sustainable development in higher education

1. Introduction
As top members of the food chain, humans often do not stop to think about how their actions will affect other living species that coexist in the world with them—how often do we think twice about getting into our cars to go to work? The reality is, however, that everything we do has consequences, unintended or not, on processes that maintain the Earth’s systems.
The effects of modern economic systems have put extensive pressure on the environment and society, both for this and future generations. Sustainable Development (SD) may offer the solution of pursuing development while ensuring the preservation of economic, environmental and social aspects for present and future generations. One could ask, why focus in Sustainable Development in Higher Education (SDHE)? Why not focus on companies or governments? One of the reasons for this is that we believe that universities are the places where the entrepreneurs and decision-makers for the social, political and economic sectors are created, formed and shaped.
Universities have, for centuries, been the places where young people have attended to received education and to gain knowledge through the university life experience. Universities present a very interesting environment, where enthusiastic young people get in touch with knowledgeable and experienced individuals. This thesis wishes to highlight the importance of universities as increasingly important organizations that catalyze change.
Because university molds and inculcates minds of students hence this is a way of promoting Sustainable Development in the society.
The incorporation must be performed in all five aspects of the university system: 1. Education, 2. Research, 3. Operation, 4. Community outreach, and 5. Assessment and reporting.
However, at the same time there are attitudinal, procedural and financial difficulties or barriers that are often present that slow down or block the implementation process. These barriers are, 1. Resistance based upon lack of information, 2. Resistance based upon psychological and emotional reaction towards change, 3.Resistance to change due to disciplinary standards.
Universities are very important agents of change in modern societies, but they are only part of the whole system of education, in which it is imperative that Sustainable Development must play an increasing role.
The reason why we stick to this study is to give importance in sustaining the development of our resources. We choose to focus on the higher education because “Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable future. Higher education often plays a critical but often overlooked role in making this vision a reality. It prepares most of the professionals who develop, lead, manage, teach, work in, and influence societies’ institutions.” Thus, Higher Education has a critical and tangible role in developing the principles, qualities and awareness not only needed to perpetuate the sustainable development philosophy, but to improve upon its delivery.

2 Statements of the Problems
The research questions used to guide this thesis research were:
• What is the importance of integrating Sustainable Development in Higher Education?
• What programs were done to address SD on Higher Education?
• What are the barriers of change and what are proven and effective ways of overcoming those obstacles to widespread implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education?
.

3. Significance of the Study
The importance of this study is to give insights and vision to universities about sustainable development. Overcoming the global ecological and social crisis requires a new ideology of life and modern innovative approaches to education leading to a new cultural and ecological world outlook. Sustainable developments’ imperative should become paramount in training students and specialists, particularly those specialized in the field of political science, economy, environment and agriculture. This is the only way to reduce the harmful influence of society on the environment and to protect and preserve a biosphere for future generations.
Universities are important in this regard developing relevant skills among the leaders and citizens of tomorrow - campus sustainability is an important avenue for raising awareness about sustainability.
These are the significance of this particular thesis. Throughout the centuries, universities and their faculty members have served as educators of the majority of entrepreneurs and decision-makers, hence the current need to incorporate SD into the higher education system so as to ensure that present and future generations of ‘students’ will be provided holistic insights and values to help them help their societies make the transition from unsustainable to sustainable societies.
This study is conducted on a higher education specifically Negros Oriental State University, its students and its faculty.

4 Limitations
There are several limitations in the process of writing this thesis; one of the most important ones was the difficulty of reaching some of the university leaders due to an overload in our work schedules. One example of this was the unsuccessful attempts to have an interview with the Supervisor of the entire NORSU system.
We wished to have been able to interview more individuals from this university presented and also to have interviewed academic leaders from this universities, but time did not allow it. 5Definition of Terms
Imperative- essential or important
Change barriers- condition or difficulties that arises in universities while incorporating Sustainable Development
Inculcate- infusing SD in universities
Sustainable society- a society able to be used without being completely used up or destroyed
System- the society of nations, independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole
Social cohesion- the state of cohering or sticking together socially in existing and future society
Social inclusion- being included in existing and future society
Shibboleth- often used but little explained
Brink- the limit beyond which environmental and social problems caused by uncontrolled economic growth, a new concept was coined: Sustainable Development (SD).
Technocratic- a so called definition of sustainable development that pertains to highly skilled elite group
Dominant species- it specifically defines to humans which is more powerful than other species
6 Related Literatures
The needs of the world today are real and immediate, yet it’s necessary to develop ways to meet these needs that do not disregard the future. Sustainable development promotes the idea that social, environmental, and economic progresses are all attainable within the limits of our earth’s natural resources. Sustainable development approaches everything in the world as being connected through space, time and quality of life. This chapter will discuss related writings about Sustainable Development.
