their role in change and development, as well
as the democratic and participatory systems which give opportunity for the expression of
opinion, the selection of governments, the forging of consensus and the resolution of
differences” (p. 14). In reviewing the body of scholarship on social sustainability,
Dempsey and colleagues (2011) found that, “There is a relatively limited literature that
focuses specifically on social sustainability, while a broader literature exists on the
overlapping concepts of social capital, social cohesion, social inclusion and social
exclusion.” (p. 290). They go on to explain that “Social sustainability is a wide-ranging
multi-dimensional concept, with the underlying question ‘what are the social goals of
sustainable development?’” which they say is “open to a multitude of answers, with no
consensus on how these goals are defined.” (p. 290).
Often, when social aspects are acknowledged in the sustainability conversation, it
is in reference to society (and/or economic systems) being the cause of, or possible
solution to, environmental problems (Åhman, 2013). Henrik Åhman (2013) and others
take a critical view of this, arguing that social sustainability should be treated as a
concept in its own right and with recognition that without social sustainability, a society
is not sustainable. In Åhman’s investigation into the subject, he identified several
common themes of social sustainability. Foremost, these included: basic needs and
17
equity; education; quality of life; social capital; social cohesion, integration and diversity;
and sense of place (Åhman, 2013). Other important social aspects identified in Agenda
21, the Johannesburg Plan, and/or by UNESCO (2006) include promoting and defending
human rights, peace and human security, gender equality, cultural diversity and
intercultural understanding, health and transparent participatory governance. The extent
that these can be achieved is heavily influenced by economic and environmental
conditions.
The economic pillar of sustainability, according to UNESCO (2006), refers to “a
sensitivity to the limits and potential of economic growth and their impact on society and
on the environment, with a commitment to assess personal and societal levels of
consumption out of concern for the environment and for social justice” (p. 14). A few key
aspects within this pillar include the goals of reducing poverty, promoting corporate
responsibility and accountability, and the development of a global market economy that
equitably takes into account environmental and social sustainability ideals (UNESCO,
2006). Economic sustainability is about equity both within and between generations
(Anand & Sen, 2000).
Some have viewed economic growth as both the means and the goal of
development, while others have argued that economic growth causes intensified pressures
on ecosystems and resources (Brown, 1998). As Brown (1998) describes, “The
unfortunate reality is that the economy continues to expand, but the ecosystem on which
it depends does not, creating an increasingly stressed relationship.” (p. 91). Furthermore,
it has been argued that sustainable development has been used as a smokescreen for
promoting economic growth, much to the detriment of the environment (Hain-Jamall,
18
2013). However, this could also be understood as differences in economic paradigms.
The opposing economic paradigms of “weak” versus “strong” sustainability were
introduced earlier but most famously articulated by Eric Neumayer in 2003.
The distinction between weak and strong sustainability ultimately comes down to
the way ‘stocks of capital’ (i.e., natural resources, man-made resources) are viewed as
substitutable or not. According to Neumayer (2003), weak sustainability is “based on the
belief that what matters most to for future generations is only the total aggregate stock of
‘man-made’ and ‘natural’ capital (and possibly other forms of capital as well), but not
natural capital as such” (p. 1). In essence, this paradigm holds that the current generation
may use non-renewable natural resources so long as they are replaced with some other
form of capital that provides utility to future generations (i.e., roads, ports, schools,
machines). As an extension of traditional (neoclassical welfare) economics, natural
capital is largely regarded as being substitutable with man-made capital under weak
sustainability viewpoint, which is why Neumayer also calls it the ‘substitutability
paradigm’. In contrast, strong sustainability regards natural capital as non-substitutable;
hence Neumayer calls it the ‘non-substitutability paradigm’. Generally speaking, under
strong sustainability, neither the goods nor services provided by the natural environment
can be replaced, and thus must remain available to future generations. In reality, there are
not only two economic viewpoints, but rather many variations that blend aspects of both
these views (Neumayer, 2003). Today, businesses and corporations are encouraged and
pressured to not only focus on “the economic value that they add, but also on the
environmental and social value that they add – or destroy.” (Elkington, 1998).
19
Advantages and disadvantages of the three pillar framework have been identified
in the literature. One criticism, as Gibson (2006) points out, is that “sustainability has
often been depicted as the intersection, rather than the integration, of social, economic
and ecological interests and initiatives” (p. 263), an observation that is visually supported
by the common depiction of three pillars as intersecting circles (Fig. 2.). He goes onto
explain that the typical approach is to tackle aspects of each pillar separately and then try
to integrate the separate components and
findings together. This can not only be
challenging to do, but can lead to
prioritization and trade-offs between
interests that ultimately benefit some over
others. However, the approach does have the
added benefit of potentially being easier to
implement since it generally works within
existing political and government structures
Fig. 2. The three pillars of sustainability
(Gibson, 2006).
Another criticism is that while integrating social, environmental and economic
concepts and concerns is valuable and important, reducing sustainability to just three
systems or pillars, even though they are broad, necessarily discredits others that could be
integrated into the definition of sustainability (Littig & Grieβler, 2005). UNESCO
(2006), for instance, found the three pillars to be lacking a critical dimension, culture, and
has in some instances modified the social pillar to ‘socio-cultural.’ And Edwards (2005)
20
suggests a ‘three E’s plus one’ model, which adds education to the interconnected
systems of environment, equity, and economics.
Criticisms notwithstanding, there are significant advantages of the three pillars
framework. Perhaps of greatest benefit is its explicit recognition that human and natural
systems are inherently intertwined, and its usefulness in bringing stakeholders and
perspectives together to collaborate in order to better understand and address interrelated
issues. Furthermore, while the lack of clear definitions of the three pillars (and
sustainability more generally) has caused frustration and confusion it has also promoted
continued dialogue, thoughtful debate, and the flexibility to adapt and evolve in a rapidly
changing world (Gibson, 2006).
2.3 The Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future
As Anthony Cortese (1992) pointed out, “colleges, universities and professional
schools educate most of the people who develop and manage society’s institutions and
train the teachers who educate children from the kindergarten through high school,
vocational schools and community colleges” (p. 1108). Years later, he went on to say that
“Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral responsibility to increase the
awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable future.”
(Cortese, 2003, p. 17). The ways in which higher education institutions can promote and
demonstrate sustainability are numerous. They include, but are not limited to, integrating
sustainability into the curriculum; research; campus operations and facilities; student
engagement opportunities; community outreach and partnerships; institutional mission
and planning; and faculty and staff development, hiring, and rewards processes (Calder &
21
Clugston, 2003). In short, higher education institutions play a crucial role as educators,
researchers, leaders, and models of sustainability.
The first international commitment to sustainability in higher education came in
1990. That year, the heads of universities from 22 institutions representing countries from
around the globe gathered in Talloires, France to draft an action plan for incorporating
sustainability and environmental literacy into campus operations, teaching, research, and
outreach at colleges and universities and to better inform the upcoming Earth Summit in
Rio de Janeiro (ULSF, 1990). The gathering resulted in a document called the Talloires
(pronounced Tal-Whar) Declaration 10 Point Action Plan. The declaration inspired
several other international declarations in the years to follow, including the Halifax
Action Plan for Universities (1991), Declaration of the Association of Commonwealth
Universities (1993), and the Charter for Sustainable Development (1993), and the
Declaration of the International Association of Universities (1993). Of these, only the
Talloires Declaration became popular in the United States (Calder & Clugston, 2003).
The Talloires Declaration opens with the statement, “We, the presidents, rectors,
and vice chancellors of universities from all regions of the world are deeply concerned
about the unprecedented scale and speed of environmental pollution and degradation, and
the depletion of natural resources” and goes on to affirm that “These environmental
changes are caused by inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption
patterns that aggravate poverty in many regions of the world” (ULSF, n.d., para. 1-2).
Signatories to the declaration further commit that, as university leaders, they “must
initiate and support mobilization of internal and external resources so that their
institutions respond to this urgent challenge.” (ULSF, n.d., para. 3).
22
While the declaration does recognize environmental, social, and economic
systems as interconnected, the focus is decidedly one of promoting environmental
sustainability. Economic systems are largely portrayed as causing environmental
problems and exacerbating social inequities, and the primary “social concern” appears to
be population growth that leads to environmental degradation. Through the ten points of
action, institutions committed to establish academic programs that would produce experts
in ‘environmental management, sustainable economic development, population, and
related fields,’ to foster environmental literacy of all students through providing faculty
development opportunities so faculty may integrate these concepts into their courses,
develop interdisciplinary approaches, and model environmentally responsible practices
such as conserving resources, recycling, and reducing waste. This declaration sought to
influence the Earth Summit in 1992 and draw attention to the roles and responsibilities
that universities have in promoting and creating a more sustainable future.
The call did not go unanswered. The resulting document from the Earth Summit,
Agenda 21, declared that education was “critical for promoting sustainable development
and improving the capacity of people to address environmental and development issues”
(UNCED, 1992, pp. 265-266). Chapter 36 of Agenda 21, titled “Education, Training, and
Public Awareness,” directly stated several priorities for higher education, including
interdisciplinary curriculum development on sustainable development, conducting
sustainability-related research, promoting environmental awareness and sustainability
through outreach and partnerships with multiple stakeholders (Calder & Clugston, 2003).
However, in regards to the three pillars of sustainability, Agenda 21 focuses primarily on
education for environmental concerns. Still, the multi-faceted role of higher education
23
continued to be reaffirmed and the focus of sustainability expanded in the years to follow.
However, the roles of higher education as educators and models of sustainability and the
focus of these efforts in relation to the three pillars were not equally acted upon in
actuality.
In the United States, two conferences in particular helped set the tone for
sustainability in higher education, the Campus Earth Summit at Yale University in 1994
and the Workshop on the Principles of Sustainability in Higher Education in Essex,
Massachusetts in 1995. Each conference produced a report, entitled the Blueprint for a
Green Campus and the Essex Report, respectively, which spelled out strong
commitments to implementing sustainability into higher education in the United States.
The Blueprint for a Green Campus largely reflected the intentions and goals of most
international documents on the subject of its time (Calder & Clugston, 2003). That is,
recommendations focused on incorporating environmental sustainability into all relevant
disciplines and encouraging campuses to practice and model sustainability through
reducing waste, conserving energy and implementing environmentally responsible
purchasing policies (Calder & Clugston, 2003). Social and economic sustainability were
not strongly emphasized or recognized in the Blueprint for a Green Campus. The Essex
Report, however, was notable for its more comprehensive vision and incorporation of the
three major pillars of sustainability (Calder & Clugston, 2003). As Calder and Clugston
(2003) explain, the Essex Report emphasized “the importance of new pedagogical
approaches, including systems thinking; exposure to issues of equity and justice; and
optimal strategies such as interdisciplinary learning and hands-on activities” (p. 10007).
Ultimately though, recommendations from The Blue Print for a Green Campus were
24
more readily implemented than the kinds of changes advocated for in the Essex Report.
The biggest international catalyst for sustainability in higher education was, by
far, the United Nations Resolution 57/254, which declared the years 2005-14 as the
‘Decade of Education for Sustainable Development’ (Decade or DESD) (Chalkley et al.,
2009; Jones, Selby & Sterling, 2010). The overall goal of the DESD was “to integrate
the values inherent in sustainable development into all aspects of learning to encourage
changes in behavior that allow for a more sustainable and just society for all” (UNESCO,
2006, Executive Summary). Unlike the Talloires Declaration and many of its
counterparts, the Framework for the UN DESD International Implementation Scheme
explicitly stated the need for a more holistic approach to education that incorporated all
three pillars of sustainability. It emphasized the importance of maintaining connections
between these areas as part of the learning process. Within each of the three key areas, a
total of fifteen strategic perspectives were identified as “important concerns and
challenges that must be addressed in the effort to achieve sustainability” (UNESCO,
2006, p. 18). Table 1 provides a condensed list of the fifteen perspectives without their
attached elaborations.
Table 1. Fifteen strategic perspectives of the UNDESD
Socio-cultural
Environmental
Perspectives
Perspectives
Natural resources (water,
Human rights
energy, agriculture,
biodiversity)
Peace and humane security
Climate change
Gender equality
Cultural diversity and
intercultural understanding
Health
Rural development
Disaster prevention and
mitigation
Sustainable urbanization
Economic Perspectives
Poverty reduction
Corporate responsibility
and accountability
Market economy
25
Socio-cultural
HIV/AIDS
Governance
Environmental
Economic
Given the influence of international and national events, reports, and declarations,
this review of the literature begs the question, to what extent has sustainability been
integrated into higher education? And furthermore, what are the foci of these efforts in
relation to social, environmental and economic concepts and concerns of sustainability
such as those mentioned in the UN DESD Implementation Scheme? These questions are
explored in the next section.
2.4 Extent of Integration and Focus of Sustainability Efforts in Higher Education
Both the extent of integration and focus of sustainability efforts are important
aspects in and of themselves, but taken in concert, they can deepen our understanding of
how sustainability has been emerging and evolving on campuses. Together, they shed
light on both the quantitative trends and the qualitative perception(s) of sustainability
within the higher education setting. This section concentrates primarily on undergraduate
institutions in the United States, but offers comparisons to other parts of the world as
well.
Extent of integration, as used here, refers to the general occurrence and frequency
of sustainability initiatives within and across institutions. In the literature it has be
quantified through factors such as the percentage of publications on a given sustainability
topic (e.g., Wals & Blewitt, 2010), the number of sustainability-related degree programs
in a given discipline (e.g., NWF, 2001) the frequency of institutional commitments to
26
sustainability (e.g., HEFCE, 2008), or membership with broader networks (i.e. AASHE,
AUPCC, etc.), among other means.
Focus of sustainability efforts, within this study, relates to the references of
different aspects of sustainability within the context of the three pillars of sustainability
framework. It may be determined, for instance, by examining narrative accounts of
individuals, the language of institutional mission and values statements, learning
outcomes, strategic plans, and other formal public declarations, or the content of
websites. It can be quantified and presented as percentages of references to a given topic,
typically as determined by a host of pre-determined keywords (e.g., Sherman, 2008), or
presented as a qualitative description of findings (e.g., Dempsey, Bramley, Power, &
Brown, 2011).
For the purposes of this thesis, the scope is narrowed here to the extent of
integration and focus of sustainability most relevant to three facets of higher education:
institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement. These three
interconnected facets are at the heart of higher education, encompassing administrators
and staff, faculty, and students. There is also less literature on these areas than on the
more common area of campus facilities and operations, as is noted later on in this
chapter. Scholars who have investigated strategies for effective implementation of
sustainability initiatives in higher education have found that each of these constituent
groups can be catalysts for sustainability initiatives at their institutions (McNamara,
2008). In a study of U.S. colleges and universities, McNamara (2008) found that faculty
initiated sustainability efforts on campuses over half of the time, followed by students,
then presidents. Regardless of who initiates these efforts, literature suggests institutional
27
commitments play a key role in the eventual success of sustainability initiatives
(McNamara, 2008; HEFCE, 2008). For instance, a strategic assessment of sustainability
in higher education in England, commissioned by the Higher Education Fund Council for
England (2008), concluded that “There is evidence that increased commitment generates
more activity and enables more internal collaboration.” (p. vii).
Higher education institutions were increasingly committing to integrating
sustainability at their campuses throughout the 1990s and 2000s. For instance, signatories
to the Talloires Declaration jumped from the original 22 institutions in 1990 to over 280
by 2001 (Calder & Clugston, 2003), growing to around 390 by 2009 (Jones, Selby, &
Sterling, 2010). As of January 2016, the declaration carried the signatures of institutional
leaders from 499 higher education institutions in over 40 countries around the world
(ULSF, 2016). Many institutions began making efforts to inject sustainability into the
multiple facets of campus life. These have included the greening of operations and
facilities, inclusion of sustainability into institutional mission and planning strategies,
integration into curriculum and provision of faculty development opportunities,
promotion of research efforts, and increasing student opportunities and community
outreach and partnerships (e.g., Barlett & Chase, 2004; Barlett & Chase, 2013; Chalkley,
Haigh & Higgitt, 2009; Jones, Selby, & Sterling, 2010, M’Gonigle & Starke, 2006).
However, sustainability was not being equally integrated into all of these facets. In
particular, there were criticisms that higher education institutions were not preparing
student with the knowledge and skills they needed by bringing sustainability into the
classroom.
In reviewing the literature on sustainability in the curriculum, a couple of
28
reoccurring themes are easily identified. First, in most cases, infusing sustainability into
the curriculum lagged behind efforts to implement sustainable practices through the
“greening” of campus operations and facilities such as recycling, energy efficiency, and
water conservation practices (e.g., Barlett & Chase, 2004, Barlett & Chase, 2013; Calder
& Clugston, 2003; Edwards, 2005; Jones, Selby & Sterling, 2010; Sterling & Scott,
2008). A national assessment of environmental performance and sustainability in higher
education across nearly 900 institutions in the United States in 2001 found that “trends in
college curricula are relatively weak compared with the greening of operations and
management systems” (NWF, 2001 p. 2). Furthermore, in examining the list of
presentations at the major conferences for sustainability in U.S. higher education from
2003 to 2007, Sherman found that less than one fifth of presentations were devoted to
teaching and learning, whereas the majority concerned campus greening efforts. He also
found that between 2006 and 2007, the Association for Advancing Sustainability in
Higher Education (the leading national network on the subject) made more than 1,000
announcements about campus sustainability news on the AASHE Bulletin, but of these,
only 6% related to teaching and learning sustainability (Sherman, 2008).
Similar trends have been reported elsewhere around the world. For instance, in an
international context, Wals and Blewitt (2010) examined the list of publications from the
first nine years of the academic journal, International Journal on Sustainability in Higher
Education, from 2000 to 2009 and concluded that “the overwhelming majority of articles
focus on issues such as environmental management, university greening and reducing and
a university’s ecological footprint” (p. 56). In more practical on-the-ground settings the
extent of sustainability integration into the curriculum was also found to be reduced as
29
compared to less than campus greening efforts in the U.K. (Sterling & Scott, 2008) and
Australia (Noonan & Thomas, 2004).
The second widely reoccurring theme found in the literature is that when
sustainability is introduced into the curriculum, it is most often by way of merging it into
existing environmental and biology courses and disciplines (e.g., NWF, 2001; Sherman,
2008; Noonan & Thomas, 2004; Lang et al., 2006). This theme was also evident in the
Wals and Blewitt (2010) study which examined articles from the International Journal of
Higher Education, and found that incorporating sustainability into environmental
education was the secondary focus of publications. While this uptake into the curriculum
was generally seen as a positive sign, many raised concerns, noting that this approach
risks focusing primarily on environmental aspects of sustainability and not giving
adequate consideration to social and economic aspects. The United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (2006), for one, cautioned that “Education for
sustainable development should not be equated with environmental education” explaining
that:
The latter is a well-established discipline, which focuses on humankind’s
relationship with the natural environment and on ways to conserve and preserve it
and properly steward its resources. Sustainable development therefore
encompasses environmental education, setting it in the broader context of sociocultural factors and the socio-political issues of equity, poverty, democracy and
quality of life. The development perspective – that of social change and evolving
circumstances – is also a central to any treatment of sustainable development. The
set of learning goals of sustainable development are thus wide-ranging.
30
Sustainable development must be integrated into other disciplines and cannot,
because of its scope, be taught as a discreet subject. (p. 17).
As such, many advocated for a more interdisciplinary approach to teaching and
learning sustainability, recognizing that this would require changes to institutional
structures and teaching pedagogies (e.g., Cortese, 2003; Huisingh, 2006; Orr, 2004;
Sherman, 2008; UNESCO, 2006). AASHE (2010), an advocate for this change, explained
that “sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary and the organization of our institutions
around departments and disciplines does not always support the kind of curriculum
innovation that is needed. Additionally, particularly at large institutions, the very scale of
campuses can lead to silos that hamper efforts to build significant curriculum change
across a campus.” (p. 2). David Orr, an eminent professor and environmentalist, further
problematized this issue in his famous book Earth in Mind in 1994. Orr argued that rather
than discussing problems in education, what needed to be addressed was the problem of
education. He noted that staggering rates of deforestation, desertification, anthropogenic
contributions to climate change, and loss of biodiversity were “largely the results of work
by people with BAs, BSs, LLBs, MBAs and PhDs” (Orr, 2004, p. 7). The problem of
education, as Orr contends, is that it emphasizes theories of the natural world over values,
answering questions over asking them, and technical fixes over critical thinking (Orr,
2004). The solution he called for is “nothing less than the redesign of education itself”
(Orr, 2004, p. 2-3).
This debate was taken up in the literature, with major international organizations
and scholars across disciplines and regions echoing the need for re-orienting education in
order to prepare students for a world of interconnected systems and twenty-first century
31
issues; sustainability, as many see it, presents an overarching theme around which to
galvanize these efforts (Bawden, 2009; Hoover & Harder, 2014; Koehn & Uitto, 2013;
Sachs, 2015; Sterling, 2004). Wals and Blewitt (2010) noted that in the list of
international sustainability articles they were examining, a shift was occurring where
topics of pedagogy, learning and instruction were reportedly becoming more frequent
towards 2009.
Given the ambitious ideals of transforming the higher education sector and using
sustainability as the vehicle for it, a professor at a university in Washington State thought
to ask a prudent question, what does sustainability mean to students? In an experiment at
the University of Puget Sound in Washington State, students in the environmental studies
course (n=107) were asked to write down the first word that came to mind associated
with sustainability. The overwhelming majority listed environmental practices, with
nearly three-quarters writing “recycling.” Only 5% wrote words that described the more
complex multidimensional and interconnected nature of the term. An identical exercise
was conducted among the university’s faculty at a sustainability workshop (n=48) and
yielded strikingly similar results.
