70
E. Pallant et al.
1 Introduction
In September 2015 the United Nations (UN) launched its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) addressing climate change, renewable energy, food, health,
water quality, equity and social justice (http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
sustainable-development-goals/). The 17 SDGs contain 169 targets, many of which
are still waiting for more specific definitions (Lu et al. 2015.) The SDGs succeed
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as reference goals for the international
community for the period of 2015–2030 (UN 2015) and more intentionally recognize
the relationships between people and the planet. These aspirational goals represent a
significant step forward from the Millennium Development Goals because they are
an integrated network of interconnected targets that are designed to guide both developed and developing nations (LeBlanc 2015). Measuring success of UN SDGs will
require new concepts and metrics related to indicators at the national level (Constanza
et al. 2016; Hák et al. 2016).
For the last decade, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) has helped coordinate Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (UNESCO 2014). UNESCO is also working with several additional
UN groups (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN Global Compact’s
Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative, UN University (UNU), UN-HABITAT and UNCTAD) to develop the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). The objective of this initiative is to provide a platform
for colleges and universities to engage with the UN SDGs and over 300 institutions
have now joined (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/hesi). Education
was identified as a standalone goal of the UN SDGs (SDG 4) and many of the targets
for that goal require universities to act, while others relate directly to learning and
teaching (SDSN Australia/Pacific 2017). However, the extent to which education is
integrated across all 17 goals is variable (Vladimirova and LeBlanc 2016).
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) can help move the concept of
SDGs beyond UN terminology and into practice. Even still, the educational community has struggled to embrace the broader concept of sustainable development
(Venkataraman 2009). Wals (2011) has cautioned that ESD runs the risk of overemphasizing “correct” and “incorrect” behaviors, which could result in big-brother
sustainability or eco-totalitarianism, instead of focusing on ways of thinking and
problem solving.
Vare and Scott (2007) suggest two primary components of ESD, recognizing the
need for an emphasis both on content and process-based skills and competencies. The
first component is built around traditional forms of education during which recipients
receive information about which options are more sustainable and why. The recipient
is then assumed to make rational decisions that promote more sustainable behaviors.
But, Vare and Scott point out that people rarely change their behaviors in response
to a rational call to do so. Thus, they recommend a second ESD component based on
building capacity to think critically about what experts say and to test ideas, exploring
the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living. The significance of
E. Pallant et al.
1 Introduction
In September 2015 the United Nations (UN) launched its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) addressing climate change, renewable energy, food, health,
water quality, equity and social justice (http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
sustainable-development-goals/). The 17 SDGs contain 169 targets, many of which
are still waiting for more specific definitions (Lu et al. 2015.) The SDGs succeed
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as reference goals for the international
community for the period of 2015–2030 (UN 2015) and more intentionally recognize
the relationships between people and the planet. These aspirational goals represent a
significant step forward from the Millennium Development Goals because they are
an integrated network of interconnected targets that are designed to guide both developed and developing nations (LeBlanc 2015). Measuring success of UN SDGs will
require new concepts and metrics related to indicators at the national level (Constanza
et al. 2016; Hák et al. 2016).
For the last decade, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) has helped coordinate Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (UNESCO 2014). UNESCO is also working with several additional
UN groups (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN Global Compact’s
Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative, UN University (UNU), UN-HABITAT and UNCTAD) to develop the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). The objective of this initiative is to provide a platform
for colleges and universities to engage with the UN SDGs and over 300 institutions
have now joined (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/hesi). Education
was identified as a standalone goal of the UN SDGs (SDG 4) and many of the targets
for that goal require universities to act, while others relate directly to learning and
teaching (SDSN Australia/Pacific 2017). However, the extent to which education is
integrated across all 17 goals is variable (Vladimirova and LeBlanc 2016).
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) can help move the concept of
SDGs beyond UN terminology and into practice. Even still, the educational community has struggled to embrace the broader concept of sustainable development
(Venkataraman 2009). Wals (2011) has cautioned that ESD runs the risk of overemphasizing “correct” and “incorrect” behaviors, which could result in big-brother
sustainability or eco-totalitarianism, instead of focusing on ways of thinking and
problem solving.
Vare and Scott (2007) suggest two primary components of ESD, recognizing the
need for an emphasis both on content and process-based skills and competencies. The
first component is built around traditional forms of education during which recipients
receive information about which options are more sustainable and why. The recipient
is then assumed to make rational decisions that promote more sustainable behaviors.
But, Vare and Scott point out that people rarely change their behaviors in response
to a rational call to do so. Thus, they recommend a second ESD component based on
building capacity to think critically about what experts say and to test ideas, exploring
the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living. The significance of