6.1 Rodrigo Lozano Ros’ Related Literature
• “Prime Minister H. Gro [sic] Brundtland. At the "Sir Peter Scott Lecture," in Bristol, 8 October, 1986: The World Commission does not believe that a dismal scenario of mounting destruction of national global potential for development - indeed, of earth's capacity to support life -- is an inescapable destiny. The problems are planetary - but they are not insoluble. I believe that history will record that in this crisis the two greatest resources, land and people, will redeem the promise of development. If we take care of nature, nature will take care of us. Conservation has truly [come] of age when it acknowledges that if we want to save part of the system, we have to save the system itself. This is the essence of what we call sustainable development. There are many dimensions to sustainability. First it requires the elimination of poverty and deprivation. Second, it requires the conservation and enhancement of the resources base which alone can ensure that the elimination of poverty is permanent. Third, it requires a broadening of the concept of development so that it covers not only economic growth, but also social and cultural development. Fourth, and most important, it requires unification of economics and ecology in decision-making at all levels.” ƒ
• R. Goodland and G. Ledoc. Neoclassical Economics and Principles of Sustainable Development" Ecological Modeling. Vol. 38, 1987: Sustainable development is defined “as a pattern of social and structured economic transformations (i.e. development) which optimizes the economic and societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the likely potential for similar benefits in the future. A primary goal of sustainable development is to achieve a reasonable (however defined) and equitably distributed level of economic well-being that can be perpetuated continually for many human generations. Sustainable development implies using renewable natural resources in a manner which does not eliminate or degrade them, or otherwise diminish their usefulness for future generations... Sustainable development further implies using non-renewable (exhaustible) mineral resources in a manner which does not unnecessarily preclude easy access to them by future generations... Sustainable development also implies depleting non-renewable energy resources at a slow enough rate so as to ensure the high probability of an orderly society transition to renewable energy sources ƒ
• John Pezzey. "Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development." World Bank Environment Department, Working Paper No. 15. Washington D.C. May, 1989: Our standard definition of sustainable development will be non-declining per capita utility - because of its self-evident appeal as a criterion for inter-generational equity. ƒ
• Mustafa Tolba. Sustainable Development - Constraints and Opportunities. London: Butterworth. 1987: Sustainable development has become an article of faith, a shibboleth: often used but little explained. Does it amount to a strategy? Does it apply only to renewable resources? What does the term actually mean? In broad terms the concept of sustainable development encompasses: 1. Help for the very poor because they are left with no option other than to destroy their environment; 2. The idea of self-reliant development, within natural resource constraints; 3. The idea of cost-effective development using differing economic criteria to the traditional approach; that is to say development should not degrade environmental quality, nor should it reduce productivity in the long run; 4. The great issues of health control, appropriate technologies, food self-reliance, clean water and shelter for all; 5. The notion that people-centered initiatives are needed; human beings, in other words, are the resources in the concept.” (Murcott, 1997)
6.2 Foreign Universities Integrating SD
• Calder and Clugston (2003) present some examples of the actions taken by different universities towards SD. One of them is the example of Holland, where in 1995, student groups formed the Dutch National Environmental Student Platform that promoted sustainable campus and a reform in the curricula; in 1998 it changed into the present “Dutch Network for Higher Education and Sustainable Development”, which has project that include:
• Disciplinary reviews;
• Interdisciplinary study projects;
• North/South collaborations;
• Auditing Instruments for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE) Consultancy;
• Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD) master’s programs;
• University operations;
• Biannual awards.
One specific example in Holland is the case of Delft University of Technology (DUT), where in 1996 a committee was created to implement SD in the engineering curricula. The committee reached an action plan with the following points:
• “The design of an elementary course ‘Technology in Sustainable Development’ for all students of the DUT;
• Intertwining [sic] of SD in all regular disciplinary courses, in a way corresponding to the nature of each specific course;
• Develop of possibility to graduate in a SD specialization within the framework of each faculty.” (Mulder, 1996)
It can be seen that this specific effort taken by the DUT focuses only on the curricula, one of the five dimensions; this is not to say that this is the only program of DUT towards SD, it is just to remark an example.
Another example is the one taken by the University of Michigan (2000): “Sustainable University of Michigan” initiative, which divides its implementation strategies into a. Guiding principles, b. Education and Research, c. Administrative, and d. Physical operations. Some of the specific efforts of each category are:
• Guiding principles: o Adoption of sustainability mission statement; o Establishment of sustainability coordinator or committee;
• Education and research: o Encourage incorporation of sustainability issues into curricula;
• Administrative: o Maximization of purchase of organic food and food low in the food chain for dining services; o Shift to 100% "green" cleaning materials;
• Physical operations: o Establishment of life-cycle costing and full- cost accounting; o Development of long-term independence from non-renewable energy sources for facilities operation.
In the United Kingdom there is the United Kingdom’s Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (HEPS) that began in 2001. With objective to “…accelerate the building of a sustainable way of life by taking a positive solutions-oriented approach, and it priorities partnership work with decision-makers in business, government, higher education, and professional bodies.” (Calder &Clugston, 2003)
Another example is the University of Costa Rica which initiated n 1995 the Institutional Program of Sustainability and Peace (PRINSOPAS) with the purpose of promoting environmental education, rehabilitation of the wilderness areas and reduction of air and water pollution on campus, surrounding communities and the country. (Calder &Clugston, 2003) 7 Presentations of Data
7.1 Birth of the Concepts and Approaches of Sustainable Development
The term „sustainable development‟ became prominent after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 which prioritized global environmental discussions and improved upon the initial framework introduced at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm in 1972. The resulting Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, however, advocated the role of education in preventing ecological degradation (Cleveland &Kubiszewski, 2007). There are many definitions of the term „sustainable development‟, but the most widely accepted is the one used in the publication „Our Common Future‟, sometimes referred to as the Brundtland definition:
“Development which meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (UN, 1989).
This definition has the advantage of describing a future that all countries could engage with, but the disadvantage of vagueness and contestability. Furthermore, as the definition is not instructive, a universal model of sustainability and sustainable development application has not yet been developed. In order to implement sustainable development, it became necessary to develop the ideas further in terms of defining what sustainable means and the relevance of development and distinguishing it from environmental education. For this report, sustainability is understood as the end state and sustainable development is understood as the process of getting there.

7.1.1 Sustainable Development
On the brink of these environmental and social problems caused by uncontrolled economic growth, a new concept was coined: Sustainable Development (SD).
7.1.2 The concept of ‘sustainable development’
The word sounds somewhat technocratic. ‘Sustainable development’ looks like the brainchild of some multi-national commission. A formula of compromise achieved in the midnight hour of a tiring negotiation- marathon. It has, some critics say, the smell and flexibility of plastics and feels like something thoroughly artificial. Once you trace its conceptual history back to the roots, however, an aura begins to shimmer around the word: ‘Sustainability’ gradually gains the quality of something timeless and precious.
As a matter of fact, ‘sustainable development’ entered the global stage during the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro. The United Nations presented it as their strategic concept for shaping – and indeed saving – the future of the ‘blue planet’. It promised to become the key-word for describing a new balance between the use and the preservation of nature’s potentials and resources. The Brundtland Commission, which paved the way to the Rio summit, had defined it in 1987 as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The formation of this concept can be traced further back. In 1980, the ‘International Union for the Conservation of Nature’, an association of nation states, environmental agencies and NGOs together with UNEP, the environmental programme of the United Nations, and the World Wildlife Fund, a non-governmental organization, published their ‘World Conservation Strategy’. Under the patronage of the UN-General Secretary, this declaration was simultaneously presented in 34 capital cities around the world. Its title: “Living resource conservation for sustainable development”. A few years before, in 1974, the term ‘sustainable’ had become a central issue in a document of another international organization. At a world conference in Bucharest on ‘Science and Technology for Human Development’, the ecumenical ‘World Council of Churches’ (WCC) discussed a new socio-ethical guideline. Partisans of a theology of liberation, ‘swords-to-ploughshares’-pacifists and ecologically-minded advocates of a spirituality of creation combined their forces and replaced the old WCC-formula “responsible society” by the new term “just and sustainable society”. Using the biblical term ‘husbanding’, the conference stated “that the future will require a husbanding of resources and a reduction of expectations of global economic growth.” It demanded the transition to a global welfare society, based on ‘sustainability’ within the next generation.