This small case study reflects findings from larger studies elsewhere around the
country and the globe. For example, a survey of the student body at University of
Plymouth, England, in 2007 found that students strongly associated sustainability with
environmental concepts, as opposed to social or economic aspects, and identified “light
green” actions such as recycling, saving energy and/or water, and changing purchasing
habits as part of living a sustainable lifestyle (Kagawa, 2007). This is, perhaps, partially a
result of the theme identified earlier, wherein most campuses that ‘modeled’
32
sustainability did so through implementing environmentally sustainable practices in
campus operations and facilities.
Certainly, if sustainability is to be a vehicle for transformation of higher education
and societies, significant strides need to be made. Sustainability will need to be better
integrated into all facets of campus life, including institutional commitments, curriculum,
and student engagement, and these efforts will need to be refocused to reflect
sustainability as a multi-dimensional concept and goal. Chalkley (2010) calls out
attention to this by saying, “it is increasingly clear that issues such as climate change and
energy depletion are much more pressing and urgent than was thought five or ten years
ago. Higher education, therefore, needs to raise its game and to accelerate its pace if it is
to make a substantial and timely contribution to addressing these national and
international issues.” (p. 289).
However, Chalkely (2010) contended that while there was clearly more
sustainability activity on campuses than compared to several years ago, there were also
indications that efforts to integrate sustainability into higher education had slowed by the
late 2000s. Supporting his claim, he cites a review of sustainable development in higher
education in England, published in 2008 by the Higher Education Funding Council for
England, which found that there was only ‘slight evidence’ that sustainability efforts
were increasing (refer to HEFCE, 2008). The authors of the review also noted a
potentially more significant finding. They stated that “Probably the most important
finding of the review is that [sustainability] activity is very disparate in the [higher
education institutions] sector” concluding that sustainability is found broadly dispersed
within different institutions, but varies dramatically across institutions, with “some
33
engaging in multiple, coordinated institution-wide [sustainability] activities involving
hundreds of staff, some having only a few active individuals, and some no identified
activities at all.” (HEFCE, 2008, p. vii). Furthermore, they found that there was no
common perception across institutions of what sustainability is or how it should be
integrated (if at all) into the facets of the institution (HEFCE, 2008).
Yet, interest in sustainability in higher education is still very much alive. In 2010,
the United States convened a summit, entitled ‘Sustainability Education Summit:
Citizenship and Pathways for a Green Economy’, which brought together higher
education experts, government representatives, and businesses together on the topic of
sustainability in higher education—the first gathering of its kind in the nation. As an
example of the focus of this event, the Sustainability Summit opened with a panel and
dialogue about “what is needed for higher education to lead society on a socially,
economically, and environmentally sustainable path” and discussed four key themes
(USDE, 2011, p. 6):
higher education’s leadership role in creating a healthy, just, and sustainable
society;
the importance of sustainability and how to ensure it is the core part of the
institution’s framework and goals;
the operation of an economy that is based on a low carbon production system;
and
challenges faced by the higher education community in advancing
sustainability.
34
Internationally, as the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development came to a
close in November of 2014, it launched a five-year Global Action Programme to continue
efforts beyond the decade. A number of associations and networks have also sprung up to
promote and support these efforts. In the United States, Smith and colleagues (2015) call
attention to several organizations that have helped lead the way, including the
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE),
Second Nature, and the Curriculum for the Bioregion, each of which are involved in this
study in some way. The latter group was crucial to this thesis research as the collectors
and providers of most of the data this study is built upon.
Second Nature has been at the forefront of the sustainability in higher education
movement, having been established in 1993. It is primarily environmentally-focused and
is perhaps most well-known as the supporting organization for the American College and
University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (also known as Presidents’ Climate
Commitment). This commitment focuses on reducing institutions’ greenhouse gas
emissions as well as making sustainability a part of the educational experience for all
students. Presidents or Chancellors who sign on commit their institutions to developing
and implementing a Climate Action Plan and submitting an annual evaluation of
progress. In 2014, Second Nature reported that 679 institutions had signed on, with
participation in all 50 states (Second Nature, 2014). However, some have raised
criticisms. One group called the commitment an “on-ramp to squandering large amounts
of money” and suggested that drastic emission reductions cost institutions more than it
saved them (NAS, 2015, p. 226). According to Second Nature, “82% of signatories
affirmed that their Climate Action Plan has saved their institution money” (2014, section
35
“At a Glance”). Signatories pay a basic due of $825 to $5,000, depending on institution
type and number of students enrolled, and can receive additional recognition if they
contribute more.
With support from Second Nature, AASHE was officially established in 2006 and
became the first professional higher education association for the campus sustainability
community (AASHE, 2016). Through annual conferences and a digital announcement
bulletin, it provides ways of bringing stakeholders from different institutions together and
share information and collaborate around sustainability topics in campus operations,
teaching, research, and public engagement. According to their website, institutions can
become members of AASHE and gain access to more resources as well as discounts on
services through annual membership dues ranging from $280 to $1,935, depending on the
type of institution (two- or four-year) and the size of the student body.
In 2010 AASHE launched the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating
System (STARS) to provide a common framework for institutions to self-assess their
sustainability performance. Institutions report on four categories: Academics,
Engagement, Operations, and Planning & Administration. They are awarded ‘credits’ for
their efforts and recognized with a rating (platinum, gold, silver, bronze, reporter).
STARS is the only consensus-based tool designed specifically for colleges and
universities to assess their sustainability activities (White & Koester, 2012). However,
participation is voluntary, time- and labor-intensive and requires that the institution pay a
fee ($1,400 for non-members and $900 for members). Still, over 300 institutions around
the U.S. have reported through STARS in the five years since its launch (June 2011 to
36
August 2016). Of these, 12 are from Washington State. With this in mind, the next
section describes how this thesis research contributes to the larger body of knowledge.
2.5 Significance and Contributions of this Research
The assessment conducted for this thesis project is similar to the AASHE STARS
instrument in that it recognizes sustainability can and should be integrated into multiple
facets of higher education. There is considerable overlap in the categories examined and
the factors assessed. Also like STARS, the assessment accommodates a diversity of
institution types, including two-year, four-year, publicly funded, privately funded, and
faith-based institutions, as well as institutions of all sizes and settings. However, there are
a few important distinctions. Most importantly, this thesis encompasses a broad
representation of higher education institutions across Washington State, with
participation from all but two community colleges, public baccalaureate and independent
institutions in Washington State.
Furthermore, it draws on a series of surveys administered to institutions in
concert, at several points over a ten year span. This method, essentially captured
“snapshots in time” of sustainability efforts on Washington State campuses in order to
assess change over time. STARS is not conducive to this sort of longitudinal study, not
only because it began five years ago, but because institutions may choose to self-report at
any time and may or may not conduct multiple assessments over time. As such, this study
contributes to the broader body of knowledge of sustainability in higher education in at
least two notable ways. First, it captures sustainability trends at the state level,
specifically within Washington State higher education where this is the first known
assessment of its kind. This information is especially timely given the recent
37
establishment (in 2014) of a state-wide consortia of colleges and universities called the
Washington Association of Higher Education for Sustainability Coalition. This alliance
came into existence after a conference on the subject of sustainability in Washington
State higher education yielded high turnout and increased demand from faculty,
administrators, staff and practitioners for inter-institutional networking, partnering, and
sharing resources and strategies in order to advance sustainability on institutions across
the state. A mission of this group is to better understand how sustainability is evolving
among the wide spectrum of institutions within Washington.
Secondly, this study may help deepen understanding of how sustainability is
being construed at institutions that would not otherwise report on their sustainability
efforts. In particular, institutions where sustainability is seen as a low priority are unlikely
to assess or report their efforts through AASHE STARS or otherwise. As such, this
evaluation is unique in that it examines both institutions that are active in sustainability as
well as those that are not, since both are responsible for educating, preparing, and training
students to be contributing members of society.
This study also advances scholarship by examining the extent of integration and
the focus of efforts (social/environmental/economic) in concert. During the review of the
literature, no other studies were found that considered these dimensions simultaneously.
In fact, while many scholars and organizations have documented the extent of integration
into aspects of higher education, there appears to be a gap in the literature when it comes
to critically assessing the discourse of sustainability in higher education, at least within
Western/Euro-American literature on the subject (with a few notable exceptions such as
Breen, 2010; Kagawa, 2007; Sherman, 2008). Often, sustainability is not defined and in
38
many cases it used interchangeably with environmental terms. This study helps fill that
gap by introducing an assessment of the focus of sustainability efforts and provoking
thought and discussion on how sustainability is being framed, perceived, and modeled on
college and university campuses. Understanding what sustainability means is arguably as
imperative as understanding if it is being integrated.
Ultimately, the complex issues that led to the call for sustainable development
have not been resolved. Indeed, many have only become more complex and urgent over
the years, such as climate change, wealth inequality, poverty, and biodiversity loss
(Chalkley, 2009; IPCC, 2014; Rockström et al., 2009). The need for advancing the ideals
of a just and sustainable society are just as pressing today, if not more so, than they were
forty years ago. In the Implementation Scheme for the Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development, UNESCO (2006) called for “a review of existing curricula in
terms of their objectives and content to develop transdisciplinary understandings of
social, economic, environmental and cultural sustainability.” (p. 21). As such, the
information and insights gleaned from this assessment have potential to benefit
organizations, faculty, administrators, staff, and students who have an interest in
advancing sustainability through higher education. As the first state-wide longitudinal
assessment of its kind in Washington, it also advances scholarship in the field of
sustainability in higher education and provides a basis to compare with other states and
regions of the world, as well as offers a methodology that could be replicated and
modified by other scholars.
39
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study examined the extent of integration of sustainability in higher education
and the focus of sustainability efforts at colleges and universities in Washington State
over the period of 2005 to 2016. Three core areas of higher education were assessed:
institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement. A longitudinal research
design and combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were employed.
Data was derived at five points in time through surveys administered to faculty,
administrators, and staff from 50 undergraduate colleges and universities in Washington
State. Additionally, website content and semi-structured interviews with three survey
respondents supplement the data. Key informant sampling was used to target faculty,
administrators and staff with knowledge and familiarity of sustainability efforts at their
institutions. Responses to the surveys, website content, and interviews were assessed
qualitatively and quantitatively to identify patterns and trends and decipher themes and
meanings. An elaboration of the research design and methodology follows, as well as
considerations for the limitations of this study design.
3.1 Longitudinal Research Design
A longitudinal research design compares how the same variables relate to each other
over a given period of time. It contains three or more repeated observations of the same
units of interest (i.e., individuals, teams, organizations) in a way that allows for
comparisons between observations (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). According to
Ployhart & Vandenberg (2010), a longitudinal research design allows for examination of
trajectories by analyzing the same units at different points in time or analyzing
differences between units over time. It can be subjected to quantitative and/or qualitative
40
analysis methods. It is widely applied to evaluate change under many contexts, but is
perhaps most frequently used in studies of human health, development, and behavior.
This study largely adheres to the longitudinal research design, however, for the
purposes of this assessment it was necessary to deviate in some ways from the strict
structure it traditionally imposes. Information was collected five times over the past
decade: two surveys in 2005-06 (the data gathering period began in late 2005 and ended
in early 2006) and one survey each from the years 2011, 2012, and 2016. Data was
collected by the Curriculum for the Bioregion (an initiative of the Washington Center for
Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education) and E3 Washington, and used here
with permission. These non-profit organizations promote sustainability education in
Washington State’s formal education system. Additionally, survey data was
supplemented with website content and semi-structured interviews with three respondents
from the 2016 survey.
The unit of observation was the institution of higher education, not the individual
survey respondents or interviewees. A total of 50 institutions were represented over the
course of this study. These included all 29 public schools in the state of Washington, 10
of 11 public baccalaureate institutions, and 9 of 10 independent (privately-funded)
institutions, as well as one technical college and one authorized degree-granting
institution with physical presence in the state, as identified through the Washington
Student Achievement Council database. Participation from institutions varied across the
time period. Forty-three institutions were represented in both of the most recent surveys,
24 represented at three or more points, and 14 were represented consistently throughout
the time period. Appendix I provides a summary of institutions represented and their
41
participation in each survey. The three interviewees were selected from institutions
represented in each survey conducted. A strict longitudinal research design would omit
data from institutions that were not “observed” three or more times, in this case resulting
in the loss of valuable insights—particularly responses to open-ended questions—from
several institutions. This information was critical for this thesis and was retained since a
statistical analysis was not being performed. This study was most concerned with general
trends at the state-level and validated that the smaller survey samples (n=18 to 22) were
close representatives of the larger samples (n=47), which afforded some flexibility in
comparisons of surveys between the years. This validation testing is described later on in
the section of data analysis.
The study was further conceptualized and categorized into the three areas of
higher education specific to the research question: institutional commitments, curriculum,
and student engagement. Within each area, both the extent of sustainability integration
and the focus of these efforts were assessed. Assessment was based on analysis of a
subset of questions from each survey; factors were selected to inform each of the three
areas. Questions were selected based on their relevance to the research questions and
opportunity for temporal comparisons. The AASHE STARS framework was used as a
reference to categorize questions and select relevant factors. A detailed list of factors and
the sources from which they were derived is detailed in the analysis section of this
chapter. An overview of these factors is provided here for context.
Institutional Commitments:
Sustainability plans
Sustainability committees
Mission and values statements
42
Membership with national sustainability consortia and networks
Curriculum:
Disciplines
Degrees
General education requirements
Institution-wide learning outcomes
Professional development
Leadership and coordination
General trends
Student Engagement:
Student organizations
Sustainability literacy assessments
General trends
3.2 Research Methodology
The methodology consisted of participant selection, data collection, and analysis.
Each of these is discussed in turn below.
Participant Selection
Participants were recruited from a total of 50 undergraduate universities and
colleges in Washington State. These included 29 two-year institutions and 21 four-year
institutions. A key participant sampling approach was used to select faculty,
administrators and staff currently employed by the institution with knowledge and
familiarity of sustainability efforts at their institution. Individual participants were
identified and recruited by Senior Scholar and Director of the Curriculum for the
Bioregion, Jean MacGregor.
In February to May of 2016, MacGregor electronically sent the online survey to
individuals from the 49 institutions that were represented in one or more previous
43
surveys, plus one two-year technical college that was added for the first time. Of the 50
total institutions invited to participate, 47 completed the survey. The high rate of
completion was a testament to MacGregor’s respected reputation in the sustainability
community and the many polite and persistent requests she made through personal phone
calls and emails over the course of the next couple of months. The introduction to the
survey described the study and rationale. Participants were encouraged to collaborate and
complete the survey in small teams, under the instruction to submit only one survey per
institution. Participants were similarly recruited for the 2012 online survey and had a
response rate of 47 out of 49 institutions.
In late 2005 and early 2006, Curriculum for the Bioregion staff visited 18
institutions. Of these, half were two-year institutions and half were four-year; all were
located in western Washington. Two surveys were administered to the institutions visited,
one aimed at understanding faculty perspectives regarding integrating sustainability into
the curriculum (referred to as 2005-06 faculty survey); the other was aimed at
understanding institutional commitments to sustainability (referred to as 2005-06
institutional survey). From each institution, multiple individuals who were identified as
being involved with sustainability efforts were invited to complete surveys. In 2011,
faculty from 32 institutions were invited to attend a workshop on sustainability in higher
education, coordinated by the Curriculum for the Bioregion and E3 Washington. Teams
of faculty from 22 institutions opted to participate and met for one day on November 11,
2011. Teams were asked to complete and return a survey.
Lastly, towards the end of this thesis research, a small number of additional
interviews were sought out to supplement information on student engagement with
44
sustainability. Several surveys had touched on this topic, but interviews were pursued to
gain more in of an in-depth understanding of how levels of student engagement and the
focus of student interests and activities related to sustainability had changed over time. A
paper questionnaire was distributed to members of the Steering Committee for the
Curriculum for the Bioregion inquiring about interest and availability for a 30-minute
interview, or to recommend a more suitable representative from their institution.
Members were faculty, administrators or staff affiliated with an institution in Washington
State, many of which had participated in the 2016 survey and were familiar with the
study. In total, 11 individuals responded affirmatively as having interest and an additional
18 individuals were recommended. Five individuals were selected based on the type of
institution they would represent and the perceived level of student activity in
sustainability at that institution, as indicated by survey data and aided by personal
communication with MacGregor. The goal was to interview individuals from a range of
institution types, including two-year, four-year, publically-funded, and privately funded.
The five selected individuals were contacted to request an interview. Four interviewees
responded, however, due to a narrow timeline only three were conducted within the
timeframe. These included one each from a two-year community college, four-year
public college, and a four-year private university.
Data Collection
This research utilized survey data collected by the Curriculum for the Bioregion
in 2005-06, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Surveys in 2012 and 2016 were conducted in
partnership with E3 Washington. A copy of each set of survey questions included in this
45
analysis is provided in Appendix II. As mentioned previously, information was also
gathered from institutions’ websites and through a three semi-structured interviews.
The 2016 online survey instrument was developed using Survey Monkey and
consisted of 50 questions aside from general identification (name, institution, email, etc).
It took respondents approximately one to two hours to complete. Of the 50 content
questions, 28 were selected to be reviewed in this thesis project based on their relevance
to the research questions and the opportunity for comparison across years; 13 were openended and 15 were close-ended, but often offered opportunities for comments. The
questions themselves were initially derived from a list of all previous survey questions
employed, plus several new ones developed by MacGregor to reflect the current interests
of the organization. Questions were then refined though a participatory feedback process
with 18 members of the Curriculum for the Bioregion Steering Committee through a
series of three small group teleconferences. Committee members were asked to provide
input on whether the questions were worded clearly and easily interpreted, if they were
redundant, or if they were impractical to answer.
The 2012 online survey instrument was also developed using Survey Monkey. It
consisted of 10 multi-part questions and was designed to take 20 minutes or less to
complete. Questions typically opened with a binomial Yes/No response and then posed
one or more open-ended questions prompting the respondent to describe or further
explain the issue. For instance, the first question opens with, “Does your campus mission
and values statement contain language about sustainability, a sustainable future or
stewardship of the earth?” Respondents are constrained to selecting yes or no, but then
are asked the sub-questions, “If you answered yes, what is the language and where does it
46
appear?” and “Is this language posted on your campus website (please include the URL if
it is)?” Of the 10 questions, eight contributed to this research.
At the workshop in 2011, a survey was administered to participants as an electronic
Microsoft Word document through email. Faculty from each of the 22 institutions
worked with their small teams to complete it. A designated “writer” from the team filled
in the survey using a laptop computer. The completed surveys were then returned via
email either at the close of the meeting, or in the days and weeks that followed,
depending on if the teams needed additional time. Questions were largely developed to
provide more insight into the status of environmental and sustainability education in
Washington State as part of a grant-funded initiative undertaken by E3 Washington from
2007-2010 to develop a plan for advancing these subjects on campuses. The survey
attempted to assess progress on three goals by asking respondents to comment on a series
of open-ended questions pertaining to each goal area. However, due to unforeseen
circumstances, the E3 initiative was never completed and the data was not analyzed. The
survey contained seven questions relevant to this thesis and are included in Appendix II.
In 2005-06, individuals from each institution visited were asked to complete paper
surveys. Two surveys were administered, one focused on institutional efforts, and another
focused on faculty efforts, primarily regarding presence and content of curriculum. A
total of 28 questions were asked, though not all questions remained relevant over the
years. Seven questions from the institution survey were adopted in future surveys and
allowed for comparisons; these were included in the analysis. Additionally, six questions
from the faculty survey were included. The questions asked for information on:
sustainability in the curriculum; professional development experiences for faculty; level
47
of interest in sustainability topics; status of sustainability committee or task force; and
insights on most promising work and future trajectory.
Semi-structured interviews with three sustainability leaders from three separate
institutions were conducted to supplement the data on student engagement. Two
interviews were conducted over the phone, and a third was conducted in person at the
interviewee’s office on-campus. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. During the
interviews, verbal responses were electronically transcribed in real-time with efforts
made to capture responses as close to verbatim as possible without hindering the flow of
conversation. Permission was granted to anonymously quote each interviewee, with the
agreement that any quote used in the thesis would be sent to the interviewee for final
permission and editing, if necessary, prior to publishing.
Additionally, data was gathered directly from institutions’ webpages. This included
the specific language of institutions’ mission and values statements, information on
sustainability-related degree programs that were reported by respondents on the 2016
survey, and information on student groups and organizations. Using Google and the
institutions’ own search browsers, keywords were used to find relevant webpages. All
institutions had public websites, from which mission and values statements were easily
identified. Degree programs were searched for using the title provided by survey
respondents with the purpose of determining which discipline it belonged to and what
aspects of sustainability it focused on, as evidenced by the program description. Student
organizations were searched for using the term(s) provided by survey respondents. If the
organization could not be found this way, a general search was conducted for the
institutions’ student organizations/clubs/activities webpages.
48
Data Analysis
Answering the research questions was best accomplished through a combination
of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, taking advantage of open-ended,
categorical, and numerical survey responses, as well as content from institutions’
webpages and narratives from semi-structured interviews. Analysis was split into two
phases and broken down into a multi-step process, as guided by the research questions.
Phase one assessed the extent of integration of sustainability for each of the three areas of
higher education in question: institutional commitments, curriculum, and student
engagement. Phase two assessed the focus of sustainability efforts for each of these areas.