The merit to have introduced the term ‘sustainable’ into political language, however, belongs to the Club of Rome. In March 1972, this globally operating think-tank published the epoch-making report on the ‘Limits to Growth’, written by a group of scientists, led by Dennis and Donella Meadows of the ‘Massachusetts Institute of Technology’ (MIT). Describing the desirable “state of global equilibrium”, the authors used the word ‘sustainable’: “We are searching for a model output that represents a world system that is: 1. sustainable without sudden and uncontrolled collapse; and 2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all people.”

7.1.3 A modern concept with deep historical roots
Linking the verb ‘sustain’ with the suffix ‘-able’ and coupling it with ‘development’ was certainly a semantic innovation. The source and blueprint for the new term, however, was a concept, which had deep roots.
Those lay in the professional terminology of forestry. ‘Sustainability’ is a semantic modification, extension and transfer of the term ‘sustained yield’. This had been the doctrine and, indeed, the ‘holy grail’ of foresters all over the world for more or less two centuries. The essence of ‘sustained yield forestry’ was described for example by William A. Duerr, a leading American expert on forestry: “To fulfill our obligations to our descendants and to stabilize our communities, each generation should sustain its resources at a high level and hand them along undiminished. The sustained yield of timber is an aspect of man’s most fundamental need: to sustain life itself.” 6. A fine anticipation of the Brundtland-formula.
The English term ‘sustained yield’, used since the middle of the 19th century, was a fairly literal translation of the German word ‘nachhaltig’. In its original version, the concept made its debut in print in a book published in 1713, more than 250 years before the Brundtland-Report. The ‘Sylviculturaoeconomica’, the earliest comprehensive handbook of forestry, was written by the German nobleman Hanns Carl von Carlowitz (1645 - 1714).
The author deals with the question, how to achieve such conservation and cultivation of timber, “daßeseinecontinuirlichebeständige und nachhal– tendeNutzunggebe“, (that there would be a continuous, steady and sustained use). Carlowitz was head of the ‘KöniglicheOberbergamt’ (Royal mining office) in the silver mining and metallurgy district of the ‘Erzgebirge’ in the Kingdom of Saxony. As such he was the supreme authority in one of the oldest, most prosperous and technically advanced mining areas of Europe. The problem which he tackled in the 400 pages of his book had been troubling economists and statesmen throughout Europe for quite some time: a predicted shortage of timber, the key resource of the time. The sudden realization that this resource was getting scarce was probably something like the 17th century equivalent to the ‘peak oil’ discussion at the beginning of the 21st century. A network of experts from different European countries communicated, cooperated and acted in various directions in order to find adequate solutions. The concept of sustainability was the result of a long common quest.
Carlowitz had two important sources and models: A folio-sized book published in 1664 in London: John Evelyn’s ‘Sylva’, and Jean Baptiste Colbert’s ‘Ordonnance’ of 1669, concerning the royal forests of France.
7.1.4 The History of Sustainable Development in the United Nations 1972
In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm brought the industrialized and developing nations together to delineate the ‘rights’ of the human family to a healthy and productive environment. A series of such meetings followed, e.g. on the rights of people to adequate food, to sound housing, to safe water, to access to means of family planning. The recognition to revitalize humanity’s connection with Nature, led to the creation of global institutions within the UN system. 1980
In 1980, the International Union for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IUCN) published the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) which provided a precursor to the concept of sustainable development. The Strategy asserted that conservation of nature cannot be achieved without development to alleviate poverty and misery of hundreds of millions of people and stressed the interdependence of conservation and development in which development depends on caring for the Earth. Unless the fertility and productivity of the planet are safeguarded, the human future is at risk. 1982
Ten years later, at the 48th plenary of the General Assembly in 1982, the WCS initiative culminated with the approval of the World Charter for Nature. The Charter stated that "mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems". 1983
In 1983, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was created and, by 1984, it was constituted as an independent body by the United Nations General Assembly. WCED was asked to formulate ‘A global agenda for change’. In 1987, in its report Our Common Future, the WCED advanced the understanding of global interdependence and the relationship between economics and the environment previously introduced by the WCS. The report wove together social, economic, cultural and environmental issues and global solutions. It reaffirmed that "the environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs, and therefore it should not be considered in isolation from human concerns. The environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable." 1992
In June 1992, the first UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro and adopted an agenda for environment and development in the 21st Century. Agenda 21: A Programme of Action for Sustainable Development contains the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which recognizes each nation’s right to pursue social and economic progress and assigned to States the responsibility of adopting a model of sustainable development; and, the Statement of Forest Principles. Agreements were also reached on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNCED for the first time mobilized the Major Groups and legitimized their participation in the sustainable development process. This participation has remained a constant until today. For the first time also, the lifestyle of the current civilization was addressed in Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration. The urgency of a deep change in consumption and production patterns was expressly and broadly acknowledged by State leaders. Agenda 21 further reaffirmed that sustainable development was delimited by the integration of the economic, social and environmental pillars.
The spirit of the conference was captured by the expression "Harmony with Nature", brought into the fore with the first principle of the Rio Declaration: "Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature".

1993
In 1993, UNCED instituted the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to follow-up on the implementation of Agenda 21. 1997
In June 1997, the General Assembly dedicated its 19th Special Session (UNGASS-19) to design a "Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21". 2002
In 2002, ten years after the Rio Declaration, a follow-up conference, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was convened in Johannesburg to renew the global commitment to sustainable development. The conference agreed on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and further tasked the CSD to follow-up on the implementation of sustainable development. 2009
On 24th December 2009 the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution (A/RES/64/236) agreeing to hold the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in 2012 - also referred to as 'Rio+20' or 'Rio 20'. The Conference seeks three objectives: securing renewed political commitment to sustainable development, assessing the progress and implementation gaps in meeting already agreed commitments, and addressing new and emerging challenges. The Member States have agreed on the following two themes for the Conference: green economy within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and institutional framework for sustainable development
Since UNCED, sustainable development has become part of the international lexicon. The concept has been incorporated in many UN declarations and its implementation, while complex has been at the forefront of world’s institutions and organizations working in the economic, social and environmental sectors. However, they all recognize how difficult it has proven to grant the environmental pillar the same recognition enjoyed by the other two pillars despite the many calls by scientists and civil society signaling the vulnerability and precariousness of the Earth since the 1960s.
7.1.5 More SD Definition
• Herman Daly defines SD as: “… is the amount of consumption that can be continued indefinitely without degrading capital stocks – including ‘natural capital’ stocks…”, he mentions that “Definitions of sustainability are also obviously dependent on the time and space scale we are using. Rather than trying to determine the correct time and space scale for sustainability we need to concentrate on how the different scales interact and how we might construct multi-scale operational definitions of sustainability.” (Daly, 2002
• Dresner wrote that “Environmental economists define sustainability in terms of non-depletion of capital.” (Dresner, 2002)
• Bhaskar and Glyn offer the following definition: “Sustainability literally means the capacity for some state or condition to be continued more or less indefinitely.” (Bhaskar& Glyn, 1995)
• “IUCN, WWF and UNEP. The World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland. 1980: Sustainable development - maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, the preservation of genetic diversity, and the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems.”
• World Bank. World Development Report, 1992: Development and the Environment. Oxford University Press, New York: Sustainable development means basing developmental and
• R. Costanza, "Environmental Performance Indicators, Environmental Space and the Preservation of Ecosystem Health" Global Change and Sustainable Development in Europe Manuscript on file at the Wuppertal Institute, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. 1994 : Sustainability: An ecological system is healthy and free from 'distress syndrome' if it is stable and sustainable, that is, if it is active and maintains its structure (organization) function (vigor) and autonomy over time and is resilient to stress.” (Murcott, 1997)
• Sustainable Development is defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs." - The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987
• "Its essence is in the harmonious integration of a sound and viable economy, responsible governance, social cohesion/harmony and ecological integrity to ensure that development is a life-enhancing process. The ultimate aim of development is human development now and through future generations." - Philippine Agenda 21

7.2 Higher Education and Sustainability
This chapter is designed to underscore the dynamic evolution of the understanding of university leaders of their responsibilities and roles in helping society to evolve in sustainable patterns and pathways. Thus, this thesis underscores the following aspects: a. the importance of higher educational institutions as social agents of change, b. the importance of higher educational institutions and their role in the process of adoption and diffusion of SD in the world societies; c. the points of view of different authors about these evolving roles as well as the current trends in education; d. the different efforts some institutions of higher education have taken or are taking in beginning to fulfill their responsibilities towards SD, and e. the central role of academic leadership in the process of helping society make the transition to SD.
7.2.1 Universities and their Role as Social Agents of Change
“Universities form a link between knowledge generation and transfer of knowledge to society for their entry into the labor market. Such preparation includes education of teachers, who play the most important role in providing education at both primary and secondary levels. Second, they actively contribute to the societal development through outreach and service to society.” Cortese (2003) seconds this notion, stating “Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable future. Higher education often plays a critical but often overlooked role in making this vision a reality. It prepares most of the professionals who develop, lead, manage, teach, work in, and influence societies’ institutions.” Thus, Higher Education has a critical and tangible role in developing the principles, qualities and awareness not only needed to perpetuate the sustainable development philosophy, but to improve upon its delivery.
Many authors have begun to help academic leaders to better understand their responsibilities. Among such authors is David Orr who differentiates among “schooling”, “training” and “learning”. He defines “training” as the inculcation of a rote habit. By “schooling” he refers to what happens in schools and colleges and he writes that it “…has to do with the ability to master basic functions that can be measured by tests.” (Orr, 1992) “Learning” is, for him, “what can happen throughout life for those willing to risk it” (Orr, 1992), it has to do with judgement and it is difficult to measure.
This thesis agrees with Orr, especially when he writes that “Schooling may or may not increase intelligence… [but] Real learning on the other hand, always increases intelligence…”(Orr, 1992) This difference will serve to make the distinction of the “learning” experiences within the university, and the “schooling” that takes place during some courses and programs. This learning view is shared by Rosner (1995) who indicates three types of learning: a. by experience, b. by being taught, and c. by theory. All of them take place in a university. To this respect Cortese wrote that “Educational psychologists tell us that we retain 80 percent of what we do as opposed to 10–20 percent of what we hear and read.” (Cortese, 1999)
Universities, in their capacity as education facilities for training future decision-makers, and as centers of research bear particular responsibility here and play a decisive role. They lay the foundations by delivering knowledge, competences and values through teaching, learning, and by engaging in research generate the knowledge and innovations needed for shaping sustainable development. This has to be combined with programs and initiatives adopted by public and private stakeholders at national and international level. Education for Sustainable Development must be internationally focused and organized in accordance with the problem at hand and therefore represent parts of the internationality of universities. With their network of international relations, universities have a worldwide infrastructure at their disposal, which needs to be used for tasks in the field of sustainable development. By engaging in international collaboration in the service of Education for Sustainable Development, universities can, both in teaching and in learning, as well as in research with a corresponding thematic-contentual focus, link up with established forms of international collaboration and continue to expand these, above all in teaching and learning.
7.2.2 Universities and SD
Once the importance that higher education institution plays in the modern society is explained, this thesis will connect universities and SD. For example, Cortese emphasizes that “Despite the efforts of many individuals and groups within the formal educational system, education for a just and sustainable world is not a high priority” (Cortese, 2003). This thesis wonder, How we can achieve sustainable societies when the institutions, where decision-makers and entrepreneurs are educated, are primarily highly specialized in the different areas of knowledge and do not really learn the full, multi-disciplinary perspectives within which their specialized training is an important but incomplete part?
If we are to be successful as educators for SD, our education must be based upon a switch in paradigms from this highly specialized focus towards a trans-disciplinary approach, passing through a process of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. Roorda defines these terms as:
• Multidisciplinary education: “…[the] co-operation between various disciplines, keeping intact every separate set of theoretical concepts and methodological”
• Interdisciplinary education: “…[the] co-operation between various disciplines, where a common methodological approach and theoretical fundament is looked for, as a synthesis of the participating disciplines. Participants try to speak “one language.””