Within each phase, analysis was performed one survey at a time, beginning with 2016,
and subsequently compared across years as determined by the prevalence of the specific
factor under investigation. For instance, if the factor appeared in three surveys, it was
first analyzed across institutions within each survey (e.g., 25% of institutions responded
affirmatively) in isolation and then compared across all three surveys to identify changes.
Analyzing the extent of integration of sustainability was fairly straightforward and
focused primarily on summarizing, coding, and organizing categorical and numerical
survey responses to identify trends, patterns, and points of difference within and between
datasets. A total of 14 factors were chosen to inform this phase of the research: four were
chosen for the area of institutional commitments to sustainability, seven for the area of
curriculum, and three for the area of student engagement. Table 2 provides a shorthand
list of factors used for this research and includes an overview of the means of
measurement as well as data sources that were analyzed for each factor.
49
Table 2. Factors, measurements and sources included in analysis of extent of integration
of sustainability.
Factors
Measurement
Sources
Institutional Commitments
Mission and values statements
Surveys from 2016,
Number and percent of
containing sustainability
2012, and 2005-06
institutions
language
faculty
Institution-wide sustainability
Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016
plans
institutions
and 2012
Status of sustainability
committees (informal vs. formal, Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016,
and active, in development, no
institutions within each
2012, and 2005-06
longer active, or not planned at
category
(institutional)
present)
Participation in memberships
Number and percent of
and networks related to
Survey from 2016
institutions
sustainability
Curriculum
Surveys from 2016,
Disciplines incorporating
Number and percent of
2011, 2005-06
sustainability
institutions
(institutional) and
2005-06 (faculty)
Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016,
Sustainability-related degrees
institutions and number of
2011, and 2005-06
and academic programs
degrees, by type of degree
(institutional)
Sustainability-related general
Surveys from 2016,
Number and percent of
education graduation
2012, and 2005-06
institutions
requirements
(institutional)
Sustainability-related institution- Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016
wide learning outcomes
institutions
and 2012
Professional development
Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016,
opportunities for faculty to
institutions and number of
2012, 2011, and
integrate sustainability into
faculty participants, by type 2005-06
curriculum
of opportunity
(institutional)
Leadership and coordination for
Surveys from 2016,
Number and percent of
sustainability in the curriculum
2012, and 2005-06
institutions
efforts
(institutional)
General trends and trajectories of Number and percent of
Surveys from 2016,
sustainability in and across the
institutions within each
2011, and 2005-06
curriculum
category
(institutional)
50
Factors
Student Engagement
Student organizations dedicated
to sustainability-related efforts
Assessing students' sustainability
literacy
General trends and trajectories of
student engagement with
sustainability
Measurement
Sources
Number of institutions and
number of organizations
Number and percent of
institutions
Surveys from 2016
and 2011
Overall trajectories in levels
of student engagement
Survey from 2011
and interviews
Survey from 2016
At the level of the individual factor, it was largely a quantitative exercise. Survey
data was imported into Excel, with a spreadsheet assigned for each survey and individual
tabs assigned to correspond with each question from the survey and summary statistics
run for each factor, such as the sum, percentage, average, and median of the responses.
The data was also explored to determine if there were differences between two- and fouryear institutions, as the structure and culture of these can be quite different (e.g., student
turnover rates).
Making comparisons across years was complicated by the fact that surveys varied
in regards to the institutions that participated, the presence of a selected factor, and in
some instances the exact wording of the question. A form of validation testing was
performed to determine if it was appropriate to draw comparisons between surveys with
different sample sizes. From the 2016 survey (n=47), data from the institutions
represented in the smaller 2011 survey (n=22) were compared against the entire sample
survey. This approach revealed there was a marginal (1-2%) difference between the two
samples on categorical responses, indicating that the smaller sample of institutions was a
close representative of the larger sample. This allowed for some flexibility in
comparisons across years at the aggregate state-wide level.
A mixture of quantitative practices and qualitative analysis techniques were
51
employed to interpret trends, patterns, and discern points of differences at the aggregate
statewide level across years. In addition to the quantitative approaches described above, a
process of coding, categorizing and organizing was employed. Working within Excel, the
data was categorized based on their indication as a positive, negative, or neutral sign of
integration of sustainability based on the literature (i.e. having a formally established
sustainability committee was assumed to be a positive indicator of integration). Data was
then combined within a single spreadsheet and organized according to the prior coding
and categorization process. Using the same color scheme throughout all surveys visually
aided synthesis and interpretation of multiple factors within and across the three areas of
examination. Qualitative themes observed in analysis of open-ended responses provided
context for understanding quantitative observations.
To investigate the focus of sustainability efforts at higher education institutions, a
summative approach to qualitative content analysis was used. This phase of the research
was informed by open-ended survey responses, information available on institutions’
webpages and narratives from semi-structured interviews. Similar to manifest content
analysis (see Cope, 2010), a summative approach begins by quantifying occurrences of a
set of terms, in this case sustainability-related topics and keywords (Hsieh & Shannon,
2005). It then expands on this to explore and interpret the context in which the terms
were used and the range of meanings they can encompass (Hsieh &Shannon, 2005). A
total of 11 factors were selected for this phase: three within institutional commitments,
five within curriculum, and three within student engagement. Table 3 provides and
overview of the factors, measure of analysis, and sources of data utilized for this portion
of the research project.
52
Table 3. Factors, measurements and sources included in analysis of focus of
sustainability efforts.
Factors
Institutional Commitments
Mission and values
statements containing
sustainability language
Sustainability committees
Participation in memberships
and networks related to
sustainability
Curriculum
Measurement
Focus of language
Focus of efforts
Focus of organizations
Courses incorporating
sustainability
Disciplines involved
and focus of content
Sustainability-related
degrees and academic
programs
Disciplines involved
and focus of degrees
Sustainability-related general
education graduation
Focus of requirements
requirements
Sustainability-related
institution-wide learning
outcomes
General trends and
trajectories of sustainability
in and across the curriculum
Student Engagement
Student organizations
dedicated to sustainabilityrelated efforts
Student interests with
sustainability in relation to
social, environmental, and
economic sustainability
Sustainability topics being
taken up by students today
Sources
Surveys from 2016, 2012 and
2005-06 (faculty), and
institution webpages
Surveys from 2012 and 200506 (institutional)
Organizations' webpages
Surveys from 2016, 2011,
2005-06 (institutional), and
2005-06 (faculty)
Surveys from 2016, 2011,
2005-06 (institutional), and
institution webpages
Surveys from 2016, 2012 and
2005-06 (faculty), and
institution webpages
Focus of learning
outcomes
Surveys from 2016 and 2012,
and institution webpages
Focus of efforts
Surveys from 2016, 2011 and
2005-06 (institutional)
Focus of efforts
Surveys from 2016, 2011, and
institution webpages and
interviews
Focus of interests
Surveys from 2016, 2011, and
interviews
Focus of topics
Survey from 2016 and
interviews
53
Prior to the analysis, a coding structure was developed by adapting topics and
keywords from the literature and clustering these around the three pillars of sustainability
(see Table 4). Analytic codes were adapted from the fifteen strategic perspectives
identified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) in the Framework for the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development International Implementation Scheme (see UNESCO, 2006). Descriptive
codes were derived from Kagawa’s study on dissonance in students’ perceptions of
sustainability (see Kagawa 2007). After conducting a trial run with these, additional
codes were added in vivo to better capture common themes specific to this research. In
the chapter on results and discussion that follow, these codes are examples of what are
referred to as ‘aspects’ of social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
Next, data was imported into Atlas.ti 6.2 software and text was systematically
coded and categorized according to the coding structure. The number of references to
codes within each pillar of sustainability were counted and their combined frequency
reported (i.e. 33% of references to each pillar). This was then compared across years in
order to discern patterns and relationships within and across a set of selected factors.
Throughout the results and discussion chapter that follows, these topics and keywords are
referred to as ‘aspects’ of the pillar in which they belonged, though this is not presumed
to be a comprehensive list.
54
Table 4. Coding structure of content analysis. Shaded boxes represent analytic codes and
were derived from UNESCO (2006), non-shaded boxes represent descriptive codes, and
were derived from Kagawa’s study (2007). Asterisk (*) indicates in vivo codes.
Social Topics and
Environmental Topics and
Economic Topics and
Keywords
Keywords
Keywords
Human rights
Natural resources (water,
Poverty reduction
energy, agriculture,
biodiversity)
Peace and humane security
Climate change
Corporate
responsibility and
accountability
Gender equality
Rural development
Market economy
Cultural diversity and
Sustainable urbanization
Economy
intercultural understanding
Health
Disaster prevention and
Fair trade
mitigation
HIV/AIDS
Alternative/clean/renewable
Production
energy
Governance/Government
Conservation
Green jobs*
Diversity
Environment/environmental
Capitalism*
Equality
Environmentally/eco-friendly Sustainable business
practices*
Equity/Fairness
Stewardship of Earth/natural
Financial*
resources*
People/human
Green
Employment*
Quality of life/well-being*
Organic food
Business*
Social justice*
Permaculture
Society*
Recycle
Food/climate/water justice* Garden*
To gain a deeper understanding of these trends and intuit the contexts in which
sustainability has been used and the meanings it may encompass, broader themes and
nuanced details of the texts were examined. Explicit and implicit references to
sustainability and the way references to sustainability were framed were critically
assessed in survey responses as well as institutions’ mission statement, values statements
55
and student learning outcomes. In some instances, additional information was retrieved
from institutions’ webpages and its contents analyzed. Specifically, this applied to
institutions’ mission and values statements, general education requirements, student
learning outcomes, degrees and academic programs, and student organizations.
Another means of assessing the focus of sustainability was through examining
degrees and academic programs that were reported as having integrated sustainability
content, and sorting them by disciplines. This provided insight into how students were
being exposed to sustainability in the curriculum, i.e. through which academic
disciplines. This information was analyzed by determining which discipline it belonged
to and what aspects of sustainability it focused on, based on program description.
3.3 Limitations of Research Design
This study was based on the longitudinal research design, however, it did not
meet all of the criteria for a strict longitudinal study. Foremost, institutional participation
varied over the years and not all survey questions were asked throughout the study
period, or were worded slightly different. Since statistical analyses were not being used, a
more flexible research design was adopted to include the valuable data provided by
survey respondents over the years. This study was able to use a combination of
quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches through summative content analysis
methods to take advantage of a rich and variable set of data and providing a more robust
assessment.
Additionally, the majority of the respondents over the years have been faculty
members who presumably had an interest in teaching sustainability and thus, likely did
accurately reflect the views of many campus stakeholders. Furthermore, many have been
56
involved with Curriculum for the Bioregion events and activities, the organization that
administered the surveys. Survey respondents provided their contact information as part
of the survey (as opposed to being anonymous), which may have influenced their
responses. However, this could also be seen as an advantage. That the majority of
respondents were faculty with an interest in and familiarity with sustainability initiatives
likely produced a more accurate picture of sustainability efforts institutions were engaged
with at the time of the survey—especially regarding sustainability in and across the
curriculum. The fact that surveys were not anonymous added a level of accountability
that may have improved accuracy. Furthermore, faculty were in many ways efficient
informants for this study because they interact with both the administrative body and the
student body.
While these limitations are not inconsequential, this unique study has much to
offer. A complex multi-dimensional approach was needed for examining a much more
complex multi-dimensional subject like sustainability in higher education. The following
chapter reveals what has been learned.
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents results and discussion regarding sustainability in
institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement within higher education
institutions. The extent of integration of sustainability was assessed and the focus of these
efforts evaluated in terms of the three pillar framework of social, environmental, and
economic sustainability. Information was gathered through a series of surveys conducted
between 2005 and 2016 and administered to faculty, administrators, and staff at
undergraduate colleges and universities with knowledge and familiarity of sustainability
57
initiatives at their campus. Representatives from all but two community colleges, public
baccalaureate and independent institutions in Washington State have contributed to this
dataset. Additionally, one technical college and one authorized degree-granting
institution were included, for a total of 50 institutions. Surveys conducted in 2012 and
2016 had the broadest representation, with 47 participating institutions each, and are
drawn on most heavily for this thesis research.
While in reality institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement
are tightly interconnected, findings for each area are presented in turn for organizational
flow. Each of these areas is further bisected into the extent of integration of sustainability
efforts, and the focus of these efforts in relation to the three pillar framework.
4.1 Institutional Commitments
As scholars have pointed out, institutional commitments are important, if not
crucial, to the integration of sustainability in higher education more broadly (e.g.,
AASHE, 2010; McNamara, 2008). There are many ways institutions can demonstrate
their commitments to sustainability. The avenues examined in this research included:
establishment of sustainability plans; status of sustainability committees; incorporation of
sustainability language into mission and value statements; and membership to
sustainability consortia and networks.
Dr. McNamara (2008) conducted her doctoral dissertation on the subject of
fostering sustainability in higher education, exploring ‘what factors were essential for
initiating and leading a successful change effort.’ Using a mixed-methods research design
with surveys and interviews with representatives from institutions within the United
States, she found that the two most important components of a successful sustainability
58
initiative were the completion of a written and formally adopted sustainability plan and
the formation of a sustainability committee or council. She concluded that there was a
“significant relationship between the completion of a written plan and the progress made
on the sustainability initiatives. The importance of a written plan was emphasized in the
interviews. All of the interviewees that had achieved a high level of progress had
completed a written plan.” (McNamara, 2008 p. 191). Furthermore, McNamara (2008)
described, “A conclusion that several of the interviewees had come to was that they
needed both a sustainability council or committee consisting of representation from
across the institution and a sustainability coordinator/director The council or committee’s
role was to build engagement, foster collaboration and provide leadership. The
sustainability coordinator or director’s role was to manage the sustainability projects.” (p.
196-197). These conclusions were also supported in the broader literature and were
identified by Calder and Clugston (see Corcoran & Wals, 2004). In this thesis research,
surveys from 2012 and 2016 included questions about the presence and status of
sustainability plans and sustainability committees, which indicate to what extent colleges
and universities in Washington State are utilizing these approaches to integrate
sustainability. Further insights were gleaned from survey data and analyzed to understand
the foci of sustainability committees’ efforts and compared to the three pillar framework.
Regarding mission and value statements, both the extent of integration and the
focus of language is presented and discussed. Extent of integration draws on survey data
from 2005-06, 2012 and 2016 the number and percent of institutions that reportedly
included sustainability language into their mission and values statements is examined.
Additionally, the specific language used, as reported by survey respondents and gathered
59
directly from institutions’ webpages, was examined to identify whether statements made
explicit or implicit references to sustainability and what the focus of this language was in
relation to the framework of the three pillars of sustainability. As AASHE (2010) points
out in their report Sustainability Curriculum in Higher Education: A Call to Action,
“Many important efforts on campuses are guided by the language in the institution’s
mission statement and strategic plan. Campus sustainability leadership should explore
how they can bring sustainability into these documents so that they can become leverage
points for future discussions about sustainability curricula and the resources needed to
enact it” (p. 9).
Lastly, institutional memberships to two well-known national sustainability in
higher education consortia and networks were examined, based off survey data from
2016 and organizations’ webpages. The two groups included in this study were the
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and
Second Nature through the signing of the American College and University Presidents’
Climate Commitment (often referred to as Presidents’ Climate Commitment).
Extent of Integration
As of May 2016, one-third (34%) of all campuses surveyed had a Sustainability
Plan, of which half were two-year institutions and half were four-year institutions. In
2012, nearly an identical percent (32%) of campuses had a Sustainability Plan, again in
roughly equal proportion of two- and four-year institutions (Fig. 3). However, the
specific institutions with and without plans varied between the years. Over half (56%) of
all existing plans reported in 2016 were developed within the previous four years. At the
same time, 27% of institutions that reportedly had sustainability plans in 2012 no long
60
reported having them in 2016. In some cases, respondents were unsure whether their
campus had a Sustainability Plan or not. Additionally, in 2012, nearly one in five (17%)
institutions reported that they were developing a sustainability plan, but only a quarter of
those reported having a sustainability plan in 2016 (though one institution reported theirs
was in development).
% of Institutions (n=47)
Presence of Sustainability Plans, 2012 and 2016
50%
2012
40%
2016
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes
In
Development
No
Unsure
Fig. 3. Presence of sustainability plans. Percent of institutions with, without,
and developing sustainability plans, as reported in 2012 and 2016 (n=47).
It would appear that among colleges and universities in Washington State, there
has been an interest in establishing sustainability plans and that this interest was still
present at the time of this study. In 2016, one third of all institutions surveyed had
recently (within four years) developed or were in the process of developing sustainability
plans. In light of McNamara’s work (2008), this may be an indication of recent and
upcoming successful implementation of sustainability initiatives. However, in many
cases, the plans appeared not to be long-lasting. It is unclear if this is because the plans
were completed, abandoned, or if their existence was not well known. This study also
indicates that in some cases, institutions may have started developing sustainability plans
61
that either did not come to fruition, or took more than four years to develop and adopt.
The quality of these plans is also not evident from this study, but may be a valuable area
of future research considering McNamara’s (2008) point that the quality of plans is
closely associated with the level of progress achieved. Further investigation into the
subject matter and priorities of these plans is also recommended, especially in regards to
the extent which institutions’ sustainability plans promote integration of sustainability
into the curriculum, student engagement opportunities, and institutional commitments,
and how the focus of those efforts reflect social, environmental, and economic aspects of
sustainability.
Another important component of an institution’s commitment to sustainability is
the establishment of sustainability committees. The establishment of sustainability
committees or councils on campuses appeared to be taking off in the early 2000s. In
2005-06, half of 18 institutions in western Washington surveyed by Curriculum for the
Bioregion had established sustainability committees on their campuses. By 2012, over
70% of 47 institutions surveyed had formal sustainability committees or councils in place
and active, three campuses had informal task forces to serve this function, and two
campuses were just developing theirs. However, the trend seems to have peaked prior to
2012 and had begun to decline by then. In 2012, eight institutions reported having had
sustainability committees or task groups but that they were no longer functioning. Several
other institutions with formal sustainability committees were showing signs of difficulty,
reporting reduced meeting frequency and difficulty in recruiting administrators to
participate. The downward trend continued over the next four years. By 2016, nearly a
third (28%) of institutions reported no longer having functioning sustainability
62
committees or task groups. This includes three committees that remained disbanded from
2012, and an additional 10 that disbanded between 2012 and 2016. Figure 4 illustrates
these recent trends.
Status of Sustainability Committees and Task Forces, 2012 and 2016
Formal committee in place and active
Informal task force in place and active
2012
Committee/task force just being developed
2016
Had one, but no longer functioning
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent of Institutions
Fig. 4. Status of sustainability committees and task forces. Percent of institutions with
formal committee or informal task force in place, being developed, or no longer
functioning, as reported in 2012 and 2016 (n=47).
This study suggests that it may be difficult for sustainability committees to gain
formal status and once formally in place and active maintaining that status remains
challenging. In all, between 2012 and 2016 there was a reported 22% reduction in the
number of institutions with formal sustainability committees in place and active. Four
institutions with formal committees in 2012 reported having informal status in 2016. Two
institutions that had been planning and developing sustainability committees in 2012
were still doing so four years later. However, several institutions had reestablished their
committees or working groups or were currently redeveloping theirs. On some campuses
sustainability committees or task forces were formed and charged with developing
sustainability plans and then, with that work completed, ceased to function.
63
As of May 2016, roughly half (49%) of institutions in Washington State reported
having an active formal
Not planned
4%
sustainability committee or
council; 13% of institutions had
informal committees; 6% were
developing new committees; 28%
Task force or
committee just
being developed
6%
Had one, but
no longer
functioning
28%
Formal
committee or
council in
place and
active
49%
had ones in the past but were no
longer functioning; and 4% did not
have a committee and were not
planning to establish one (Fig. 5).
Informal task
force or
committee in
place and
active
13%
Fig. 5. Status of Sustainability Committees in 2016
In 2012 and 2016 online surveys to 47 institutions posed the question, “Does your
campus mission and values statements contain language about sustainability, a
sustainable future, or stewardship of the earth? If so, what is the language and where does
it appear?” The benefit of asking respondents this question, as opposed to going directly
to the institution webpages, is that websites and mission and values statements change,
and when comparing across years it is useful to have a static account of whether language
was included and what the language was. However, to achieve a more accurate analysis,
institutional webpages were visited in 2016.
According to responses, one-third (32%) of 47 institutions surveyed in 2016
included language about sustainability in their mission and/or values statements. The
percentage was identical in 2012, however there was variation among institutions
between the years. Several (5) institutions added language about sustainability, a
64
sustainable future, or stewardship of the Earth between 2012 and 2016. However, the
same number (5) had reported having sustainability language in 2012 but no longer did in
2016. It is not clear if institutions changed their mission and values statements over that
time and no longer incorporated sustainability language, or if survey respondents had
different interpretations of the same statements. Respondents also noted that
sustainability was being included in institutions’ Strategic Plans, Master Plans, Core
Themes, and other formal institutional declarations. When this is taken into
consideration, at least 70% of institutions in Washington State reported commitments to
sustainability through their mission and value statements, strategic plans, or other formal
declarations. Figure 6 below indicates the prevalence of sustainability commitments, as
reported by respondents, in these different forms of public declarations in 2012 and 2016.
Going back further, data from 2005 indicates that at least seven institutions had
incorporated sustainability content in these public declarations a decade or more ago. As
an indication of the influence of including sustainability language into these statements
can have on faculty, one team of survey respondents from 2016 noted that “The fact that
three of the four core themes of the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan are basically the definition
of sustainability (Social Equity, Economic Vitality, and Environmental Integrity) is
encouraging.”