• Trans-disciplinary education: “…not only co-operation takes place between specialists of various disciplines, but also others are directly involved: users, problem owners, clients, stakeholders, etc. (trans-disciplinary = (literally :) beyond the disciplines.)” (Roorda, 2001)
The reasons for the importance of these three terms are explained in the following paragraphs:
Cortese (2003) remark that currently universities focus is stressed on individual learning and competition, encapsulated in the little world of the respective discipline. This leads to low or no information flow and generation of intellectual cells without any communication and of individuals poorly prepared for co-operative efforts. Constanza adds that “Our education system is currently characterized by overspecialization and disciplinary isolation” (Costanza, 1991).
A paradigm shift is required for a sustainable future in which there is an emphasis on collaboration and co-operation; without these the road towards trans-disciplinarism will never take place. Many or most learning experiences were too narrowly discipline oriented (discipline-centrism), where the engineers despise the social and administrative disciplines, and even among different types of engineers conflicts occur among the civil, mechanical and chemical engineering subdivisions; each of them believing that they own the world and the experiences and knowledge of the others are of little or no value. These types of attitudes cause the creation of very high change barriers for university faculty to be effective change promoting agents needed for societies to make progress towards SD. By stating this, we does not wish to generalize and say that all the individuals function like this, however, in modern universities most faculty members unfortunately act this way. There is little or no multidisciplinarism, and even less interdisciplinarism or transdisciplinarism.
On matters of curricula Orr wrote that “The contemporary curriculum continues to divide reality into a cacophony of subjects that are seldom integrated into any coherent pattern.” (Orr, 1992) To which Cortese adds that the current curricula make the following assumptions:
• “Humans are the dominant species and are separate from the rest of nature
• Resources are free and inexhaustible
• Earth’s ecosystems can assimilate all human impacts
• Technology will solve most of society’s problems
• All human needs and wants can be met through material means
• Individual success is independent of the health and well-being of communities, cultures, and the life support system.” (Cortese, 2003)
This thesis agrees with Cortese (2003) and Orr (1992), and believes that the current university curricula are focused on economic growth and not on development that will allow this generation to enjoy the natural resources and increase its quality of life, and at the same time ensure that future generations will have the opportunity to benefit from these resources.
An important difference must be made, this is the difference between education about SD and education for SD should also be made clear. As McKeown remarks “An important distinction is the difference between education about sustainable development and education for sustainable development. The first is an awareness lesson or theoretical discussion. The second is the use of education as a tool to achieve sustainability” (McKeown, 2002). This statement clearly marks the differences between including SD in the curricula and including it in the university life.
Universities’ systems differ from those of corporations. Corporations have a focus on making money and revenues, while universities focus, most of the time, on preparing individuals to be decision-makers and entrepreneurs. Thus, the nature of universities is different from that of corporations; that is not to indicate that universities do not search economic efficiency, it is clear that excesses in expenditures will lead to bankruptcy of private universities, and economic limitations in public institutions. For this reason the triple-bottom-line approach, which came from a corporate view, does not fit totally to the universities’ dimensions. Therefore, the triple-bottom-line approach has to be merged into the university system, which Cortese (2003) has developed.
7.2.3 The University System and the Dimensions in to Which SD Should Be Integrated
The conclusions drawn from the review of these declarations lead one to reflect on how the different dimensions of SD can be most effectively integrated into the total set of university activities. As Calder and Clugston (2003) suggest, SD should be included in all the different academic disciplines, one way to solve this is to integrate it in the curricula of each of the disciplines. It should be noted that though the curricula are part of the core business of the university, they are not the only activities that the university does. The inclusion of SD within all curricula requires that the university system actively supports and facilitates such inclusion and furthermore, that the professors become interested, are taught the concepts and obtain the tools to implement SD as a ‘Golden Thread’, within their courses and curricula. Such inclusion in the curricula can serve as a multiplier and can serve as the foundation and catalyst for societal adoption of SD. It is important to note that the leaders of the university should bear in mind the three different approaches by Roorda (2001), multidisciplinarism, interdisciplinarism and transdisciplinarism.
This provides one of the key dimensions of SD education, the curricula; SD should not be placed as another course but should be integrated throughout all courses as well as within new interdisciplinary courses and research efforts.
Calder and Clugston (2003) propose that research on SD must be done within universities, thereby providing support for research on SD as a second major focus. They also propose the “greening of the campus,’ should be done as the third dimension.
One could ask, what about the surrounding environment, the external community? Calder and Clugston (2003) do not consider this aspect as Cortese (2003) does. The community must be involved, since the university is an integral part of the society, it employs individuals from that society (academic directors, professors, and staff), and it also teaches and forms young people (the students) from that society. So, the community should be included in the process and the introduction of the concept of SD in the society should be another goal for the institution. This, obviously, should be taken as a long-term goal, since the university should first start within its boundaries and then move out, but still it can include “bit by bit” the community. Hence, the fourth dimension, community outreach.
Another question is, how can the university measure its performance towards SD? What to do with it? The answer for this is the assessment and reporting of SD in the institution, giving step to the fifth dimension.
In conclusion, there should be five dimensions in which the university should focus in the path towards SD:
Figure 1.2 Dimensions in which SD should be included in the university
1. Inclusion in the curricula;
2. Research towards SD;
3. Operation of the campus in a sustainable manner;
4. SD in their community outreach;
5. Assessment and reporting of the efforts and performance of SD and making continual improvements of their SD programs as time proceeds and as experience and new knowledge are obtained.
Source: Rodrigo Lozano-Ros
Rodrigo Lozano-Rosemphasizes that these five points are not exclusive one from the other, and they are not in a hierarchical order. It is obvious that some of them are easier to implement than the others. However, all are interconnected and mutually reinforcing and all should be done on all campuses, world-wide.
It is implicit the introduction of SD in all of these dimensions will be affected by the attitude and values of the different stakeholders, for example, staff, students, professors, academic directors etc. Some of their attitudes may be positive towards SD and some others may have negative attitudes.
7.2.4 Examples of Universities in the Philippines Working Towards Sustainable Development
There are many examples of universities and colleges working with and towards SD. It is not the purpose of this thesis to compare all of these institutions; nevertheless a few examples would aid to understand how SD has been adopted.
In the Philippines, the government created the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD) in 1989. One of the PSSD’s priorities was to promote environmental education. In 1995, the Philippine Association of Tertiary Level Education Institutions in Environmental Protection and Management (PATLEPAM) was formed; it is designed to help ensure that education, training and research in environment and SD is provided to local communities. (Calder &Clugston, 2003)
• Miriam college
1973 - Miriam College started its environmental thrust through a module on pollution in the seniors' curriculum
1978 – Miriam College started offering B.S. Environmental Planning.