65
Formal Public Declarations with Sustainaiblity Language,
2012 and 2016
2012
Mission Statement
2016
Values Statement
Strategic Plan
Master Plan
Core Theme
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of Institutions
Fig. 6. Formal public declarations with sustainability language. Number of institutions
reporting sustainability language in different forms of public declarations, as reported in
2012 and 2016 (n=47).
Institutions’ participation with two national membership networks were also
investigated as part of this thesis. These included the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and the Climate Leadership Network,
currently overseen by Second Nature. Institutions were asked about their membership
status with AASHE and whether they were signatories of the American College &
University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (commonly known as the Presidents’
Climate Commitment). Institutions were also asked if they had conducted a selfassessment through AASHE’s Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System
(STARS). Responses were examined by type of institution to see if two-year or four-year
institutions were more active in these national membership networks.
Just over half (53%) of all institutions surveyed in Washington State reported
joining AASHE as members at some point. Of those 18, nearly three-fourths (71%) were
reportedly still members as of May 2016; 61% were four-year institutions and 39% were
66
two-year. Two-year institutions have been less likely to keep their membership status
than their four-year counterparts. However, respondents from 15% of institutions were
unsure whether their institution participated in AASHE or not (Fig. 7).
Membership Status with AASHE, 2016
Number of Institutions
20
Two-year
15
Four-year
10
5
0
Yes, we
currently are
We were but No, we never
no longer are
joined
Unsure
Fig. 7. Membership status with AASHE. Number of institutions with current,
former, or no AASHE membership, as reported in 2016 survey (n= 47). Graph
depicts differences between two- and four-year institutions.
STARS, overseen by AASHE, is a self-reporting framework developed especially
for colleges and universities to measure their ‘environmental and social sustainability’
performance. Based on an institution’s demonstrated commitments to sustainability in
four categories (Academics, Engagement, Operations, and Planning & Administration),
they are rated as Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. It is a voluntary reporting system that
provides institutions a standard procedure for assessing sustainability efforts, which also
allows for inter-institutional comparisons. However, paid membership to AASHE is
required and it is noted as being quite time and labor-intensive for institutions to conduct.
There is no mandate to conduct the assessment in a given interval of time, adding
flexibility for individual institutions but also making accurate comparisons between
67
institutions more difficult. As of March 2016, 30% of institutions in Washington had
participated in the STARS assessment, 55% had not, and respondents from 15% of
institutions were unsure if their institutions had done so or not. Both two- and four-year
institutions have conducted assessments through STARS, with slightly more four-year
institutions having done so than two-year institutions.
According to survey respondents, 15 institutions, or slightly less than a third
(31%) of institutions surveyed, were active signatories of the Presidents’ Climate
Commitment at the time of this study. The organization’s website, however, reported 20
signatory institutions in the state, including six institutions that were reportedly no longer
active according to survey respondents, and not including several that reported they were.
The website did not indicate the date of their information. Differences notwithstanding,
signing this commitment was generally seen by survey respondents as a positive indicator
for the integration of sustainability on campus, and an indicator of decline when their
institutions withdrew from the commitment. For instance, a team of respondents from an
institution in 2011 reported that “the signing of the President’s Climate Commitment led
to the inclusion of sustainability in our college values, which then became one of our
accreditation core theme indicators. So, institutional supports are keeping the
conversations and activity alive.” Whereas respondents from another institution reported
as an indication of decline that their president no longer supported the President's Climate
Commitment.
There were marked differences in participation among two- and four-year
institutions regarding this particular commitment. First, among those reported as
currently active, most (87%) were four-year institutions, while substantially fewer (13%)
68
were two-year institutions. Second, two-year institutions were both less likely to have
joined and less likely to remain active in this network. There was a noticeable decline in
participation with 12 institutions reporting they were no longer active in this
commitment, the majority (83%) of which were two-year institutions (Fig. 8). However,
this does not necessarily mean that these institutions have lost interest in reducing carbon
emissions. Recall that some critics have rather harshly called this commitment an “onramp to squandering large amounts of money” concluding that “the pursuit of drastic
reductions in institutional carbon footprints appears to impose net costs greatly in excess
to any savings on carbon-based heating and electric generation.” (NAS, 2015 p. 226227). It is possible that institutions have retracted their participation in this commitment
for financial or other reasons, though further research would be needed to determine if
this is the case.
Number of Instituions
Signatories to the Presidents' Climate Commitment, 2016
20
Two-year
Four-year
15
10
5
0
Yes, we
currently are
We were but No, we never
no longer are
joined
Unsure
Fig. 8. Signatories to the Presidents’ Climate Commitment. Number of
institutions that are currently active, formerly active, or never signed the
Commitment, as reported in the 2016 survey (n=47).
69
Overall, this study suggests that many colleges and universities in Washington
State have made strides to integrate sustainability into institutional commitments, as
evidenced by the development and adoption of sustainability plans, establishment of
formal sustainability committees, incorporation of sustainability language into mission
and values statements and other formal declarations, and becoming members of national
consortia and networks that promote sustainability in higher education. Several of these
commitments have been established in recent years or are currently under development.
Table 5 indicates the presence, absence, and development of these four factors of
institutional commitments to sustainability for all 47 institutions surveyed in 2016, as
reported by survey respondents. These commitments are not uniformly distributed across
campuses. Some institutions have implemented some of these factors, while other
institutions have implemented others. A small number of institutions (15%) reported
commitments to sustainability through all four factors, and over one third (38%) have
reportedly committed in at least three ways. While this does indicate commitments to
sustainability at the institutional level, it does not speak to the strength of those
commitments. Still, a common theme revealed through open-ended survey responses was
that institutional support for sustainability initiatives was seen to be important, if not
crucial, to integration of sustainability.
As such, it is not surprising that from the 26% of institutions lacking any of these
formal institutional commitments, several respondents in the 2016 survey voiced desires
to see greater institutional support for sustainability. For instance, respondents wanted to
see sustainability integrated into mission and value statements, commenting that “First, I
would like to see [sustainability] included in the College Mission statement. Due to the
70
current leadership, faculty default is to wait for the top-down directives, perhaps due to
the fact they have been rebuffed so often over the years. Therefore, if the directive comes
down from on high as part of the college-wide mission statement, that gives faculty some
leverage to develop new curriculum initiatives.” A couple of other survey respondents
from 2012 made comments about re-establishing a sustainability committee or task force,
saying for instance, “I would also like to see the Sustainability Committee resurrected
and the coordinator position filled.” While others noted that “College leadership has
changed, and administrators who took the lead in a college sustainability focus are no
longer present” as an explanation for the decline in sustainability conversations and
activities on campus in recent years (2016 survey respondents).
While many institutions have demonstrated some form of institutional
commitment to sustainability, and some have done so across the board, overall there is
less evidence of growth and more signs of decline in these institutional commitments in
recent years. For instance, the percent of institutions reporting having sustainability plans
plateaued between 2012 and 2016, as did the percent of institutions reporting having
incorporated sustainability language into their mission and values statements. However, a
few report that these are in the developmental stages, indicating continued interest.
During this same time, however, there has been a 22% reduction in formally-established
sustainability committees across the state and declining membership with at least two
national sustainability consortia and networks.
71
X
X
X
X
D
X
D
X
X
X
D
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
Active
members of
National
Sustainability
Consortia/
Network
D
X
Sustainability
language in
Public
Declarations
Formal
Sustainability
Committee
Institution
Antioch University Seattle
Bellevue College
Big Bend Community College
Cascadia College
Central Washington
University
Centralia College
Clark College
Clover Park Technical
College
Columbia Basin College
Eastern Washington
University
Edmonds Community College
Everett Community College
Gonzaga University
Grays Harbor College
Green River College
Heritage University
Highline College
Lower Columbia College
North Seattle College
Northwest Indian College
Olympic College
Pacific Lutheran University
Peninsula College
Pierce College District
Saint Martin's University
Seattle Central College
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University
Shoreline Community College
Skagit Valley College
Sustainability
Plan
Table 5. List of institutions surveyed in 2016 and their reported institutional
commitments to sustainability in four categories. “X” indicates affirmatives responses,
“D” indicates it was in development; blank cells indicate absence of this commitment
or respondents’ uncertainty.
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
72
Active
members of
National
Sustainability
Consortia/
Network
Sustainability
language in
Public
Declarations
Formal
Sustainability
Committee
Sustainability
Plan
Institution
South Puget Sound
Community College
Spokane Community College
Spokane Falls Community
College
Tacoma Community College
The Evergreen State College
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington
University of Washington
Bothell
University of Washington
Tacoma
Walla Walla Community
College
Washington State University
Washington State University
Tri-Cities
Washington State University
Vancouver
Western Washington
University
Whatcom Community
College
Whitworth University
Yakima Valley Community
College
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Similar trends have been reported elsewhere. A national review of sustainability
in higher education institutions in England, for instance, concluded that while
sustainability activity had grown significantly on campuses compared to twenty years
ago, there was only ‘slight evidence’ that it was still increasing (HEFCE, 2008).
Furthermore, Chalkley (2009) noted that “while there are a small number of [higher
73
education institutions] which are seeking to become exemplar organisations, there are
also many for whom [sustainability] remains a low priority or not priority at all.” (p.
289). This appears to also be the case in Washington State.
Focus of Sustainability Efforts
From the list of institutions derived by survey responses and an assessment of
these institutions’ websites, two institutions were determined to explicitly use the term
sustainability in their mission statements in 2016: Highline College and Columbia Basin
College. Highline College states as its mission,
“As a public institution of higher education serving a diverse community in a
multicultural world and global economy, Highline College promotes student
engagement, learning, and achievement, integrates diversity and globalism
throughout the college, sustains relationships within its communities, and
practices sustainability in human resources, operations, and teaching and
learning.” (Adopted August 2013)
This statement references several aspects of the three pillars, including social (e.g.,
multicultural world; diversity), economic (e.g., global economy), and to some extent
environmental (practices sustainability in operations). While it is not clear what ‘practices
sustainability’ means in context of human resources, within campus operations it is often
associated with practices that reduce adverse impacts to the environment such as reducing
waste, energy efficiency, and conserving water (see Calder & Clugston, 2003). Practices
sustainability in teaching and learning can be inferred as a commitment to integrating
sustainability concepts and topics into the curriculum.
For comparison, Columbia Basin College, states as its mission,
74
“CBC upholds an environment of diversity, fairness, equity, and sustainability,
providing opportunities for the people of Benton and Franklin counties to succeed
in their pursuit of higher educational achievement, meaningful employment, and
basic skills development, while promoting cultural effectiveness and well-being
for its community.”
Here, social aspects of sustainability are referred to (e.g., diversity, fairness, equity), and
potentially economic aspects (meaningful employment; basic skills development).
Environment is used but does not refer to the natural environment, but rather the campus
culture or ‘built’ environment. The term sustainability, though explicitly used, is not
defined. Interestingly, it is mentioned within a list of several social aspects sustainability
is meant to embody, which could be understood that sustainability is viewed as important
and relevant to, but distinct from, diversity, fairness, and equity. This theme, whereby
social aspect of sustainability are seen as distinct from the term itself, appeared numerous
times throughout this study, as will be discussed again in both curriculum and student
engagement sections of this chapter. Often, when the term sustainability is referenced, it
has been more closely associated with environmental concepts and concerns.
Four institutions that were reported implicitly refer to sustainability in their
mission statements. These include Antioch University Seattle, Gonzaga University,
Pacific Lutheran University, and The Evergreen State College. Examples of implicit
references to sustainability found in each of the four mission statements were:
“social, economic, and environmental justice” (Antioch University
Seattle)
“social justice, diversity, intercultural competence, global engagement,
75
solidarity with the poor and vulnerable, and care for the planet” (Gonzaga
University)
“care—for other people, for their communities and for the Earth” (Pacific
Lutheran University)
“social justice, diversity, environmental stewardship and service in the
public interest” (The Evergreen State College)
Eight institutions were reported and determined to have included sustainability
language in their values statements. Of these, six institutions explicitly referred to
sustainability using the terms sustainability, sustainable or sustain in their values
statement and two implicitly referred to sustainability concepts. As noted previously, the
total number of institutions reportedly including sustainability language in their mission
and values statement remained relatively stable from 2012 to 2016, however there was an
increase in institutions making explicit references to sustainability between the two
survey periods, especially in institutions’ values statements. Refer to Tables 6 and 7 for
list of reported institutions reported and determined to be in each of these categories.
Table 6. Institutions with sustainability language in mission or values statement as
reported in 2016; categorized by whether statements explicitly or implicitly refer to
sustainability.
Explicitly Stated
Implicitly Stated
Columbia Basin College
Antioch University Seattle
Highline College
Gonzaga University
Mission
Statement
Pacific Lutheran University
The Evergreen State College
Cascadia College
Spokane Falls Community College
Central Washington University
University of Washington, Tacoma
Edmonds Community College
Values
Olympic College
Statement
Pierce College District
Walla Walla Community College
76
Table 7. Institutions with sustainability language in mission or values statement as reported in
2012; categorized by whether statements explicitly or implicitly refer to sustainability.
Explicitly Stated
Columbia Basin College
Mission
Statement
Olympic College
Pierce College District
Values
Statement
Implicitly Stated
Antioch University Seattle
Cascadia Community College
Central Washington University
Pacific Lutheran University
Cascadia Community College
Green River Community College
Saint Martin’s University
Spokane Falls Community College
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington, Tacoma
Analyzing the language of these statements further revealed that institutions
focused on different aspects of sustainability. Keywords and topics for each pillar of
sustainability (social, environmental, and economic) were derived from the literature
(Kagawa, 2007; UNESCO, 2006) and additional related phrases and terms were added in
order to thoroughly code and categorize text and determine the focus of institutions’
mission and values statements. While most (67%) mission statements reported and
determined to contain sustainability language in 2016 referenced aspects from each of the
three pillars of sustainability, these references were not equally cited, and in some cases
(33%), only social and environmental aspects were mentioned. Compared to missions,
values statements of the same time period were less likely to reference aspects to all three
pillars (38%), and more likely to reference only environmental aspects (38%); one
referenced social and environmental aspects and another listed sustainability as a value
but did not define it.
In 2012, mission statements focused most heavily on environmental aspects of
sustainability, being mentioned nearly twice as often as social aspects and five times as
77
often as economic aspects. A dramatic shift was observed compared to the 2016 dataset,
which found that mission statements focused most heavily on social aspects of
sustainability. Social aspects were referenced nearly three times as often as
environmental aspects and five times as often as economic aspects. A similar, though less
dramatic, shift was documented in values statements. From 2012 to 2016, there was a
slight decrease in references to environmental aspects of sustainability, a doubling of
social references, and a slight increase in economic references. In both the mission and
values statements for both years, the term sustainability was occasionally used without
giving context of its intended meaning (for instance, listing sustainability as a value but
not describing it). See Figure 9 for a visual summary of these trends.
Mission Statements,
2012 and 2016
Values Statements,
2012 and 2016
20
2012
2016
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
2012
2016
Fig. 9. Focus of institutions’ mission and values statements. Frequency of references to
aspects of the three pillars of sustainability. Mission statements depicted on left, values
statements on right. ‘Sustainability undefined’ refers to responses that explicitly used the
term sustainability but did not provide sufficient context to categorize it further.
78
In general, sustainability appears to have been more closely associated with its
environmental aspects in 2012 and then social aspects became more common in 2016,
with a slight increase in references to economic aspects as well. In reference to
environmental aspects, institutions often used phrases such as environmentally
sustainable, environmental sustainability, environmental stewardship, stewardship of
natural resources, and care for the environment/Earth. References to social aspects
included terms such as social justice, diversity, fairness, multicultural world, cultural
richness, well-being and sustainability of community. Economic aspects were rarely
referenced, but included terms like economic vitality, global economy, business,
meaningful employment, economic justice, and area enterprise.
A critique of this method of analysis merits attention. While the intention of this
analysis was to capture the extent that institutions’ mission and values statements
reflected the three pillars of sustainability, it is possible that this information more closely
reflects the focus and assumptions of the survey respondents representing their
institutions or differences in survey information. The survey question was identical in
both years and asked respondents whether or not their mission and values statements
contained language about ‘sustainability, a sustainable future or stewardship of the earth.’
If so, they were asked to provide the language and where it appeared in an open-ended
response. This was a highly subjective question that gave respondents freedom to assess
their own institutions public declarations. As such it is possible some statements did not
meet the respondents’ criteria or fit their definitions of sustainability, and were not
included even though they may have met the criteria for this analysis. If this were the
case, it is possible that the shift in focus reflects a shift in respondents own interpretations
79
of what sustainability means. For instance, the increase in references to social aspects of
sustainability could be explained with a shift in views of survey respondents from 2012
and 2016, with those in 2016 more likely to perceive social aspects as part of
sustainability.
Another plausible explanation is the difference between information provided in
the survey itself. In 2016 the following note was offered at the opening of the survey, “In
this survey, the term “sustainability” appears frequently. We see sustainability as a broad
field that includes both the health and wellbeing of ecosystems (on which all life in the
biosphere depends) and the health and wellbeing of human communities, including equity
and social justice” which appeared shortly before the question about mission and value
statements. No definition of sustainability was offered in the 2012 survey. As such, it is
also possible that respondents were more likely to report statements as containing
language about sustainability with references to social aspects of sustainability, in light of
the definition presented to them that does the same. Institutions’ mission and values
statements from 2016 were easy to access online from institutions’ websites, but this
information could not be accurately retrieved for statements in 2012 (mission and value
statements may have changed) so to keep analysis consistent, only institutions whose
survey respondents reported having included sustainability language were considered
here. Additional research and analysis into all institutions current mission statements
could add greater insight to this study.
Still, this study has identified that several colleges and universities in Washington
State have incorporated sustainability language into their mission and values statements,
often with references to all three pillars of sustainability. Further, it indicates an increase
80
in explicit use of the term sustainability (or sustainable) in these public declarations. And
while it is not exactly clear whether these trends are reflecting shifts in institutional
commitments, shifts in sustainability leaders’ perceptions, or shifts in the survey
development, this study has found a noticeable increase in references to social aspects of
sustainability such as diversity, equity, and social justice from 2012 to 2016. This shift in
focus over time was also noted in influential international documents and events on the
subject of sustainability in higher education. For instance, Agenda 21 of the 1992 Earth
Summit, which emphasized the important role of higher education in creating a
sustainable future, primarily focused on fostering “attitudes of respect for the
environment” whereas the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 focused more broadly on
sustainability and encompassed social justice issues (UNESCO, 2006 p. 9). Within
Washington State colleges and universities, this trend is even more apparent in the
narratives to the open-ended survey question, “Campuses are places where new concepts
and new ideas are always being incubated. Are notions of sustainability, justice, and
sustainable future being phrased in new ways? What new words or phrases are
circulating? Where are they appearing?” Numerous respondents from across the state
noted that there was “a lot of focus now on diversity, social justice” as well as equity, or
that these phrases were emerging on their campuses.
There is also a strong indication that concepts linking environmental and social
concerns are gaining momentum on campuses, as well as concepts linking economic and
environmental concerns. In particular, environmental justice as a topic and concept is
gaining momentum, as evidenced in responses such as “environmental justice is huge for
us,” “environmental justice is a topic increasingly recognized by undergraduates” and
81
“Environmental justice is a concept that has been around for a while, but seems to appeal
to our students more recently.” On the economic-environmental side, phrases such as
“sustainable practices”, “sustainable sources” and “environmental and economic
stewardship” were reportedly emerging, as well as “corporate responsibility” which was
described as being “often applied to environmental and social initiatives in the business
world.”
However, there are indications that instead of sustainability being an umbrella for
these emerging concepts, it is often seen as relevant to, but separate from, sustainability
on Washington colleges and universities. This theme was revealed numerous times
throughout this research. As two examples, one response to the question of emerging
notions of sustainability was “Environmental justice and social justice are the focus right
now; sustainability as a piece of social justice” and another survey team shared that “For
the last 4 years, the intersection of Diversity, Justice, and Sustainability has been the
focus on our campus.” According to the three pillar framework, social justice and
diversity are pieces of sustainability, but these responses suggest the other way around.
This observation could be partially explained by findings from the literature which
suggest that when sustainability first emerged on campuses in the United States it focused
primarily on environmental concerns (e.g., Barlett & Chase, 2004; Calder & Clugston,
2003); rather than making explicit the connections between social, environmental, and
economic aspects.
To better understand the focus of sustainability specifically on Washington State
campuses, this study investigated the major foci of sustainability committees, as reported
by survey respondents. Of the 47 institutions surveyed in 2012, 34 offered responses to
82
the question “If you have a [sustainability] task force or committee, what are its 3-4
major foci?” Coding and categorizing open-ended responses revealed that the vast
majority (65%) of references made regarded environmental aspects of sustainability,
while there were very few references to social or economic aspects (3% each).
Additionally, many (30%) responses made explicit references to sustainability but did not
provide enough information to determine which of the three pillars it referred to (Fig. 10).
The most common focuses of sustainability committees were “greening” campus
operations and facilities by reducing waste through recycling (or reduce/reuse/recycle),
inventorying greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint), reducing greenhouse gas
emissions through energy conservation/efficiency and promoting alternative
transportation, as well as putting on environmental events. Additionally, there was a
strong emphasis on integrating sustainability into the curriculum, but it was unclear what
aspects of sustainability were intended to be incorporated (particularly in regards to the
three pillars).
% of Total References
Focus of Sustainaiblity Committees' Activities, 2012
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Environmental
Social
Economic
Sustainability
Undefined
Aspects of the Three Pillars of Sustainability
Fig. 10. Focus of sustainability committees’ activities. Percent of references to
aspects of the three pillars of sustainability, from 2012 survey responses (n=34).
‘Sustainability undefined’ refers to explicitly use of the term sustainability but
insufficient context to categorize focus further.
83
Of committees that could be determined to refer to aspects of at least one pillar of
sustainability, 65% exclusively referred to environmental aspects, while only 9% referred
on a combination of the three pillars. None focused exclusively on social or economic
factors, though approximately one-quarter (26%) of committees did not provide sufficient
information to categorize the focus of their efforts (Fig. 11). This analysis supports the
above claim that sustainability on Washington State colleges and universities was likely
most closely associated with environmental concerns in 2012, which helps explain why
sustainability may be seen as separate from social aspects and concepts that have gained
attention on campuses in recent years.
Sustainabilit
y Undefined
26%
Environmental,
Social &
Economic
3%
Environmental
& Economic
3%
Environmental
& Social
3%
Environmental
65%
Fig. 11. Proportion of sustainability committees with different foci. Sustainability
committees were grouped according to primary focus of activities, based on 2012
survey responses (n=34).
84
4.2 Curriculum
Because sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary while most higher education
institutions are disciplinary in structure, integrating sustainability into the curriculum can
be challenging. This challenge has been approached in several different ways (e.g.,
AASHE, 2010). One approach is to establish stand-alone programs in sustainability (i.e.,
majors, minors, or certificates) that intentionally expose students within the program to
interdisciplinary concepts of sustainability, with the goal of educating and preparing
specialized sustainability practitioners and professionals to enter the workforce and
society. Another approach is to incorporate different aspects of the three pillars of
sustainability into multiple courses across multiple disciplines, with instructors choosing
aspects they deem most pertinent to their subject matter, such as social sustainability in
the humanities, environmental sustainability in environmental studies and natural
sciences, and economic sustainability in economics and business disciplines. Students
would ideally be exposed to the three pillars of sustainability by taking a variety of
courses across different disciplines. As a third approach, institutions can establish
interdisciplinary courses and programs that integrate the three pillars of sustainability in
order to promote a sustainability mindset among students. However, under each of these
approaches, it is at best uncertain whether all students will be exposed to multidisciplinary concepts of sustainability in their studies, and at worst very unlikely that they
will be. Students may or may not choose to enroll in a sustainability-specific program and
may elect to take or not take courses that have incorporated sustainability into their
curriculum. To ensure that all students (or at least all graduates) of an institution receive
sustainability education, a fourth approach is to require students to take sustainability
85
coursework in order to graduation or incorporate it into institution-wide learning
outcomes. This last approach typically requires that institutions add or revise existing
requirements and/or outcomes.
Each of these approaches, with their inherent benefits and challenges, have been
utilized by higher education institutions in Washington State in varying degrees over the
past decade. In general, establishing specific degrees and incorporating pertinent aspects
of sustainability into individual existing courses has been more prevalent than creating
interdisciplinary courses that holistically consider sustainability, though many survey
respondents expressed a desire to see more interdisciplinary courses at their institutions.
A small number have incorporated sustainability language into their institution-wide
learning outcomes. Very few institutions have implemented a sustainability general
education requirement, but again, there is interest among survey respondents to see this
happen. This is discussed further in the paragraphs to follow.
Several other factors were examined to assess the extent to which sustainability
has been integrated into the curriculum in Washington State higher education, and the
focus of these efforts in relation to the three pillars of sustainability. These factors include
how and where sustainability is emerging, professional and curriculum development
opportunities for faculty, leadership and coordination for these efforts, and overall
general trends.
Extent of Integration
In the literature, it has been widely noted that in many cases the integration of
sustainability into the curriculum lagged behind campus greening initiatives, as
documented in the U.S. and around the world (e.g., Barlett & Chase, 2004; Barlett &
86
Chase, 2013; Calder & Clugston, 2003; Edwards, 2005; Jones, Selby & Sterling, 2010;
Sterling & Scott, 2008). While this appears to have also been the case on campuses in
Washington State, many institutions have made strides to integrate sustainability into the
curriculum. This study found that sustainability concepts and topics have been
incorporated into the curriculum in individual courses and specific degrees or academic
programs, and in some cases, promoted through institution-wide learning outcomes and
general education requirements.
Responses from the 2005-06 faculty survey, administered approximately two
years into the Decade of Education for Sustainable development, revealed that many
faculty (45% of 72 respondents from 18 institutions) were already teaching sustainability
concepts or practices in their courses. However, the majority of respondents reported that
sustainability concepts accounted for less than one-quarter of the course content. The
number of faculty interested in sustainability and the number of sustainability-related
degrees reportedly increased over the years according to survey responses, and these
increases were often cited as indicators of growth for sustainability initiatives on the
campus more generally. For example in 2016, survey respondents reported the following
curriculum-related achievements as indicators of overall growth of sustainability on
campuses: increases in faculty involvement across multiple programs, faculty
incorporating sustainability units into their courses, hiring new faculty with an interest in
sustainability, and establishing new sustainability degrees. This also suggests a perceived
high level of importance to integrate sustainability into the curriculum as part of an
institution’s sustainability efforts.
The online survey in 2016 posed the question, “Over the past five years, do you
87
think sustainability in the curriculum has been growing, diminishing, or holding steady
on your campus?” According to survey responses, sustainability continued to be
integrated into the curriculum at colleges and universities across the state from 2011 to
2016, though many respondents felt that these efforts had not increased in recent years.
Of the 47 institutions represented, 43% (20 institutions) reported that sustainability in the
curriculum was growing on their campus, 49% (23) reported that it was holding steady,
and 8% (4) reported that it was diminishing (Fig. 12).
Sustainability in the Curriculum General Trends,
2011-2016
Number of Institutions
25
Two-year
Inst.
Four-year
Inst.
20
15
10
5
0
Growing
Holding Steady
Diminishing
Fig 12. Sustainability in the curriculum general trends. Number of institutions
reporting sustainability in curriculum has been growing/holding
steady/diminishing between 2011 and 2016, by institution type (n=47, 27 twoyear institutions + 20 four-year).
However, efforts were not uniform across institution types. Most notably, there
were proportionately more four-year institutions in the “growing” category and more
two-year institutions in the “holding steady” and “diminishing” categories (Fig. 12). Of
the 20 four-year institutions surveyed, 65% (13) reported that sustainability in the
curriculum had been growing on their campus, compared to only 26% of 27 two-year
88
institutions surveyed. The majority of two-year institutions, 63% (17), reported
sustainability in the curriculum had been holding steady over the past five years,
compared to 30% (6) of four-year institutions in the same category. Of the four
institutions reporting a diminishing trend, three are two-year institutions and one was a
four-year institution.
In many cases, integration of sustainability into the curriculum has been a product
of individual faculty members’ interest in the subject and their choice to incorporate
pertinent aspects and concepts into their coursework, as opposed to institution-wide
initiatives calling for sustainability to be integrated into curriculum. This theme was
identified numerous times across the state and across years. For instance, survey
respondents in 2011 noted that sustainability in the curriculum was “still up to individuals
because [the institution] does not have a college wide learning outcome linked to
sustainability… Thus no inspiration to infuse this into curricula nor assess it” and in
2016, respondents again noted that “Sustainability concepts and topics show up in the
curriculum based on individual instructor initiative and not as a result of coordinated
campus-wide efforts such as general-education requirement or institution-wide learning
outcome.”
While many informants believed increased faculty interest was an indicator of
progress, others raised concerns about the longevity of an approach that relies on efforts
of individual faculty. For instance, in 2011 some informants responded that they were
“stumbling” forward toward incorporating sustainability…. with a few more faculty
being interested each year” and in 2016 respondents noted that “More faculty are
expressing interest in implementing sustainability curriculum, activities, etc.” as
89
indicators of growth, while others cautioned that “the individual efforts of people who
have been sustainability leaders are not sustainable. Those of us with a passion for
sustainability are exhausted. We can’t keep this up without some form of financial
support” (2011 survey respondent team).
A number of respondents to these surveys supported measures that would require
institution-wide integration of sustainability into curriculum, such as a general-education
requirement or student learning outcome for sustainability. However, it’s worth noting
that survey respondents were typically known supporters of integrating sustainability into
the curriculum, and therefore more likely to advocate for a institution-wide approach that
would require other faculty to incorporate sustainability content into their classes and/or
provide faculty with resources and incentives to incorporate sustainability content into
their classes. Despite this interest among survey respondents, however, approximately
90% of institutions (45 of 47) reported that they did not have any general education
requirements related to sustainability studies or sustainability literacy in the most recent
survey. The numbers are similar to those reported four years prior in 2012 (Fig. 13).
Number of Institutions
Sustainability-Related General Education
Requirements, 2012 and 2016
50
2012
40
2016
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Did not Answer /
No Gen Eds
Fig. 13. Sustainability-related general education requirements. Number of
institutions with and without, or do not have general education requirements (or
did not answer), as reported in 2012 and 2016 (n=47).
90
There are, however, two institutions that currently have sustainability-related
general education graduation requirements, Whatcom Community College and
Washington State University. All Whatcom Community College graduates with AA or
AAS degrees are exposed to sustainability concepts through their coursework. In 2009,
WCC became the first institution in Washington State to explicitly adopt a sustainability
course requirement as part of its general education requirements. In 2012, Washington
State University instituted a system-wide general education course that includes an
environmental/sustainability component. Titled “Roots of Contemporary Issues”
(History 105), the course offers “Depth, breadth, and integration of learning through an
interdisciplinary approach to the history of global issues that affect human life on the
planet in the 21st century” (2016 survey respondent from WSU). The instructor or
department has flexibility to choose which global issues to examine, but at least one fifth
of the coursework focuses on the issue from an environmental perspective, and is
commonly aligned with sustainability. Some examples of global issues include:
environmental change, war, globalization, inequality, and cultural diversity. Additionally,
Western Washington University was in the midst of a “campus-wide discussion” on
reforming their general education requirements at the time of this study, and survey
respondents floated the possibility of incorporating a sustainability emphasis.
Regarding institution-wide learning outcomes, nine campuses reported having
adopted institution-wide learning outcomes that included sustainability or a comparable
outcome (Table 8). Sustainability concepts were included in outcomes such as global
awareness, global perspectives, global consciousness, integrated learning, personal and
91
social responsibility, and human relations and professional development skills. The
language and focus of these outcomes are discussed in the next section.
Table 8. Institutions with sustainability-related institution-wide learning outcomes.
Two-Year Institutions
Four-Year Institutions
Edmonds Community College
Central Washington University
North Seattle College
Pacific Lutheran University
Olympic College
University of Washington
Shoreline Community College
University of Washington Tacoma
Whatcom Community College
Meanwhile, over half (62%) of institutions had established sustainability-related
undergraduate degree programs by 2016. Analyzing responses from surveys indicated
that more than 70 sustainability-related degrees and programs have been established or
modified since the year 2000. These include 22 majors, 20 minors, 14 associate degrees,
11 certificates, and several pathways and concentrations across 29 institutions. Of these,
21 programs included the term sustainability or sustainable in their title (i.e.,
Sustainability and Society; Sustainable Engineering). A longer discussion on the focus of
these degrees is presented in the latter half of this section and the list of degree programs
is provided in Appendix III. Additionally, five institutions were reportedly considering or
developing additional sustainability-related programs, while six institutions reported that
programs related to sustainability had been begun but discontinued since 2000. However,
a couple of those that reported discontinuing programs mentioned they had or were
planning programs to replace them. Overall, findings suggest that many institutions have
integrated sustainability into the curriculum through modifying existing degree programs
or establishing new programs, and that this approach continued to be utilized at the time
of this study. Furthermore, it indicates that once a program has been established, there
92
has been a relatively low rate of discontinuation over the course of fifteen years.
Yet, in order to educate students on topics of sustainability it is important to offer
professional development opportunities for faculty to learn how to integrate
sustainability, such as workshops for curriculum development and conferences that allow
for networking with other disciplines and/or institutions (e.g., AASHE, 2010; Huisingh,
2006; Orr, 2004). Of the 47 institutions surveyed in 2012, a little over half (54%) of
institutions reported having held professional development opportunities for faculty
members on sustainability across the curriculum over the past decade (2002 to 2012).
Totaled, it was estimated that approximately 600 faculty had been involved in these
activities. Over one-third of all faculty involved during this time, however, taught at one
of four institutions: University of Puget Sound, North Seattle Community College,
Olympic College, or Pierce College, while most institutions had approximately 10 to 20
faculty members participated in these activities over the course of ten years.
In 2016, over 90% of institutions surveyed (43 of 47) reported that their
institution had in some way supported faculty members in their development of new
sustainability-related courses and/or the integration of sustainability across the
curriculum in the past five years (2011 to 2016), though not necessarily having held these
events on site—i.e., faculty went to inter-institutional workshops on the subject. Table 9
lists types of faculty development support and the percent of institutions offering them.
Only one institution reported having not had any faculty involved in these activities; three
did not respond.
According to the 2016 survey, it was estimated that over 650 faculty members had
been involved in sustainability course development or sustainability across the
93
curriculum activities in the past five years. Again, there was disproportionate
participation in these activities across institutions, with nearly one-third of all faculty
teaching at one of three institutions: Bellevue College, The Evergreen State College, or
Edmonds Community College. Respondents from one of these institutions remarked later
in the survey that sustainability “is spread across the curriculum due to a workshop
offered for Faculty at least once a year about how to integrate sustainability into your
courses” indicating the potential effect that professional development opportunities can
have on integrating sustainability into the curriculum. Among the remaining 40
institutions surveyed, the average was approximately 12 faculty per institution spread
over the course of five years, with a median of nine faculty members.
Table 9. Percent of institutions offering different types of faculty development support to
integrate sustainability into curriculum. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to
institutions offering multiple types of support.
Type of Support for Faculty Development
Support for faculty to attend workshops and conferences
A welcoming environment with general valuing of
sustainability in and across the curriculum at the chair and/or
dean-level
Creation of an on-campus sustainability institute or “faculty
learning community” to integrate sustainability content into
courses
Release-time and/or stipends for new sustainability-related
course/curriculum/ program development
Percent of
Institutions Offering
this Support
77%
62%
32%
28%
In general, a majority of institutions across the state have offered support for
faculty to attend workshops and conferences in the past five years (77% of institutions)
and have an administration that generally values sustainability in and across the
curriculum (62%). However, only about a third or less of all institutions provide release
time or stipends for faculty to integrate sustainability content into their programs and
94
curriculum. Less than 10% of institutions in the state reported having no faculty
development support for sustainability in the curriculum.
Twenty respondents provided additional insights into faculty development
opportunities at their institutions. The majority of responses (70%) noted recent events,
such as workshops, learning communities, conferences, and faculty fellowships, or
securing grants for upcoming sustainability across the curriculum initiatives. For
instance, respondents reported “Six faculty and administrators attended the Summer
Learning Communities Institute and are working to include sustainability in integrated
assignments and learning communities that are being developed” and “We also had a
faculty development day on this topic,” or “There is a $1000- 2000 grant from the
Business school to promote Sustainability across the Curriculum.”
Several respondents (20%) reported being unable to repeat past events, lacking
rewards for faculty to do this type of work or institutional recognition of its value. For
instance, respondents remarked, “We ran a workshop that offered stipends and created a
faculty learning community focused on sustainability 8 years ago. We have not been able
to repeat it” and “The environment is welcoming for this work at the administrative level
but emphasis in this area is not particularly or especially valued in the review and merit
processes.” Another noted that support seemed to be diminishing because of a
challenging fiscal environment. There was no noticeable difference between two- and
four-year institutions in regards to support for faculty development for sustainability in
and across the curriculum.
As mentioned previously, sustainability has primarily been integrated into
Washington higher education curriculum through efforts of individual faculty members
95
with an interest in the subject. While the administrations of many institutions may be
supportive of these efforts, in many cases they have not initiated campus-wide efforts on
this front. In the words of one survey respondent from 2016, “Our efforts in this area
have emerged from individual interests of faculty. The dean has been welcoming of
these efforts. But there has been no systematic, institution-wide sustainability initiative.”
This also touches on an issue of leadership and coordination, captured further by
responses such as “The college is very supportive of faculty wishing to pursue
sustainability in and across the curriculum, however, as there is no college wide initiative
or clear path for this integration into existing curriculum initiatives that are started are not
followed up on.” (2016 survey respondent)
In 2016, only one third of institutions (34%) reported having coordination or
leadership for sustainability in and across the curriculum on their campus, as compared to
nearly two-thirds (62%) four years prior. Of the 16 institutions with leadership for these
efforts in 2016, 15 were reportedly being led by sustainability committees. The decline in
leadership and coordination for sustainability in and across the curriculum may be
associated with the overall decline in sustainability committees over the years. There
were 18 campuses without sustainability committees or task forces in 2016, and only a
single one reported having a group coordinating sustainability in and across the
curriculum.
Focus of Efforts
It is not only important to measure the extent to which sustainability is being
integrated into the curriculum and reflect on recent trajectories, but to also try to
understand the content of sustainability curriculum and the context in which it is being
96
developed. While numerous scholars (e.g., Jones, Selby, & Sterling, 2010), national
networks (e.g., AASHE, 2010) and international organizations (e.g., UNESCO, 2006)
have advocated for an interdisciplinary approach that balances concepts of the three
pillars of sustainability, this study indicates that integrating sustainability into the
curriculum in Washington State has primarily focused on environmental aspects, with
less (but increasing) integration of social and economic aspects. This unbalanced
reflection of the three pillar framework is evident in an examination of sustainabilityrelated degree programs, language of general-education requirements and student
learning outcomes related to sustainability and most importantly, open-ended
explanations of how and where sustainability has been emerging in the curriculum on
campuses.
Without assessing the individual course syllabi, it is difficult to truly know what
aspects of sustainability are being discussed in the curriculum in relation to the three
pillar framework. However, examining the list of degree programs and disciplines in
which they were housed may provide a useful overview and indication of the primary
focus of studies. The 76 sustainability-related degree programs reported by survey
respondents (mentioned earlier) were coded and categorized based on whether the most
likely primary focus of sustainability was social, environmental, economic, or all three. If
the program title did not provide a clear indication (i.e., Environmental Studies or
Sustainable Business), additional information was retrieved from the institution’s website
such as discipline it was housed in and the course overview. In some instances (4%),
there was not sufficient information available to determine the primary focus.
Results of the analysis found that most (63%) degree programs reported focused
97
primarily on environmental aspects of sustainability. Chief among these were 17
environmental studies or environmental science programs at 12 institutions; seven
programs on agriculture/food systems; six programs on energy; and several on natural
resource management and conservation. Fewer (18%) of programs focused primarily on
economic aspects, including seven sustainability and business degrees; four programs on
green buildings; and three on technology and entrepreneurship. Fewer yet (8%) focused
primarily on social aspects with one program each in geography, global development
studies, global studies, urban development studies, urban ecological design, and
community, environment, and planning. A total of five (7%) of reported degrees were
considered as focused on all three pillars, all of these were sustainability studies; three
were minors and two were concentrations/pathways. Refer to Figure 14.
Social,
Environmental
& Economic
7%
Other
4%
Economic
18%
Social
8%
Environment
al
63%
Fig. 14. Focus of sustainability-related degree programs. Degrees reportedly
established between 2000 and 2016, according to the 2016 survey, were
categorized based on most likely primary focus of studies in relation to the three
pillars of sustainability (n=76 degree programs).
98
Importantly though, sustainability is very clearly being incorporated into courses
outside of these specific degree programs. As one survey respondent noted in 2016,
“Beyond the actual degree programs in Sustainability, sustainability seems to be
appearing across the curriculum. Traditionally it has been strong in the natural sciences,
but conversations have suggested that the topic is appearing as components or modules in
courses such as college strategies, engineering, psychology, communications, chemistry,
web design, sociology and philosophy.” Numerous others made similar comments. One
offered insight into why it was growing on their campus, explaining that sustainability “is
strong in biology, geology, sociology and anthropology, international political economy,
science technology and society, environmental policy and decision making. It is also
growing due to a core requirement for courses focused on knowledge, identity and
power.” Institutional commitments such as general education graduate requirements and
institution-wide student learning outcomes have potential to not only influence the
presence of sustainability concepts in courses across disciplines, but by the language
adopted can influence which concepts are incorporated and how they are taught. And
because they are institution-wide, they have the ability to broadly influence curriculum
and potential to expose more students to concepts of sustainability.
The language of general education requirements and institution-wide student
learning outcomes related to sustainability was examined. As perhaps the leading
institution in this regard at the time of this study, Whatcom Community College formally
adopted a general education requirement that all Associates of Arts and Science Transfer
students take at least one designated sustainability studies course in order to graduate.
Commenting on their institutions’ requirement, survey respondents reported that, “We
99
have 25 "sustainability-designated" courses, some with multiple sections. These courses
must have a minimum of 1/3 of the course content devoted to sustainability-related
topics. The courses are in the sciences, social sciences, English, and business
departments.” According to the course catalog (2016-2017), courses are “designed to
give students the ability to examine the interrelationships between human activity and the
natural environment and how humans deal with these issues. In addition, the viability of
social and economic systems may be studied.” While in practice this does not guarantee
that all graduates will be exposed to the three pillars of sustainability, it does represent an
institutional recognition of, and commitment to, sustainability as an interdisciplinary
concept relevant to students regardless of discipline or area of study they may focus in.
The other institutions reportedly having a general education requirement related to
sustainability were the system of Washington State Universities, through a foundational
course (History 105/305) that is taken by nearly every student across the three campuses.