1986 - Miriam-P.E.A.C.E. (Public Education and Awareness Campaign for the Environment) was born to promote in society what it had been teaching in school
1993 – Mastera programs were started: MS Environmental Studies, MA Environmental Education, and MA Environmental Management
1998 - The Environmental Education Center (EEC) was inaugurated, housing Miriam-P.E.A.C.E.- from which more stewards of God's creation would be born, bred and nurtured
1999 - The Ph.D in Environmental Studies and in Environmental Education were launched
2001 - EEC was transformed into the Environmental Studies Institute (ESI) to consolidate and strengthen Miriam College’s academic, extension, and research efforts for the environment.
• De la Salle University-Dasmariñas
De La Salle University- Dasmariñas is the first academic institution in the Philippines to join the International Association of Universities - Higher Education for Sustainable Development (IAU-HESD) portal, after launching its comprehensive sustainability site outlining the University's efforts to equitably and ecologically manage resources and promote green initiatives in and out of campus.
The IAU-HESD was a program that started in 1993 through the IAU Declaration on Sustainable Development. For the past 20 years, the Association has initiated and joined various events to promote and facilitate the IAU's drive for sustainable.
DLSU-D, for its part, began its campaign to promote environment conscious initiatives over a decade ago. Some of the activities include the establishment of an Environmental Resource Management Center, Materials Recovery Facility, formulation of policies for solid waste management, tree planting, carbon neutral solutions – measures that gained honors for the University from various sectors and made it a benchmark for other organizations to follow.
• Ateneo de Manila University
The Ateneo de Manila University recognizes that all human activity occurs within complex ecological systems with finite resources, which in turn requires us to use resources conservatively and to manage waste, keeping in mind the long term costs and effects of decisions that are being made today.
• Negros Oriental State University
The NORSU system has develop ecological conservation through tree planting and growing keeping in the minds that planting tree is still not enough you should guide it and nourish as it grows.
7.3 Change Barriers and How to overcome them in the Incorporation of SD
The next sections will present the process of the incorporation a new idea into society and the different difficulties that could arise.
SD is still, a new concept for the vast majority of universities faculty and administrators. The number of universities and their leaders that have taken efforts to incorporate SD in the dimensions of their campus activities remains disappointingly small.
7.3.1Change barriers and how to overcome them
This section presents a basic understanding of the barriers to change that could be present and could hinder the diffusion and adoption of an innovation. In this case, of course, this thesis applies these concepts to the barriers within universities to incorporation of SD into their entire academic structure and operations.
Rogers (1962) emphasizes that societal norms influence the diffusion of new ideas, or innovations. He distinguishes two ideal types of norms: traditional and modern. A system with traditional norms is characterized by “1. A less developed of complex technology… 2. Literacy and education are at a relatively low level… 3. Little communication by members of the social system with outsiders... 4.Lack of economic rationality… 5. Lack of ability to empathize or see oneself in other’s roles…(Rogers, 1962)”; while modern norms: “1. A developed technology with a complex division of labor… 2. A high value on science and education. 3. Cosmo-politeness [sic] of social relationships. New ideas enter the social system freely from external sources, and members of the system interact often with outsiders. 4. Planning is careful and decisions are economically rational… 5. Ability to empathize and see oneself in the other fellow’s shoes” (Rogers, 1962).
This thesis wishes to emphasize that universities, as social systems, tend to be under the category of the modern norm. That is they have obviously a high value on science and education and, most of the time there is a high level of cosmopoliteness. It is important to observe that not all of the individuals in the university system behave of the same manner; some of the individuals in a university could behave as if they were under traditional norms, that is, with little communication with others, low degree of technology complexity, etc. These could be true of, for the cleaning staff, for example. This thesis, calls such individuals, conservatives. This, of course, goes in accordance with Rogers’ study in which there are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (or conservatives).
Changes in universities, like in any other organization are constrained by barriers of change. Montemayor Saenz (2001) makes a reference to Maurer on the three levels that produce this resistance to change:
1. Level 1. Based on information: this level includes presentations, diagrams and logic arguments. This level is produced usually for: lack of information, disagreement with the idea, lack of exposition and confusion.
2. Level 2. Psychological and emotional reaction towards change: This level presents fear to people, usually accompanied by an increase of arterial pressure, rise in the pulse and adrenaline levels. It is usually produced by: feelings of loss of control or power, status loss, respect loss towards the individual from the rest, feeling of incompetence, feeling of being deserted and feeling of too high pressure and stress and that it’s too difficult to change (too many changes)
3. Level 3. Higher than actual change: This level marks a serious contrast to the organization, the individual might be in accordance with the idea of change, and nevertheless, it takes the situation to a personal dimension. Here, other factors are included such as cultural differences, race, and religion. It is generally produced by: history or due to a lack of trust, differences of sex, race, culture or ethnic and significant disagreement towards the values being encountered.
These levels highlight the different problems that can arise while trying to incorporate a new idea. Obviously the easiest level to overcome is number 1, with appropriate and timely information. At the other extreme Level 3 reflects the toughest barrier to break, for this more dramatic actions must be taken. A more detailed explanation on how to overcome these levels is presented in the next section.
The incorporation of a new idea, such as SD, in universities is bound to face at least one of these levels. Universities are maintainers of tradition and tend to be very resistant to change. In this regard, Orr emphasizes that “The concept of sustainability implies a radical change in the institutions and patterns that we have come to accept as normal.” (Orr, 1992) This view is supported by Mulder by who writes “A paradigm shift is therefore required in engineering, and it will profoundly affect engineering curricula.”(Mulder, 2000) referring to engineering departments or schools specifically.
But what are the reasons that these barriers appear? Some of these reasons are addressed by Spence who presents the twelve reasons that Professor James R. Bright outlined in his book Research, Development and Technological Innovation (1998, Harvard University Press) for new technical innovations:
1. “to protect social status or prerogative;
2. to protect an existing way of life;
3. to prevent devaluation of capital invested in an existing facility or in a supporting facility or service;
4. to prevent a reduction of livelihood because the innovation would devalue the knowledge or skill presently required;
5. to prevent the elimination of a job or profession;
6. to avoid expenditures such as the cost of replacing existing equipment, and of renovating and modifying systems already in operation to accommodate or to compete with the innovation;
7. because the innovation opposes social customs, fashions and tastes and the habits of everyday life;
8. because the innovation conflicts with existing laws;
9. because of rigidity inherent in large or bureaucratic organizations;
10. because of personality, habit, fear, equilibrium between individuals or institutions, status and similar social and psychological considerations;
11. because of the tendency of organized groups to force conformity;
12. because of the reluctance of an individual or group to disturb the equilibrium of society or the business atmosphere” (Spence, 1994)
This thesis considers these twelve reasons of great importance for this thesis. They present a brief overview of the many blocks that occur in institutions of higher education.