While it is not explicitly required that instructors introduce sustainability into this class,
many of the themes and topics are sustainability-related (i.e., the theme Humans & the
Environment and issues of global climate change, global water crisis, and politics of
resource consumption and conservation). Still, it is unclear from this analysis if these
issues are presented through the multiple lenses of the three pillar framework.
Analysis of institution-wide student learning outcomes revealed that only one
institution out of nine reported incorporated language about all three pillars of
sustainability. Olympic College developed and adopted the following language in recent
years: “Graduates demonstrate that they are aware of, and understand world events (e.g.
religious, historical, environmental, political, economic) and the role of human decisions
100
and physical conditions shaping these events and their outcomes.” More commonly,
student learning outcomes made references to social and environmental aspects, such as
“Develop a habit of caring for oneself, for others, and for the environment” (Pacific
Lutheran University) or “Students will become thoughtful and responsible member of
society and stewards of the Earth” (Central Washington University). In a couple
instances, the focus was decidedly environmental, such as “Demonstrate knowledge of
the impact of global interdependence on the natural world” (Shoreline Community
College). Table 10 provides the phrasing for the nine institutions reportedly including
sustainability concepts in their student learning outcomes.
Table 10. Phrasing of institution-wide learning outcomes.
Phrasing of Learning Outcome
Learning
Outcome
Demonstrate knowledge of the impact of global Global
interdependence on the natural world.
Awareness
Students will develop an awareness of the
interrelationships among personal, local, and
global entities, as well as gain understanding of
issues of well-being and sustainability.
civic engagement in local, global and
environmental issues
Global
Perspective
Institution
Shoreline
Community
College
University of
Washington
Tacoma
North Seattle
College
Act responsibly in applying professional and
academic standards associated with personal
wellness, sustainable management of resources,
and/or with success in educational, workplace,
community, and group settings.
Personal and
Social
Responsibility
General
Education
Program Goal
#1
Human
Relations and
Professional
Development
Skills
Develop a habit of caring for oneself, for others,
and for the environment.
Integrated
Learning
Pacific Lutheran
University
Students will become thoughtful and
responsible member of society and stewards of
the Earth
Central
Washington
University
Edmonds
Community
College
101
Phrasing of Learning Outcome
Learning
Outcome
The ability to assess how the world and people’s Global
lives are shaped by natural, social and cultural
Consciousness
interactions and processes.
-Graduates demonstrate that they are aware of,
and understand world events (e.g. religious,
historical, environmental, political, economic)
and the role of human decisions and physical
conditions shaping these events and their
outcomes.
-Graduates demonstrate an understanding of
Global
their own region/bioregion and recognize that
Perspectives
other parts of the world are different in both
physical and human attributes.
-Graduates demonstrate an understanding of
universal processes involving both distribution
and circulation of resources and their
byproducts; e.g. wealth, food, water, oil, gases,
energy, and pollutants.
Natural World: teach students the current status
of our understanding of the major concepts in
the physical, biological, and mathematical
sciences, and the methods by which we have
Natural World,
arrived at that understanding.
and Individuals
Individuals & Societies: focus on the history,
& Societies
development, and dynamics of human behavior,
as well as social and cultural institutions and
practices.
Institution
Whatcom
Community
College
Olympic College
University of
Washington
However, what is more telling is the personal accounts of respondents from
institutions around the state regarding the question “How and where are sustainability
concepts and topics showing up in the curriculum at your institution? In what
departments/divisions/or colleges do you see sustainability emerging?” posed in the 2016
survey. Numerous responses indicated that sustainability began primarily in
environmental and natural science disciples, but that it was also emerging in new areas of
102
study. This finding echoes those found in the literature reporting that sustainability had
been most readily taken up by natural, earth, and environmental studies and sciences
(e.g., Chalkley, Blumhof & Ragnarsdóttir, 2010; Chalkley, Haigh, & Higgit, 2009). A
few telling examples of responses that support this theme include:
“It was always strong in the Environmental Program. Urban Studies has expanded
their emphasis in this area, and I think Business and the Institute of Technology
are beginning to make a little progress but it is still not a strength there.”
“Most clearly in the Environmental Studies program, which both engages and
critiques practices and ideals of sustainability. Consistently in the Biology,
Geoscience, and Religion departments. Sporadically in the School of Business,
the School of Education, and the departments of Economics and Philosophy.”
“Natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), Political Science, Sociology,
Theology, History, Health Sciences, Economics, English. Other than natural
sciences, most of these are emerging in the past 5-10 years on our campus”
“Primarily in natural sciences courses: environmental science, chemistry, biology,
botany. There is some content in engineering & computer science, but it is
minimal. Some of our professional/technical programs have some content, but it
is mostly limited to safety procedures, handling hazardous materials, etc.”
Another indication of this theme was identified through the examination of the
2005-06 faculty survey, which found that most faculty members (81%) involved with
sustainability efforts were in the earth and environmental science disciplines, with
greatest representation from biology, environmental science, geology and physical
103
geography, as well as oceanography/marine science, chemistry, forestry, agriculture, and
conservation of natural resources. A small number were from social science/sociology,
English, politics/policy, business or history disciplines. However, even at the time when
sustainability was just beginning to emerge in the curriculum, respondents were calling
for a more interdisciplinary approach to teaching. In particular, one faculty commented
that “Sustainability is an inherently interdisciplinary topic touching on all parts of the
human experience. We need to promote and fund interdisciplinary learning about issues
surrounding sustainability” however the comment concluded with what could be
considered an eco-centric (instead of holistic) view, commenting that “People must
understand that they are a part of the environment, not above it or apart from it.”
Both the level of integration and the focus of sustainability in the curriculum were
found to vary across institutions. Sustainability had broad representation at some
institutions, but remained confined to relatively few traditional disciplines at others.
UNESCO (2006) warned against equating sustainability education with environmental
education and only incorporating it into discrete environmentally-focused disciplines, but
respondents at some institutions expressed challenges with integrating sustainability more
broadly, saying, “We try to incorporate "sustainability" concepts in environmental
sciences and studies program (ESS). Going beyond the ESS is difficult.” So while at
some institutions “Sustainability topics can be found in almost all of the science
departments, humanities, and elsewhere” at others, integration has been a real challenge.
As was noted earlier, incorporating sustainability into the curriculum has largely been the
result of individual faculty interests and efforts, which are notably different from campus
to campus. As just one example of this distinction, a respondent from an institution in
104
Eastern Washington lamented, “Individual instructors add components and discuss
"sustainability," but -- exception of Chicano Studies -- it is always in the context of
economic sustainability or perhaps ecological sustainability….But we don't talk about
sustainable HUMAN practices or "sustainable justice."” while respondents from an
institution in Western Washington remarked that “A focus on sustainability rather than
environmental issues engaged disciplines across the campus. Social science faculty
joined with natural science faculty to explore system impacts on people and social justice
issues.”
Though not realistically feasible for this research project, a valuable avenue for
future research could be to conduct assessments at the individual course level (by
analyzing course syllabi, for instance), particularly in regards to which aspects of
sustainability are focused on and through which academic pathways students are
introduced to these topics. However, even identifying which courses have incorporated
sustainability into the curriculum would be a significant undertaking at many institutions
for reasons such as “We have no organized way of coordinating or even tracking
sustainability in the curriculum” and “We have sustainability courses sprinkled
throughout engineering, physical/life sciences and social sciences, but there is no formal
"curriculum" for linking these yet.” Yet, some institutions have already inventoried or
tracked “sustainability-rich” courses, The Evergreen State College and Whatcom
Community College, for example, and several others are interested in doing so. Seattle
Pacific University mentioned that they would like to “conduct a full curriculum inventory
to better understand where we are addressing sustainability [and] develop a more
105
intentional and coordinated sustainability emphasis across the curriculum.” An
assessment of course content could be complementary to such efforts.
4.3 Student Engagement
Students may engage with sustainability initiatives and efforts at colleges and
universities in a variety of ways. For instance, according to survey responses gathered
over the years, students may be involved with student organizations working on
sustainability initiatives, serve as sustainability representatives of student governments or
student representatives on sustainability committees, partake in paid internships or
volunteer community service projects, participate in academic programs and projects
revolving around sustainability, or help coordinate/attend sustainability-related events on
campus, among other avenues. Among these, students involved in extracurricular student
organizations tend to be especially active in sustainability work. As one respondent put it,
“on campus, other than [student] club activity, there is very little beyond events held by
the Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement that sometimes focus on sustainable
actions” (2016 survey respondent). As such, examining the presence and focus of student
organizations working on sustainability on campuses across the state is an important
component of student engagement in sustainability initiatives.
Interviews with key informants on three campuses provided insight into how
students level of engagement with, and focus of interests in, sustainability have changed
over the decade. Regarding the latter, questions were catered to illuminate shifts in
interests among social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability. As one
interviewee pointed out, student engagement and student interests are two different
dimensions. Engagement tends to imply extracurricular involvement, while interest may
106
be visible inside the classroom through students’ choices of assignment topics,
participation in class around sustainability concepts, and the like, or outside of the
classroom through student events, flyers, clubs, projects and announcements. Ultimately,
students may be interested in sustainability, but may not be engaged with sustainability
initiatives on campuses.
Another important aspect to explore was whether or not institutions were
assessing students’ sustainability literacy—that is, their familiarity and understanding of
the term and the concepts it embodies. Several studies have indicated a dissonance
between students’ perceptions of sustainability and the intended meaning of it as
described in well-known international documents such as the Brundtland Report and
Implementation Scheme for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (e.g., Kagawa, 2007; Sherman, 2008). Thus, this section also reports on the
number of institutions that have conducted institution-wide or grade-wise assessments of
sustainability. The results of these assessments, however, fell outside the scope of this
thesis. Areas of further research into this subject are suggested.
Extent of Integration
As of May 2016, the majority (72%) of colleges and universities in Washington
State reportedly had student organizations working on sustainability initiatives. Among
four-year institutions surveyed, 90% had student groups working on sustainability
initiatives, compared to 59% of two-year institutions. In total, 52 student organizations
were reported. Most institutions (38%) reported only one student group working on
sustainability, several institutions (32%) reported two or three, and a small number (6%)
reported having seven different student groups. In terms of student engagement with
107
sustainability through student organizations, Western Washington University and The
Evergreen State College appeared to be most active.
Student engagement in sustainability initiatives can be traced further back through
additional surveys. In 2011, E3 Washington stated as one of its goals, ‘Expand and
strengthen opportunities for students to participate and take leadership in campus and
community sustainability initiatives.’ Teams of participants from 22 institutions provided
open-ended comments to the extent that their institution was meeting this goal. All
institutions were providing some form of opportunities for students to engage with
sustainability; the majority (77%) of respondents mentioned having student organizations
working on sustainability initiatives on campus.
However, student engagement in sustainability initiatives may be declining at
several institutions across the state in recent years. For instance, survey respondents in
2016 noted that “We used to have an Environmental Outreach Student Club but have had
trouble retaining student interest” and “We are struggling to maintain a student
sustainability club. It is not currently active.” At other institutions, respondents
mentioned that there is “Very little engagement/involvement” but that they “feel like the
desire is there” while others noted that “There may be some incentive at present but it is
not focused” on some campuses. Interviews with three sustainability leaders with firsthand knowledge of student engagement on their campuses from 2006 to present (two
faculty members and one Director of Sustainability from three different campuses) added
additional insights on the subject.
In each of the three interviews conducted, informants noted that student
engagement in sustainability initiatives was higher in previous years, with a surge of
108
engagement around the mid- to late-2000s that then dipped to a low around 2012 and
stayed relatively consistent up to the time of this study. Interviewees offered different
explanations as to why this trend occurred. Two institutions with early adoption of
sustainability initiatives in the curriculum and institutional commitments also reported
earlier surges and declines in student engagement around sustainability. At one, a fouryear college, student engagement was reportedly highest in 2005-2007 as evidenced
through a self-assessed student fee for sustainability efforts, initiated by students and
adopted in 2005, and then the development of a strategic plan and climate action plan at
the institutional level that engaged students in the following couple of years. According
to the informant, student engagement started tapering off around 2009, dipping to a low
around 2012, and has maintained generally the same level of participation in
sustainability initiatives in the years since.
Similarly, an interviewee from a four-year university explained that students had
made a lot of gains around 2006 to 2008 having to do with facilities and campus
operations such as reducing waste and increasing rate of recycling, and then once these
programs were “institutionalized” student engagement declined, reaching a low by 2012
and staying fairly consistent since. At this campus, a number of paid student positions
were created to coordinate and oversee specific sustainability initiatives, such as a student
government position, Greek life position, and resident life position devoted to
sustainability, as well as a formally-established sustainability committee with broad
representation from the institutions sectors. The informant noted that these were all
moves that they and other sustainability leaders on campus were hoping for, but that the
unintended consequence was a an overall reduced student involvement, since these few
109
students and committee members now took care of many of the responsibilities that
student groups might otherwise work on.
The third informant, from a two-year college that did not adopt sustainability as
readily as the other two institutions, reported that there was a big surge of student interest
and engagement with sustainability from about 2008 to 2010, but then declined
drastically from 2011 to 2013 and has remained very low in the years since. They
explained that there was an emphasis on green jobs and green energy in the late-2000s, as
well as several prominent student movements around recycling and environmental
cleanups, and an environmental studies program with an internship requirement that
engaged students in sustainability efforts. Around 2011, facing financial constraints,
several sustainability efforts lost funding, including a program for environmental
cleanups, and the environmental studies program was terminated. However, the
interviewee pointed out that student interest in sustainability within the classroom is still
present. In 2011, they noted in a survey that “Students seem to be the ones who are
pushing for more and keeping things going. When given choices for assignments, many
choose sustainability/environmental related topics” and in the interview maintained in
2016 that “My students have a lot of enthusiasm for business ethics and greening
business… Sustainability means a lot to them. They do papers and projects on sustainable
business practices and green business and are very interested in that.”
So while student engagement may be down in recent years relative to previous
years, there are several indications that students have remained interested in
sustainability. For instance, five institutions reported that students have implemented a
self-assessed student fee whereby students have voted to "tax" themselves in order to
110
raise funds for sustainability initiatives on campus. At these institutions, student
organizations working on sustainability efforts are often funded through these fees.
Another sign of continued student interest is that the rate of establishing new
sustainability degrees continues to outpace the rate of loss of such degrees. This suggests
that student interest in sustainability, as evidenced through enrollment in degrees, has
been generally sufficient to support continued growth in this area over the decade.
When it comes to students’ understanding and familiarity with sustainability,
however, much less is known. Few institutions in the state have assessed students’
sustainability literacy at the institution-wide or grade-wide level. The four institutions
having reportedly done so are Seattle University, Western Washington University,
Columbia Basin College, and Shoreline Community College. Whatcom Community
College has been experimenting with different sustainability assessment instruments but
has yet to conduct an institution or grade-wide assessment. The most systematic of the
reported assessments is conducted annually by Seattle University. Since the fall of 2013,
incoming freshmen have been administered an online survey to assess their sustainability
literacy. The university plans to have each graduating class take the survey, starting in
spring 2017. Other surveys have been administered on a single occasion or through
individual courses. However, the results of these assessments were not included in this
study.
As an area of further research, these assessments could be analyzed and compared
to each other to examine if significant differences in students sustainability literacy exist
across higher education institutions in Washington State. Conducting more assessments
at a greater number of institutions would also be valuable, especially in regards to
111
developing efforts to integrate sustainability in and across the curriculum and tracking
progress. A third suggested area of research would be to interview current students
involved with sustainability on their campuses to learn more about student engagement
from the student perspective, which could inform both the extent of student engagement
and the focus of sustainability initiatives.
Focus of Efforts
Open-ended responses to the 2016 survey and information from semistructured interviews and institutions’ webpages were used to determine the focus of
efforts by student organizations reportedly working on sustainability initiatives. To shed
light on to what extent student engagement in sustainability reflected the three pillars of
sustainability framework, the organizations were grouped by primary focus of efforts into
three broad categories: environmental, social, economic using keywords and topics to
categorize the groups. In instances where the primary focus could not be determined to fit
into one category over another, they were grouped according to the combination of
aspects they focused on (e.g., environmental and social). In total, 49 of 53 organizations
were categorized; four had insufficient information to determine.
According to this study, the overwhelming majority of student
organizations working on sustainability initiatives on colleges and universities in
Washington State in 2016 focused primarily on environmental aspects of sustainability,
while substantially fewer focused on social aspects and very few focused on economic
aspects. Three-quarters (74%) of all organizations reported were determined to focus
primarily on environmental aspects. These included 10 Environmental/Earth/Eco Clubs
and Green Teams or Green Clubs; 11 student/community garden groups; three renewable
112
or clean energy clubs; and two housing/resident life groups. Substantially fewer, only
12% of student organizations, focused primarily on social aspects of sustainability; all six
of these groups focused on local food justice issues. The least popular area of focus was
economic aspects of sustainability, of which only 4% of student organizations primarily
focused on; both Western Washington University and University of Washington have Net
Impact chapters, which encourage students to pursue social and environmental change by
working in jobs in those fields or by bringing a social and environmental lens to
traditional business roles.
While several student groups may have some areas of overlap between the
different aspects of sustainability, only 10% were determined to have balanced their
focus on multiple aspects; all five groups focused on a combination of environmental and
social aspects. These included the Sustainability in Prisons Project at The Evergreen State
College, Students for Sustainable Water at Western Washington University, the Student
Sustainability Club at Saint
Martin’s University, Civitas at
University of Washington Tacoma,
and KIPOS- Students Advocating
Environmental &
Social
10%
Economic
4%
Social
12%
Sustainability & Justice at
Whitworth University.
Environmental
74%
Fig. 15. Focus of student organizations. Primary focus of
activities in relation to the three pillars of sustainability.
Student organizations were identified by respondents on the
2016 survey (n=52 organizations from 47 institutions)
113
Interviewees were asked to comment on whether or not student interests had
changed over the years with regards to aspects of the three pillars of sustainability. All
three noted an increased interest in social justice, equity, and/or diversity concerns on
their campus in recent years and compared these to student interests in environmental
aspects. For instance, one reflected that, “I think that those interests have really changed.
Looking at the period of ‘08, ’09 and ‘10, there was a strong focus on environmental
issues…Now I would say a lot of our focus is on diversity and equity.” Another
commented that most student activism on their campus was currently directed towards
diversity and social justice issues, particularly with LGBTQ issues, but that there was
“also a ton of energy into a campaign for divestment which is why I said environmental
engagement and student activism is high again, but all centered around that cause.” The
third interviewee noted that “Environmental issues and concepts are always there” at their
instituion, but that “social equity has really popped up in the past four to five years, and
last year [referring to 2015] was another high point for social equity concerns and
perspectives.” This interviewee also noted that “interestingly, there are students every
year who are seriously interested in sustainable business and economic development of
some sort” but that the institution itself showed very little interest in economic aspects,
until perhaps just recently.
Based on the conversations with interviewees, there is some indication that social
justice, equity, and diversity efforts were seen as separate from sustainability efforts.
Commenting further on the shift towards social justice concerns, one interviewee
remarked that there was “Still an element of sustainability in there, but it’s definitely
stronger emphasis and understanding of what social justice is” and also noted that “most
114
of the conversation in the sustainability advisory council appears to be around
environmental issues.” The interviewee from the campus with a student group advocating
for their university to divest from fossil fuels explained that while students who are part
of the divestment campaign “would probably lump [their cause] into sustainability” they
“would define their efforts and what they care about as distinct from the sustainability
efforts to date.” They want to distinguish themselves from the prior sustainability efforts
such as recycling and composting, as the informant explained, because they see those
initiatives “as part of the establishment… Sometimes accusing the university of
greenwashing.” When asked if the divestment group and the diversity and social justice
groups on campus ‘teamed up,’ the respondent replied, “I don’t know. I think they’d be
sympathetic allies but you’d need a student perspective on that to know how deep and
connected they are.”
However, it is unclear if this distinction between sustainability as primarily
focused on environmental concerns and social justice, equity, and diversity concerns is an
accurate reflection of student perspectives or if it arises more from the perspectives of the
interviewees, who were all faculty or staff with a history of leading environmentallyfocused sustainability efforts on campus. For instance, one interviewee used the terms
‘environmental’ and ‘sustainability’ interchangeably. Further research, especially into the
current student perspective, could add valuable insights about this observation.
The notion of environmentally concerned students wanting to distinguish
themselves from traditional sustainability efforts on campus was an unexpected finding.
From a faculty or administrative point of view, institutionalizing sustainability was a
positive and significant step towards exposing students to sustainability concepts and
115
modelling sustainable practices. Yet, it would seem that from the perspective of students
who are critical of corporate power and frustrated with their institution’s connections to
carbon polluting industries, branding an institution with sustainability labels could be
seen as insincere or worse. As one interviewee explained, it is not so much that these
students disagree with the ideals of sustainability, but as it has been institutionalized they
see it as part of “the establishment,” which they are against.
When asked what sustainability concepts or topics students were currently taking
up or responding to most enthusiastically either in the classroom or on campus,
interviewees commented that climate change and social justice and equity issues were
grabbing students’ attention, as well as sustainable business practices and green business
in the business. They noted that there has been “More attention on climate change,
specifically fossil fuel contribution to that” and explained that “If you went back 20 or 25
years, you’d see peaks in other issues like biodiversity or specific species concerns. It’s
not that students don’t care about that right now but they feel an urgency around climate
change.” While one informant contributed part of the success of the divestment group to
being “focused on one issue and one strategy,” they expressed some concerns that the
group was not taking into account other important aspects of sustainability. Similarly,
another interviewee cautioned that “Most students are caught in the same place that our
society is stuck—they are single topic thinkers. The thing that’s really missing is that
systemic understanding and desire to take a systemic approach to it.” This observation
supports findings from the analysis of student organizations’ efforts, which revealed most
student groups were focused on one topic (e.g., recycling, gardening, renewable energy,
etc.).