This thesis would like to remark that three additional aspects could slow the diffusion of an innovation, such as SD in universities:
• Ignorance: This refers to the lack of familiarity with the idea;
• Procrastination: This refers to the fact that the individual is aware of the innovation, but believes that its incorporation is too complicated; this can also be referred as laziness;
• Power: The struggle for power inside the universities consumes precious abilities and energy that otherwise could be in the implementation of SD. Another effect of the power struggle is the creation of sides or groups that aim to snatch the resources and eliminate the competition of other groups.
The first one can be solved with the proper information, while the second requires the effort of the SD champion to change the attitudes and demonstrate that it is not complicated, but rather that SD can be easily integrated into every-day activities. The third point is of great distress and difficult to avoid, it is part of human nature and affects deeply universities world-wide.
Once one understands that there are usual barriers to change and that they affect the incorporation of a new idea into an organization, it becomes clearer that one then needs to focus on ways to overcome these barriers.
7.3.2 Overcoming the Barriers to Change within Academic Institutions
The process of incorporating SD into universities is bound to face many barriers to change, because, for many, it will be a radical switch from the normal “way of life”.
Such change processes are bound to face the resistance from some individuals in the organization. Luthans (2002) proposes five approaches to overcome this resistance to change:
1. Providing new information;
2. Use of fear;
3. Resolving discrepancies;
4. Influence of friends or peers;
5. Co-opting approach.
Of these, the first four are self-explanatory. The last one refers to the involvement of dissatisfied individuals so that they realize the benefits. It should be noted that ‘Use of fear’ refers to the blockage of a person’s mind when too much fear exists, thus the amount of fear should be reduced to reduce the resistance to change.
To further help facilitate the process of change for SD incorporation one of the three strategies presented by Quinn, et. al. (2000) but developed by Chin and Benne in 1969, could be used:
a) Empirical-rational (making logical arguments for change);
b) Power-coercive (using forms of leverage to force change);
c) Normative-re educative (using participation and pursuing win-win strategies).
Quinn, et. al. present brief definitions of these three strategies:
“The empirical-rational assumes that people are guided by reason and will calculate whether it is in their best interest to change. It assumes that if people understand the logic for change and see themselves as benefiting from the change, they will be more likely to change. Resistance comes primarily from ignorance and superstition. To counter this resistance, individuals must be educated about the logic and benefits of change.
The power-coercive strategy focuses on forcing people to change through the use of external sanctions. This strategy emphasizes political and economic power… The power-coercive change strategy also has limited use in adaptive situations. In adaptive change, people must commit themselves to the collective purpose. The power-coercive strategy usually evokes anger, resistance, and damage to the fundamental relationships of those involved in the change. Thus, it is not likely to result in the kind of voluntary commitment that is necessary in most adaptive solutions.
The normative-re educative strategy involves a more collaborative change progress. Individuals are still guided by a rational calculus; however, this calculus extends beyond self-interest to incorporate the meanings, norms, and institutional policies that contribute to the formation of human culture. Using this strategy, the leader of change welcomes the input of others as equals into the change process. Change does not come by simply providing information, as in the empirical-rational strategy. Rather, it requires the leader to focus on the clarification and reconstruction of values. In this mode, the leader attempts to identify all values and works collectively through conflict. The emphasis is on communication with the followers rather than their manipulation.” (Quinn et al., 2000)
These three strategies and the five approaches of Luthans (2002) can be utilized to overcome the three levels of resistance to change that Montemayor Saenz (2001) identifies; for example, the empirical-rational strategy can be used to overcome Level 1 (Based on information), this strategy requires that the individual be rational towards change and understand the benefit, as Quinn, et. al. (2000) highlight the resistance to this strategy can be overcome by education about the change, this is also proposed by Luthans (2002) This does not imply that any of the other two strategies could be used to overcome Level 1; it just implies that this strategy is the one that is most closely related to this level.
Level 2 can either be overcome by the power-coercive strategy or the normative-educative strategy; the power-coercive as Quinn, et. al. (2000) remark is based on the use of power, it is a form of command and control from the top-levels of the organization; this strategy can achieve the desired effect but it would create friction, dissatisfaction and would lead to a slower institutionalization. While the normative-re educative strategy would involve the different stakeholders’ opinions in a collaborative approach, this offers the advantage of the involvement of the individuals and results in faster institutionalization. Level 2 can also be approach by Luthans (2002) Resolving discrepancies and/or Co-opting approach. These approaches could help the faculty to understand the causes of the problem and help them to try to overcome them by being actively involved to help incorporate the innovation.
Level 3 represents the highest barrier to change and usually the individuals are not willing to cooperate toward to make changes; Level 3 presents a personal dimension, such as lack of trust and values differences. To overcome this barrier any of the three strategies could be used, but this thesis, believes that the Empirical-rational strategy would give the least results; while the normative-re educative could, by involving the individual in the process, reduce the frictions and conflicts; the power-coercive strategy should be used as a last result, but a leader should bear in mind this strategy in case the other two fail. Taking Luthans (2002) approaches, either Use of fear or Influence of friends or peers could be used. The first one should be used when the individual does not respond to any other attempts to encourage him/her to incorporate the innovation. The second, Influence of friends or peers, will, to a great extent, take place after the innovation has been adopted by everyone else; this is known as social pressure. This will require long periods of time, and in the meanwhile the use of fear, or power-coercive strategy should be used.
It should be noted that in an institution such as a university, the different levels would obviously be present within the system, from the professors, students, staff, etc. Therefore, it is important for the change leader to keep in mind the three strategies and the five approaches to deal with the attitudes that different individuals may have about the proposed changes.