116
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
This thesis project assessed the extent of integration and focus of sustainability
efforts in Washington State higher education over the period of 2005 to 2016.
Specifically, it was guided by the research questions:
1) To what extent has sustainability been integrated into Washington State higher
education over the past decade (2005-2016) with respect to institutional
commitments, curriculum, and student engagement?
2) How has the focus of sustainability efforts in Washington State higher education
reflected the three pillars of social, environmental, and economic sustainability?
The questions were approached using a longitudinal research design and summative
content analysis methods, taking advantage of both quantitative and qualitative data. The
study utilized data collected through five surveys conducted in 2005, ’06, ’11, ’12, and
’16, with representation from all but two public baccalaureate, independent, and
community college undergraduate institutions in Washington State. Surveys were
administered to faculty, administrators and staff with knowledge and familiarity of
sustainability efforts at their respective institution. This data was gathered by the
Curriculum for the Bioregion and was supplemented with website content and three semistructured interviews with survey respondents.
A list of institutions represented and their participation in each of the surveys is
provided in Appendix I. Survey and interview questions included in this assessment
appear in Appendix II. This section condenses the results into four key findings and
suggests areas of future research. A brief summary concludes this work.
117
Key Finding #1: Widely but variably integrated.
Sustainability has been widely, but variably, integrated across higher education
institutions in Washington State over the past decade. Over half (64%) of institutions
have either a formal sustainability committee or informal working group; approximately
one third have adopted sustainability plans; and many more include sustainability
language in their strategic plans. One third of institutions have incorporated sustainability
language into their mission and values statements. The vast majority of institutions have
integrated sustainability into the curriculum in some way, either through individual
courses, specific degree programs, or in the case of a few institutions, through student
learning outcomes or general education requirements. Sustainability has reportedly been
incorporated into a wider array of disciplines over the years, and between 2000 and 2016,
over 70 sustainability-related degree programs were established across the state. Nearly
all institutions have offered some form of support for faculty members to pursue
professional and curriculum development opportunities to integrate sustainability into
their courses. Lastly, a majority of institutions have student groups working on
sustainability initiatives, with over 50 student sustainability-related clubs, organizations,
and representatives identified across the state in 2016.
However, the extent of integration and types of initiatives undertaken differ
dramatically across institutions. Some institutions have hundreds of faculty and students
engaged in a wide range of sustainability initiatives, as well as the involvement of many
administrators. Others have only a few interested faculty members working to integrate
sustainability into the curriculum who lack institutional support or interest from other
faculty. Some have a single student organization working on an environmental campaign;
118
others have seven with working towards various causes. Sustainability in the curriculum
has broad representation across disciplines at some institutions, but remains confined to
relatively few traditional disciplines at others. Of course, most institutions are somewhere
in between these extremes.
A review of sustainability in higher education in England showed similar results.
As Chalkley (2009) concluded, “while there are a small number of HEIs [higher
education institutions] which are seeking to become exemplar organisations, there are
also many for whom SD [sustainable development] remains a low priority or not a
priority at all” (p. 289). Studies from both the U.S. and England suggest that it is not
unusual for sustainability to be prioritized differently across institutions (AASHE, 2010;
HEFCE, 2008). In Washington, as in other parts of the U.S. and the world, there are a
small number of institutions that have achieved significant progress over the years and
continue to demonstrate increasing interests and efforts to integrate sustainability through
institutional commitments, curriculum, student engagement and other facets of campus
life. For many more institutions, however, both the achievements to date and the future
outlook are less optimistic.
Key Finding #2: Signs of overall decreased interest and coordination.
Given the wide variability of sustainability efforts among institutions, it is not
surprising that the overall trajectory of sustainability conversations and activities also
varies among institutions in Washington State. According to the most recent survey, over
the past five years (2011-2016), sustainability conversations and activities have
reportedly increased at 40% of institutions, have held steady at roughly half (53%), and
have decreased at a few (6%). More surprising, is the sharp contrast between these
119
trajectories and those reported five years prior. In 2011, sustainability conversations and
activities were reportedly increasing at nearly three-quarters (73%) of institutions
surveyed and holding steady at a few (14%); a few more (14%) were too uncertain to
decipher, though none were clearly diminishing. In general, this suggests that
sustainability interests and efforts are slowing down on campuses across the state, as
compared to prior years.
This was further evidenced in the assessment of several factors of sustainability
integration. For instance, the number of institutions with sustainability plans was nearly
identical in 2012 and 2016 (as reported in surveys). As were the number of institutions
with sustainability-related general education requirements, and those with mission and
values statements containing sustainability language. Also, during this four year span,
coordination for sustainability initiatives overall declined, with a 22% decrease in the
presence of formally-established sustainability committees and a 28% reduction in
coordination for the integration of sustainability into the curriculum. These declines are
likely related, as sustainability committees often coordinate efforts to integrate
sustainability into the curriculum.
Sustainability initiatives can be, and often are, accomplished without formal or
institution-wide coordination, however. In particular, the integration of sustainability into
the curriculum has largely been the product of individual faculty members’ interests and
efforts to incorporate relevant concepts into their courses. While most institutions’
administrations are supportive of faculty efforts to do so, only a small number have made
institutional commitments to integrate sustainability into the curriculum more broadly, or
have attempted to coordinate these efforts across the institution. A common theme found
120
throughout this assessment was that a lack of coordination for sustainability initiatives
was seen as a barrier to progress at many institutions.
As such, individuals involved in sustainability initiatives have called for greater
coordination across their institutions to integrate sustainability, particularly within the
curriculum. Without this institution-wide coordination, efforts are often disjointed,
unknown, or even unsuccessful. As a team of informants remarked, “The college is very
supportive of faculty wishing to pursue sustainability in and across the curriculum,
however, as there is no college wide initiative or clear path for this integration into
existing curriculum initiatives that are started are not followed up on.” (2016 survey
respondents). The general decline in coordination for sustainability initiatives across the
state, then, may help explain the overall reduced progress for integrating sustainability
into Washington State higher education in recent years, as compared to years prior.
The review of sustainability in higher education institutions in England found
similar trends. They concluded that while sustainability activity had grown significantly
on campuses compared to twenty years ago, there was only ‘slight evidence’ that it was
still increasing (HEFCE, 2008). Yet, it is unclear if this is a sign of diminishing priority
for sustainability initiatives or possibly a sign of maturation of prior efforts. Considering
the varying levels of sustainability efforts and interests across institutions, it would be
unwise to overgeneralize. In some cases, institutions made substantial efforts to integrate
sustainability early on, and have generally been maintaining that progress in more recent
years. Thus, these institutions may only demonstrate ‘slight evidence’ of increased
efforts. For more institutions, however, substantial progress to integrate sustainability
into institutional commitments, curriculum, and student engagement have yet to be made.
121
Furthermore, attempts to do so are often uncoordinated and/or met with resistance. As
such, these institutions may also demonstrate only ‘slight evidence’ of increased efforts.
Though heavily context dependent, results from this study suggest that if sustainability is
to be further integrated into Washington State higher education, sustainability efforts will
need to be more broadly supported and coordinated at most colleges and universities.
Key Finding #3: Focus shifted as social aspects emerged.
In general, sustainability appears to have been most closely associated with
environmental aspects as it emerged on campuses in the mid-2000s and up to around
2012. By 2016, however, social aspects were reportedly emerging across the state, with a
slight increase noted in economic aspects as well. This trend was evident in all three areas
of higher education assessed for this study: institutional commitments, curriculum, and
student engagement.
Examining the language of mission and values statements and student learning
outcomes revealed a shift from primarily focusing on environmental aspects in 2012 to
more frequent references to social aspects in 2016, with slightly more references to
economic aspects as well. Institutions often referenced environmental aspects of
sustainability using phrases such as environmentally sustainable, environmental
stewardship, stewardship of natural resources, and care for the Earth/environment.
References to social aspects included terms such as social justice, diversity, equity,
fairness, multicultural world, and well-being and sustainability of community. Economic
aspects were referenced less often, but included phrases such as economic vitality, global
economy, business, meaningful employment, and economic justice.
122
Within the curriculum, sustainability was primarily incorporated into existing
environmental science, environmental studies, and natural science disciples (i.e. biology,
chemistry, geology and physics) when it emerged in Washington State higher education.
This observation echoes findings from the literature that reported sustainability had been
most readily taken up by natural, earth, and environmental studies and sciences (e.g.,
Chalkley, Blumhof & Ragnarsdóttir, 2010; Chalkley, Haigh, & Higgit, 2009; NWF,
2001). At many institutions, however, sustainability has also been emerging in other
disciplines and areas of study, such as history, English, health and nursing, political
science, sociology, theology, philosophy, business, economics, engineering and computer
science, and more. Additionally, sustainability-specific degrees, programs, and pathways
have been established at numerous institutions, with many incorporating aspects from all
three pillars.
Student organizations working on sustainability initiatives still overwhelmingly
focus on environmental campaigns, as has been the case over the years. Primarily,
students are working on gardens, implementing waste reduction programs such as
recycling or composting, or promoting environmental campaigns such as plastic bag and
plastic bottle bans or installation of water bottle refilling stations. While the focus of
extracurricular activity is primarily environmental, interviewees noted that there has been
an increasing level of student interest in climate change, social justice, and environmental
justice issues on campuses in recent years. This was partially reflected in the focus of
some student organizations as well. At a few institutions, student groups are working on
clean/renewable energy projects, and on at least one campus in Washington State,
students are leading a very active campaign pressuring their institution to divest from
123
fossil fuels. A handful of institutions also reported student organizations that are focusing
on social and environmental justice causes, primarily revolving around food access and
food justice issues. Touching on the economic side of sustainability, two institutions
reported student groups that are promoting socially and environmentally responsible
entrepreneurship.
A similar shift in focus was also noted in influential international sustainability
conferences and documents over time. For instance, Agenda 21 of the 1992 Earth
Summit primarily focused on fostering “attitudes of respect for the environment” whereas
the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 focused more broadly on sustainability and
encompassed social justice issues (UNESCO, 2006, p. 9). Since both of these events and
their proceeding documents emphasized the important role of higher education in
creating a sustainable future, it is likely they had an impact on the way sustainability was
interpreted and demonstrated by institutions. For instance, several studies found that
when sustainability emerged on campuses in the United States, efforts were focused
primarily on environmental concerns (e.g., Barlett & Chase, 2004; Calder & Clugston,
2003). It may be that colleges and universities reflect similar trends to those in the
international arena in the years to follow.
To grab a glimpse into potential future directions for sustainability in higher
education, respondents were asked if notions of sustainability, justice, and sustainable
future were being phrased in new ways, and if so, how and they were emerging. Concepts
of sustainable practices and sustainable sources are reportedly emerging on multiple
campuses, potentially linking economic and environmental concerns. However, on many
more campuses, there has been a surge in diversity, social justice, and equity topics, or
124
these phrases are beginning to emerge on some campuses. Additionally, concepts linking
environmental and social concerns are reportedly gaining momentum on numerous
campuses, particularly environmental justice, climate justice and food justice.
Key Finding #4: Social, environmental, and economic aspects not well integrated.
As social aspects of sustainability such as equity, social justice, and diversity are
emerging and becoming the focus of attention on many institutions in Washington State,
there are indications that instead of sustainability being an umbrella for these issues, it is
often seen as relevant to, but separate from, sustainability. For instance, while an
institution’s mission to uphold “an environment of diversity, fairness, equity, and
sustainability” demonstrates a strong commitment to many important aspects of
sustainability, it also implies that sustainability does not include diversity, fairness, and
equity. As two more examples, respondents to the most recent survey (in 2016) made
comments such as, “Environmental justice and social justice are the focus right now;
sustainability as a piece of social justice” and “For the last 4 years, the intersection of
Diversity, Justice, and Sustainability has been the focus on our campus.” According to
the three pillar framework of sustainability, social justice and diversity are pieces of
sustainability, but these responses suggest it is being viewed the other way around, or in
some way separate from sustainability.
This was a reoccurring theme throughout the study. It could be partially explained
by the previous finding, which indicated that when sustainability first emerged on most
campuses it primarily focused on environmental aspects rather than making explicit the
connections between social, environmental, and economic concepts and concerns. As the
term sustainability became more mainstream on campuses, it was most closely associated
125
with lists of prescribed environmentally-conscious practices, such as recycling, energy
efficiency, and water conservation (Kagawa, 2007; Sherman, 2008). It may be that
phrases emerging on campuses like environmental justice, climate justice, and food
justice could be more effective at maintaining connections between social and
environmental aspects than the term sustainability has been able to achieve in higher
education to date. However, these emerging phrases do not appear to integrate or readily
imply the importance of economic concepts and concerns. The term ‘sustainable
development’ more effectively implies social and economic aspects. While this term is
used more predominantly in international contexts and in ‘developing countries’ than the
term sustainability, there was very little evidence of its use in Washington State higher
education. Overall, this study suggests that on most colleges and universities in
Washington, sustainability has generally not been interpreted and practiced to holistically
consider social, environmental and economic concepts and concerns.
Suggested Areas of Future Research
The recent adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stresses
that there is a continued need to advance the ideals of sustainability in order to address
the complex issues of the twenty-first century. The launching of the United Nations
Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development, which extended
efforts beyond the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2004 -2015),
maintains that colleges and universities have an important role to play in addressing these
issues and helping create a more sustainable future. As such, sustainability in higher
education will continue to be an area of scholarly and societal importance. Throughout
this thesis, areas of future research have been suggested. They include: curriculum
126
review, sustainability literacy assessments, student interviews and/or focus groups, and
content analysis of sustainability plans.
In the Implementation Scheme for the Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development, UNESCO (2006) called for “a review of existing curricula in terms of their
objectives and content to develop transdisciplinary understandings of social, economic,
environmental and cultural sustainability.” (p. 21). Though not feasible for this research
project, a valuable avenue for future research could be to conduct assessments at the
individual course level, particularly in regards to which aspects of sustainability are
focused on and through which academic pathways students are introduced to these topics.
One possible way to do this would be to identify courses that incorporate sustainability,
note which program they appear in, and examine course syllabi. While identifying
courses with sustainability content would be a significant undertaking at many
institutions, some institutions have already inventoried or tracked “sustainability-rich”
courses. For instance, The Evergreen State College and Whatcom Community College
have tracked such courses, and other institutions have indicated an interest in doing so
(i.e. Seattle Pacific University). Courses could also be identified through AASHE STARS
reports for those institutions that have completed a recent assessment.
As another area of research, student sustainability literacy assessments could be
administered to all or a selected sample of students and analyzed to better understand
how students perceive sustainability and if there are differences across disciplines or
institutions, for instance. Another interesting idea would be to administer sustainability
literacy assessments to faculty members, as well, to learn what their perspectives are.
These ideas could be combined to examine how student and faculty perceptions of
127
sustainability compare. Sherman (2008) conducted a small case study exploring this idea,
which revealed both groups primarily associated sustainability with a list of prescribed
environmentally-conscious practices. However, this was an admittedly small case study
and it was conducted several years ago.
A third suggested area of research would be to interview and/or hold focus groups
with students involved with sustainability initiatives on their campuses to learn more
about student engagement from the student perspective (as opposed to the faculty or staff
perspective). This may be particularly insightful at institutions with several active student
organizations such as The Evergreen State College, Western Washington University, and
the University of Washington. Alternatively, institutions with student groups using
atypical approaches to affect change could be further explored, such as the ECO group at
University of Puget Sound, which has a very active fossil fuel divestment campaign
targeted at the Board of Trustees. Questions could seek to more fully understand the
focus of sustainability efforts, the driving factors behind those efforts, the mechanisms
students use to effect change, and/or the level of collaboration within and between
student groups, among other valuable insights. For instance, are environmental groups
teaming up with social justice groups around sustainability initiatives?
Lastly, institutions’ sustainability plans could be comprehensively investigated.
McNamara (2008) studied strategies for implementing effective sustainability initiatives
in higher education and found that the quality of written sustainability plans is closely
associated with the level of progress achieved. In addition to the overall quality and use
of the plan, content analysis could explore the subject matter, priorities, and framing of
sustainability. For instance, examining to what extent sustainability plans promote
128
integration of sustainability into the curriculum, student engagement opportunities, and/or
how the focus of these efforts reflect social, environmental, and economic aspects of
sustainability.
Summary
The complex issues that led to the global call for sustainable development have
not been resolved. Many have only become more pressing over the years, such as climate
change, wealth inequality, poverty, and biodiversity loss (e.g., Chalkley, 2009; IPCC,
2014; Rockström et al., 2009). Higher education institutions, as leaders, educators, and
models of sustainability, play a critical role in helping address the issues of the twentyfirst century. In the words of Anthony Cortese (2003) “Higher education institutions bear
a profound, moral responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values
needed to create a just and sustainable future.” (p. 17).
Many scholars and organizations at all scales (local, national, and international)
have called for a more interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to teaching and
learning, and practicing sustainability, recognizing that this would require fundamental
changes to institutional structures and teaching pedagogies (e.g., Cortese, 2003;
Huisingh, 2006; Orr, 2004; Sherman, 2008; UNESCO, 2006). As such, proponents and
scholars of sustainability have advocated for the integration of sustainability into higher
education as a vehicle for both educational and societal transformation. Given this
ambitious goal, it is prudent to assess what progress has been made.
This study revealed that many colleges and universities across the state of
Washington have incorporated sustainability concepts into the curriculum, made
commitments to sustainability through mission and values statements and institution129
wide plans, and have students who are actively engaged in sustainability initiatives
through their institutions, among other efforts. It also revealed that many institutions have
not seen the integration of sustainability as a priority. Efforts to integrate sustainability
have been widely variable across campuses and across years. And while there is clear
evidence of an overall increase in the integration of sustainability into Washington State
higher education since 2005, there is less evidence of increasing interest in recent years
and overall decreased coordination for these efforts. However, whether this signals a
reduced priority for integrating sustainability or a sign of maturation of prior efforts is
highly context dependent.
This study also found that as sustainability emerged on campuses in the mid2000s, it primarily focused on environmental aspects of sustainability, and considerably
less so on social and economic aspects. As it was integrated into the curriculum,
sustainability was most commonly folded into natural and environmental sciences and
studies disciplines and degrees. Student organizations were also primarily focused on
environmental causes and campaigns. More recently, social and economic aspects of
sustainability have emerged on many campuses. In particular, social justice, equity, and
diversity topics have gained increasing attention in recent years. Yet, in many cases these
concepts and concerns have been framed as relevant to, but distinct from, sustainability.
This study suggests that, overall, sustainability on colleges and universities in
Washington State is still most closely associated with environmental aspects and is not
well integrated with social and economic aspects the term is meant to encompass.
In conclusion, if sustainability is to be a vehicle for educational and societal
transformation, it will need to be further integrated within and across institutions and
130
refocused to holistically consider social, environmental, and economic concepts and
concerns. This will require broader support and coordination of sustainability initiatives
at most institutions in Washington State. While the challenges are great, the need is even
greater. Higher education institutions not only have the responsibility to help create a
more just and sustainable future, they have the potential to do it.
131
REFERENCES
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2010).
Sustainability curriculum in higher education: A call to action. Denver, CO:
AASHE
Åhman, H. (2013). Social sustainability – Society at the intersection of development and
maintenance. Local Environment, 18(10), 1153-1166.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. World
Development, 28(12), 2029-2049.
Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W. (Eds.). (2004). Sustainability on campus: Stories and
strategies for change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W., (Eds.). (2013). Sustainability in higher education: Stories
and strategies for transformation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bawden, R. (2009). Implications for education. In Escrigas , C. & Lobera J. (Eds.),
Higher education at a time of transformation: New dynamics for social
responsibility (48–51). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, L. R. (1998). The Future of growth. In State of the world 1998: A Worldwatch
Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society (pp. 3-20). New York,
NY: W.W. Norton.
Breen, S. D. (2010). The mixed political blessings of campus sustainability. Political
Science and Politics, 43(4), 685-690.
Calder, W., & Clugston, R. M. (2003). Progress toward sustainability in higher education.
Environmental Law Institute: News & Analysis, 33, 10003-10023.
Chalkley, B. (2009). Emerging opportunities in education for sustainable development. In
Chalkley, B., Haigh, M., & Higgitt, D. (Eds.), Education for Sustainable
Development: Papers in Honour of the United Nations Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014) (pp. 289-292). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chalkley, B., Blumhof, J., & Ragnarsdóttir, K. V. (2010). Geography, earth and
environmental sciences: A suitable home for ESD? In Jones, P., Selby, D., &
Sterling, S. (2010). Sustainability education: Perspectives and practice across
higher education (pp. 93-107). Washington DC: Earthscan
Chalkley, B., Haigh, M., & Higgitt, D. (Eds.). (2009). Education for Sustainable
Development: Papers in Honour of the United Nations Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014). New York, NY: Routledge.
132
Chapin III, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., …
Swanson, F. J. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a
rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecological Evolution, 25, 241–249
Clarkson, L., Morrissette, V., & Régallet, G. (1992). Our responsibility to the seventh
generation: Indigenous peoples and sustainable development. Winnipeg, Canada:
International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Colantonio, A. (2009). Social sustainability: A review and critique of traditional versus
emerging themes and assessment methods. In Horner, M. Price, A., Bebbington,
J., & Emmanuel, R. (Eds.), Sue-MoT Conference 2009: Second International
Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment: Conference
Proceeding (pp. 865-885). Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University
Cope, M. (2010). Coding qualitative data. In Hay, I., Qualitative research methods in
human geography (3rd ed.) (pp. 281-294). Oxford, Canada: Oxford University
Press.