The strategies and approaches to overcome barriers to change is expanded upon by Dobes (Dobes, 2003), who emphasizes that mental models can be changed through the learning process, in which old mental models are replaced by new ones. Dobes (2003) considers that the mental models and the learning process can be divided into two types of changes:
1. Changes in conceptual frameworks: this can be accomplished through the change of norms, strategies and/or conceptual frameworks;
2. Changes in routines and skills: this can be accomplished through operational trial and error learning.
Humans have the unique ability of a creative brain that differences us from the rest of the animals, this special feature dictates the way that humans behave; mental models facilitate the understanding of the complexity of human behavior. As Rosner wrote there are two reasons why mental models help to understand environmental problems:
• “To understand the whole complexity of the issues we face, we can no longer rely on the analytical approach, which tries to understand all the details, but we have to take a look at the broader picture.
• Existing mental models – of managers, politicians, consumers, of everybody – influence to a large part the decisions being made and therefore these models are part of the problem itself. The ‘unlearning’ of old models and the provisions of new ones are part of the solution.” (Rosner, 1995)
In the case of mental models for sustainability Rosner (1995) considers two approaches: a. The sophisticated scientific theories (such as climatic models), and b. Providing manager with a different mind-set focused on environmental responsibility and intergenerational approaches. The use of these two approaches to incorporate SD is of outmost importance, the first one generates the knowledge of the different disciplines more in a theoretical fashion, while the second allow the incorporation of the SD concept in the different businesses and organizations in the world.

8. Methodology
This part presents the procedure used in conducting this study.
First, research was conducted in relation to the topic of one of the core values of education. This research aim the basis for the study we intended to focus in order to obtain a more complete understanding of the concept of Sustainable Development in Higher Education.
Second, a literature review was conducted to understand:
a. The integration of Sustainable Development in Higher Education
b. The barriers of change and the effective ways on how to overcome these barriers
c. The social aspects in universities that must be addressed to help ensure that the essential changes are made, and
d. The things that has been done this far to promote Sustainable Development in Higher Education
Third, a literature review was done on the conventions, speeches conducted in the Philippines about promoting Sustainable Development in Higher Education and its history in the Philippines.
Fourth, a research was conducted in Negros Oriental State University on the process on how far it has implement sustainable development.

9. Questionnaire
For interviews on the faculty of NORSU
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information about Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Your opinion is requested as one of a party with some interest in the area, and the confidentiality of your answer is guaranteed.
1. How long have you been employed in your current position?
2. What does SD mean for you? (please explain in a brief manner)
3. How do you think your position relates to Sustainable Development?
4. Are you familiar with the Sustainable Campus Program?
5. Who do you think should be the key actors or SD in Universities?
6. Who do you think should be involved in SD in Universities? Why?
7. How do you measure your SD performance? Which indicators do you use?
8. Do you consider it to be important that SD be taught in universities? Why?
9. With regard to Sustainable Development, what do you think should be the role of:
a. Students
b. Professors
c. Academic directors
d. Staff
e. External agents
f. Community
g. Researchers
h. Alumni
10. If you would be in a top management position in your University, what would you change and why? What types of challenges and opportunities would you anticipate in seeking to make these changes?
11. Have you heard about the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development of UNESCO? If so, what do you think it means for you, for your university and for your community?
12. How do you perceive the future with and without SD?
For interviews that will be performed at NORSU
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information about Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Your opinion is requested as one of a party with some interest in the area, and the confidentiality of your answer is guaranteed.

1. What is the name of your University and where is it located? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Which position do you hold in the University? A How long have you been employed in the position? B How do you think your position relates to Sustainable Development? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Can you give a brief definition of what Sustainable Development means to you? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Do you consider universities important to the diffusion of Sustainable Development? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Do you think it is important that Sustainable Development is taught in the Universities? Why? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________
6. Who do you think should be involved and who should be the key actors for Sustainable Development in Universities? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. What do you think are the main barriers in the University that affect the integration of Sustainable Development? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. What is your University doing for Sustainable Development? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Does your University have specific programs towards SD? If so which departments are involved? If so,
A Who is responsible of the program and why? __________________________________________________________________
B Who is involved in the program? __________________________________________________________________
10. How do you measure your Sustainable Development performance?
C Which indicators do you use? __________________________________________________________________
D Do you do any reporting? If so, what do you report? __________________________________________________________________
11. With regard to Sustainable Development, what do you think should be the role of?
E Academic Directors including deans, provosts, rectors and presidents? __________________________________________________________________
F Professor
__________________________________________________________________
G Researches
__________________________________________________________________
H Academic Directors including deans, provosts, rectors and presidents? __________________________________________________________________
I Staff
__________________________________________________________________
J Student
__________________________________________________________________

K External Sustainability Experts
__________________________________________________________________
L Community
__________________________________________________________________
M Alumni
__________________________________________________________________
12. If you would be in a top management position in your University, what would you change and why? What types of challenges and opportunities would you anticipate in seeking to make these changes? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Have you heard about the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development of UNESCO? If so, what do you think it means for you, for your university and for your community? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. What other issues do you wish to address with regard to the roles of Universities in promoting the transition to Sustainable Development globally? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 References http://www.iisd.org/sd/ http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/what-is-sustainable-development.html http://www.sustainabledevelopmentinfo.com/the-definition-of-sustainable-development http://www.sustainabledevelopmentinfo.com/campus-sustainability-what-does-this-mean/Campus http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/mod02.html?panel=3#top http://www.ees.uni.opole.plcontent01_10ees_10_1_fulltext_05.pdf http://www.bne-portal.defileadminunescodeDownloadsDekade_Publikationen_nationalDeclaration_2520_2522Universities_2520for_2520Sustainable_2520Development_2522.File.pdf http://dirp4.pids.gov.phrisbookspidsbk05-tourism.pdf http://bibliothek.wzb.eupdf2007p07-002.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/feb/16/universities-lead-sustainability-agenda-porritt http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952873302000132 http://www.philstar.com/opinion/322898/philippine-initiatives-and-directions-education-sustainable-development http://www.pilcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91:esd&catid=39:articles http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ph/journals.htm?articleid=839789 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613000346 http://www.un.org/sg/speeches/reports/68/report-growth.shtml http://www.ulsf.org/dernbach/assess.htm http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/esd/equity.html http://www.uncsd2012.org/history.html http://pcsd.ph/blog/a-green-blueprint-for-palawan-conservation-and-development/ http://www.psdn.org.ph/sdvillage.ph/ http://www.ched.gov.phwp-contentuploads201307CHED-Strategic-Plan-2011-2016.pdf http://www.visionwebsite.euUserFilesFilefiledascaricareScientifci%20Partners,Papers%28Kyoto%29PoliTo_KOC_LCiferri_PLombardi_v1.pdf