Corcoran, P., & Wals, A. (Eds.), (2004). Higher education and the challenge of
sustainability: Problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of
sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable
Development, 19(5), 289-300.
Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept.
Environmental Science, 3(2), 83-96.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.
Fisk, P. (2010). People planet profit: How to embrace sustainability for innovation and
business growth. Chicago, IL: Kogan Page Publishers.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social ecological systems
analyses. Global Environ Change, 16, 253–267.
Gibson R. B. (2006). Beyond the three pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework
for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in
significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 8(3), 259-280.
133
Gibson R. B., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., Whitelaw, G., & Hassan, S. (2005). Sustainability
assessment: criteria and processes. London: Earthscan LLC.
Hain-Jamall, D. A. S. (2013). Native-American & Euro-American cultures: A
comparative look at the intersection between language & worldview.
Multicultural Education, 21(1), 13-19.
Hajer, M. A, & Fischer, F. (1999). Living with nature: environmental politics as cultural
discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hardi, P, (2007). The long and winding road of sustainable development evaluation. In
George, C., & Kirkpatrick, C. (Eds.). Impact assessment and sustainable
development: European practice and experience (pp. 15-31). Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2008). HEFCE Strategic Review of
Sustainable Development in Higher Education in England. Bristol, England:
Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Hoover, C. E., & Harder, M. (2014). What lies beneath the surface? The hidden
complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 175-188.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping
different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huisingh, D. (2006). New challenges in education for sustainable development. Clean
Technology Environmental Policy, 8, 3-8.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis
report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (151 pp.). Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC.
Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (Eds.). (2010). Sustainability education: Perspectives
and practice across higher education. Washington, DC: Earthscan LLC.
Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and
sustainability: Implications for curriculum change. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 317-338.
134
Koehn, P. H. & Uitto, J. I. (2014). Evaluating sustainability education: Lessons from
international development experience. Higher Education, 67, 621-635.
Koning, J. (2001). Social sustainability in a globalizing world: Context and theory and
methodology explored. Paper prepared for the UNESCO / MOST Meeting,
November 23-22, 2001. The Hague, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M, Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., … Thomas,
C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25-41.
Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19,
607–621.
Littig, B., & Grieβler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political
pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development,
8, 65-79.
M’Gonigle, M., & Starke, J. (2006). Planet U: Sustaining the world, reinventing the
university. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
McNamara, K. H. (2008). Fostering sustainability in higher education: A mixed-methods
study of transformative leadership and change strategies (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Antioch University, Seattle, WA.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to
growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind.
New York, NY: Universe Books.
National Association of Scholars. (2015). Sustainability: Higher education’s new
fundamentalism. A report by the National Association of Scholars: Peterson, R. &
Wood, P.
National Wildlife Federation. (2001). State of the campus environment: A national report
on environmental performance and sustainability in higher education. A National
Wildlife Federation Report: McIntosh, M., Cacciola, K., Blermont, S., & Keniry,
J.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring limits of two
opposing paradigms (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Noonan, D., & Thomas, I. (2004). Greening universities in Australia: Progress and
possibilities. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2), 67-79.
135
Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academic
Management Review, 29, 635-652.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenbert, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design,
and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94-120.
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595–616.
Princen, T. (2010). Speaking of sustainability: the potential of metaphor. Sustainability:
Science, Practice, & Policy, 6(2), 60–65.
Quental N., Lourenҫo, J. M., Da Silva, F. N. (2011). Sustainable development policy:
Goals, targets and political cycles. Sustainable Development, 19(1), 15–29.
Robbins, P. (2nd ed.) (2012). Political Ecology: A critical Introduction. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.
Rockstrӧm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., …
Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.
Rozema, J. G., Bond, A. J., Cashmore, M., & Chilvers, J. (2012). An investigation of
environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive
purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 33, 80–90.
Sachs, J. (2015). Achieving the sustainable development goals. Journal of International
Business Ethics, 8(2), 53-62.
Second Nature (2014). 2014 Annual Report. Boston, MA: Second Nature Inc. Retrieved
from http://annualreport.secondnature.org/2014/
Second Nature (2016). Joining the Climate Leadership Network. Boston, MA: Second
Nature Inc. Retrieved from http://secondnature.org/what-we-do/joining-theclimate-leadership-network/
Sherman, D. (2008). Sustainability: What’s the big idea? A strategy for transforming the
higher education curriculum. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 1(3), 188196.
136
Smith, K., Adriance, P., Mueller, A., McKeown, R., Nolet, V., Rowe, D., & Vorva, M.
(2015). The Status of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in the United
States: A 2015 Report to the U.S. Department of State.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R. B., & Norgaard, R. B. (2006). Sustainable development in a
post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57, 253–268.
Sterling, S., & Scott, W. (2008). Pushing the boundaries: The work of the Higher
Education Academy’s ESD Project. Environmental Education Research, 14(4),
386-398.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. (2007). Framing sustainable
development: The Brundtland Report – 20 years on. Sustainable Development in
action; Backgrounder. UN Department of Public Information. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf
United Nation Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21:
Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. New York, NY: UN
Department of Public Information.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2006). Framework
for the UNDESD International Implementation Scheme. Paris, France: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001486/148650E.pdf
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1990). The Talloires Declaration: 10 Point
Action Plan. Talloires, France: Mayer, J., Arce, P., Banjo, L. A., Binson, B.,
Charlton, R., Curris, C. W., … Xie, X. Retrieved from
www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires_td.html.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. (2011). Proceedings
report from the Sustainability Education Summit, September 20-21, 2010.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/sustainability/summit2010.doc
Wals, A. E., & Blewitt, J. (2010). Third-wave sustainability in higher education: Some
(inter)national trends and developments. In Jones, P., Selby, D., & Sterling, S.
(Eds.), Sustainability Education: Perspectives and practice across higher
education (pp. 55- 74). Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Washington Student Achievement Council. (n.d.). Colleges and institutions in
Washington. Accessed August 1, 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.wsac.wa.gov/colleges-and-institutions-washington
137
White, G. B., & Koester, R. J. (2012). STARS and GRI: Tools for campus greening
strategies and prioritizations. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, Research and
Solutions, 5(2), 100-106.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Published as
an Annex to the General Assembly Document A/42/427. United Nations.
138
APPENDIX I. INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED
Two-Year Institutions
Bellevue College
Big Bend Community College
Cascadia College
Centralia College
Clark College
Clover Park Technical College
Columbia Basin College
Edmonds Community College
Everett Community College
Grays Harbor College
Green River College
Highline College
Lower Columbia College
North Seattle College
Olympic College
Peninsula College
Pierce College District
Seattle Central College
Shoreline Community College
Skagit Valley College
South Puget Sound Community College
South Seattle Community College
Spokane Community College
Spokane Falls Community College
Tacoma Community College
Walla Walla Community College
Wenatchee Valley College
Whatcom Community College
Yakima Valley Community College
Four-Year Institutions
Antioch University Seattle
Central Washington University
Eastern Washington University
2005-06
(n-18)
x
2011
(n=22)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2005-06
x
2011
x
2012
(n=47)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2012
x
x
x
2016
(n=47)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2016
x
x
x
139
Gonzaga University
Heritage University
Northwest Indian College
Pacific Lutheran University
Saint Martin's University
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University
The Evergreen State College
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington
University of Washington Bothell
University of Washington Tacoma
Washington State University
Washington State University Tri-Cities
Washington State University Vancouver
Western Washington University
Whitman College
Whitworth University
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
140
APPENDIX II. SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
This Appendix provides the subset of questions from the five original surveys used in the
analysis of this thesis research. The following questions were selected as factors to
inform the research questions. Surveys are presented in reverse chronological order,
beginning with 2016. The list of interview questions is included at the end of this
appendix.
From 2016 Survey
1a.
Does your campus mission and values statement contain language about
sustainability, a sustainable future, or stewardship of the earth?
1b.
If yes, what is the language and where does it appear?
2a.
If your institution has institution-wide learning outcomes, do these include
sustainability or “earth stewardship” (or a comparable outcome) on the list of
institution-wide outcomes?
2b.
If yes, how is this outcome phrased?
3a.
Does your campus have a general education requirement related to sustainability
studies or sustainability literacy?
3b.
If yes, please provide the name of the requirement and year instituted; if this was
discontinued, please note the reasons:
4.
We are interested in knowing what new degree programs or concentrations are
emerging that have to do with sustainability, sustainable agriculture, energy
systems, sustainability and justice, climate change/climate solutions, sustainable
business practices and similar foci. Please list the majors, minors, certificates and
concentrations related to sustainability that have been established since the year
2000.
5a.
Since 2000, were any programs or concentrations related to sustainability begun
but discontinued?
5b.
If Yes, please describe what happened.
6.
With respect to the previous questions on sustainability-related curricula, are there
any details you would like to provide related to particular learning outcomes,
general education requirements, and/or new majors or concentrations?
7.
Over the past five years, do you think sustainability in the curriculum has been
growing, diminishing, or holding steady on your campus?
8.
How and where are sustainability concepts and topics showing up in the
curriculum at your institution? In what departments/divisions/or colleges do you
141
see sustainability emerging? We realize this is a subjective question, but we
would like your best take on what is emerging and what is promising.
9a.
Has your institution assessed students’ sustainability literacy?
9b.
If Yes, please briefly describe the assessment instrument, how and when this
assessment(s) was conducted, what and how many students were assessed, and
whether you are planning future assessments.
10a.
In the past five years, has your campus supported faculty members in their
development of new sustainability-related courses and/or the integration of
sustainability-across-the-curriculum?
10b.
If your answer to the previous question was Yes, in what ways have your faculty
members been supported? (Check all that apply).
o A welcoming environment for this work, that is, general valuing of
sustainability in and across the curriculum at the chair and/or dean-level, and
valuing of these emphases in our annual review and merit review processes.
o Support for faculty to attend workshops and conferences such as Curriculum
for the Bioregion, the Washington Higher Education Sustainability
Conference at Western Washington in 2014, AASHE, or other.
o Release-time and/or stipends for new sustainability-related
course/curriculum/program development
o Creation of an on-campus sustainability institute or “faculty learning
community” to integrate sustainability content into courses
10c.
If you want to tell us more about your activities in this arena, or have created a
different kind of program, please describe.
11.
In the past five years, approximately how many faculty members have been
involved overall in sustainability course development or sustainability-across-thecurriculum activities? (make your best guess). Number of faculty members:
12.
Does your campus have either a formal or informal sustainability committee or
working group?
13.
Does your campus (or community college district) have a climate action plan?
14a.
Are there student organizations on your campus working on sustainability
initiatives?
14b.
Name of any student groups, their focus, student fee funding. If there are websites
that list the groups or a specific group, please provide:
15.
Is there additional information about student engagement in sustainability that you
would like us to know?
142
16.
Is your campus currently an institutional member of AASHE (The Association for
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education)?
17.
Has your campus participated in the STARS assessment (Sustainability Tracking,
Assessment & Rating System) with AASHE?
Note month/year (MM/YYYY) of last assessment and URL for the campus
report:
18.
Has your campus signed the American College & University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment?
19a.
What is your sense of the trajectory of overall sustainability conversations and
activity on your campus? Are they growing, diminishing, holding steady?
19b.
What trends and specific indicators give you this impression?
20.
Campuses are places where new concepts and new ideas are always being
incubated. Are notions of sustainability, justice, and a sustainable future being
phrased in new ways? What new words or phrases are circulating? Where are
they appearing?
21.
Now looking ahead to the period 2016-2021: where you would like your campus
to head with respect to sustainability in and across the curriculum?
22.
Final question: Is there any additional news related to your sustainability-oncampus and sustainability in and across-the-curriculum efforts that you would like
to add? Please use this final textbox to add anything more that you want us to
know.
From 2012 Survey
1.
Does your campus mission and values statement contain language about
sustainability, a sustainable future or stewardship of the earth?
2.
If you answered yes to the above question, what is the language and where does it
appear?
3.
Does your campus have either a formal or informal sustainability task force?
4.
The task force/committee is: (In place and active; Just being developed right now;
Not planned at present; or We had a task force but it is not longer functioning)
5.
If you have a task force or committee, what are its 3-4 major foci?
6.
Does your campus have a: (Sustainability Plan; Climate Action Plan)
143
7.
Is the Sustainability Committee (or a sub-committee) working on curriculum
development and/or faculty development?
8.
Describe what this work has been or is right now.
9.
If your college or university has college-wide learning outcomes, do these include
sustainability or "earth stewardship" (or a comparable outcome) on the list of
college-wide outcomes?
10.
Does your campus have a general education requirement related to
(Environmental studies or environmental literacy; Sustainability studies or
sustainability literacy) If yes, what year was this put in place?
11.
In the past decade, has your campus held any kind of professional development
for faculty members on sustainability-across-the-curriculum?
12.
If you answered yes to the question above, please fill in the appropriate
information. (Approximate number of faculty involved; Source of funding support
for this activity; Name of the leader/coordinator of this activity)
From 2011 Survey
Goal 1: All college and university students have opportunities to learn about the global
and local environment and about the emerging field of sustainability throughout
their time in college.
1a.
Integrate environmental and sustainability education, especially community-based
learning opportunities, into courses in all disciplines and at all levels.
1b.
Ensure that all students who enroll in technical, certificate, recertification, and
apprenticeship programs learn relevant state-of-the-art sustainability (or “green”)
practices and the rationale for them.
1c.
Create environmental and sustainability-related learning opportunities for faculty
members.
1d.
Expand and strengthen opportunities for students to participate and take
leadership in campus and community sustainability initiatives.
2.
What is your overall sense of the trajectory of sustainability conversations and
activity on your campus? Is it growing, diminishing, holding steady? What
trends and specific indicators give you this impression?
144
3.
Now look forward to the period 2012-16: tell us where you would like your
campus to head with respect to sustainability activity and sustainability in the
curriculum.
4.
Write any concluding remarks or insights that emerge for you about your campus
and its engagement up to this time with sustainability in and across the
curriculum. What stands out as the center(s) of energy and creativity and/or your
campus’s most promising work?
From 2005-06 Institution Survey
1.
Identify 5-10 regularly offered undergraduate classes within individual
departments in which learning about sustainability concepts and practices is a
principle focus, and which meets general education (or general university)
requirements or meets transfer requirements. List Department and Course
number, Course name, Typical annual student enrollment, and briefly describe the
learning, and note if community-based learning is involved.
2.
Please note if your institution has general education requirements that specifically
address the following: Sustainability concepts and practices; Justice issues (social,
economic, environmental) or ethical decision-making; Environmental study:
human-earth relationships.
3.
Sustainability Committee, Task Force, Working group in place, being developed,
or not planned at present (respondents select one)
4a.
"Sustainability studies" or the equivalent can be taken as… a two-year degree
program entitled ___, a minor, entitled ___, a major, entitled____, or a formal
emphasis within these other majors: __________.
4b.
If in place, what is its focus? In the box below, please rate the level of emphasis
(0 for not focusing on this; 1 for some emphasis; 2 for heavy emphasis): infusing,
deepening sustainability concepts in the curriculum; sustainability in cocurriculum, student activities and clubs, and residence life; development of a
sustainability plan for the campus. Briefly describe the current work
5.
Have recent faculty development events on campus (within past 5 years) focused
on any of the following: Sustainability concepts and practices; infusing courses
with sustainability content/concepts. Describe scope and if you know, how many
faculty and staff were involved.
145
6.
Comment, if you can, on the recent trajectory (1985-2005) of curriculum focusing
on bioregion, environment, and sustainability.
From 2005-06 Faculty Survey
1.
If your teaching engages students with the study of sustainability concepts and
practices, and future studies or "futuring" activities, please describe.
2.
In addition to what you would like to do, what would you like to see happen at
your institution with reference to bioregional study, community-based learning, or
sustainability?
3.
Professional and personal development related to this region. What would you
like to learn more about with reference to teaching in this bioregion. (Consider
content, teaching strategies, field or community-based projects). Check off what
interests you on this list. [list of 27 topics with option to check some interest or
strong interest]
4.
Please add any further comments that you have about what you would like to
discuss, work on, or reflect on with colleagues with reference to teaching and
learning in the bioregion.
5.
We would like your opinion as to the level of campus interest in different aspects
of study in the bioregion. We realize there is overlap in some of the terms we use;
still, we would like to know your sense of whether you think: Issues related to
environmental, social, and economic justice are important to [check those that
apply: a tiny minority of faculty and staff, students; a small but growing number
of faculty and staff, students; a significant number of faculty and staff, students.]
6.
We would like your opinion as to the level of campus interest in different aspects
of study in the bioregion. We realize there is overlap in some of the terms we use;
still, we would like to know your sense of whether you think: Sustainability
concepts and practices are important to [Check those that apply: tiny minority of
faculty and staff, students; a small but growing number of faculty and staff,
students; a significant number of faculty and staff, students.]
146
From Interviews (2016)
20
16
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
Low
Medium
High
What would you say the overall trend in student engagement and activity around
sustainability has been on your campus in the past 10 years? Could you plot an
approximation of this on the graph below?
Student Engagement and Activity
around Sustainability
1.
Year
2. In relation to the triple bottom line of social equity, ecological integrity, and
economic vitality, how have students’ interests changed over time? For instance, are
they gaining interest in one area and losing it in another?
3. What sustainability concepts or topics do you see students taking up or responding to
most enthusiastically either in the classroom or on campus today? Are there concepts
that they resist?
4. Can you give 2-3 examples of especially impressive initiatives or programs students
have been involved with at your institution?
5. What made these initiatives or programs stand out?
6. What are some of the challenges with student engagement in sustainability?
7. What advice would you offer students who want to better advance sustainability on
their campus?
8. Is there any other information you wish to tell me about student engagement with
sustainability on your campus or more generally?
147
APPENDIX III. ACADEMIC DEGREE PROGRAMS
The 2016 survey asked respondents to “Please list the majors, minors, certificates and
concentrations related to sustainability that have been established since the year 2000.”
The following table lists the undergraduate degrees (type of degree and title) from both
four-year and two-year institutions, as reported by survey respondents.
Four-Year Institutions
Institution
Antioch University Seattle
Central Washington University
Eastern Washington University
Gonzaga University
Northwest Indian College
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University
Degree
Certificate
Program
Minor
Major
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Minor
BS
Major
Major
Certificate
New
programs of
full-time
integrated
study
The Evergreen State College
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington
Major
Minor
Title
Leadership in Edible
Education
CiNSPIRE Certificate Program
Energy
Environmental Studies
Integrated Energy
Management
Sustainable Tourism
Environmental Science
Environmental Science
Environmental Studies
Environmental Studies
Sustainable Business
Native Environmental Science
Appropriate and Sustainable
Engineering
Global Development Studies
Sustainable Business
Evergreen does not require
majors, but instead offers
integrated programs of fulltime study in sustainability and
justice lasting 1, 2, or 3
quarters. Programs are offered
in pathways that include Food
and Agricultural Systems,
Sustainable Art and Design,
Culture and Media, Political
Economy, Energy Systems,
and Education.
Environmental Policy and
Decision Making
Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
148
Minor
BS
Minor
Arctic Studies
Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Climate
Climate Science
Community, Environment, and
Planning
Ecological Restoration
Environmental Health
Environmental Science and
Resource Management
Environmental Science and
Terrestrial Resource
Management
Environmental Studies
Environmental Studies
Geography
Marine Biology
Program on the Environment
Quantitative Science
Urban Ecological Design
Environmental Science
Environmental Studies
Sustainability and Society
Environmental Studies
Sustainability
Sustainable Urban
Development
Sustainability Studies
Major
BA
Minor
Minor
Minor
Business and Sustainability
Energy Policy
Energy Policy
Energy Science
Environmental Studies
Minor
Minor
BA
Minor
Minor
BS
Minor
University of Washington Bothell
University of Washington Tacoma
Washington State University
Vancouver
Western Washington University
Whitworth University
Two-Year Institutions
Institution
Bellevue College
Cascadia College
Cascadia College
BA
Minor
BA
Minor
Program
Minor
Minor
BS
BA
Pathway
Major
Minor
Major
Degree
Title
Concentration Sustainability
AAS
Environmental Technology
and Sustainable Practices
BAAS
Sustainable Practices
149
Clark College
Clover Park Technical College
Edmonds Community College
AS-T
AAS-T
Certificate
Certificate
ATA
Concentration
ATA
Certificates
Everett Community College
Green River College
Highline College
Lower Columbia College
Peninsula College
Seattle Central College
Shoreline Community College
Endorsement
BAS
AAS
A-PP
AAS
AAS
AAS
Certificate
AS & AS-T
Certificate
AA
AS Emphasis
Certificate
AAS
Certificate
Skagit Valley College
BA
Certificate
AAS-T
Whatcom Community College
Certificate
Environmental Science
Sustainable Building Science
Sustainable Interior Design
Sustaining a Green Program
Energy Management
Restoration Horticulture
Sustainable Agriculture
Education: Urban Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture
Education: Urban Agriculture
Global Studies
Forest Management
Forestry
Natural Resources
Park Management
Water Quality
Wildland Fire
Urban Agriculture
Environmental Science
Green Building
Bioregional Food Systems
Bioregional Food Systems
Clean Energy Technology &
Entrepreneurship
Clean Energy Technology &
Entrepreneurship
Sustainable Business
Leadership
Environmental Conservation
Sustainable Agriculture
Education
Sustainable Agriculture
Education
Sustainable Business
150
151
