77
their efforts. The connection between the contents of the unit program and the group
work topics are as follows: Group 1 picked a topic from the fi eld visit to the E-waste
recycling activity at Suan Kaew temple, and addressed the related health issues in
their project. Group 2 took a hint from the fi eld visit to the waste transfer station in
Bangkok, where they observed several improper waste management practices and
addressed the need for a vision for sustainable SWM. Group 3 took the example of
Sainoi Landfi ll site in Nonthaburi and addressed GHG emission reduction issues by
applying technological scenario analysis using a LCA approach.
4.4.1.2 Thailand Unit 2011
In 2011, group work was conducted based on the “approach fi nding” strategy for the
proposal development. Given suffi cient information on the unit theme and relatively
less pressure of time restrictions, students were able to spend time on discussions
about the sustainability indicator analysis and on the proposal development. Because
the importance of the scientifi c approach for the proposal development was emphasized, students worked hard to collect comprehensive information by themselves
and to fi nd a logical approach to develop a proposal plan for their vision for 2030.
In other words, this approach helped students develop practical leadership based on
wider knowledge and expertise about the concerning issues, instead of having only
idealistic but vague images for the future.
Table 4.4 shows details of the group work outcomes, which were presented in the
9th SEAWE, more than 3 months after the unit implementation. The logical
approaches taken by the student groups are explained as follows: Group 1 employed
an approach of system thinking and framework analysis to systematically explain
their plans for the sustainable urban water use and management towards 2030.
Group 2 focused on sustainability indicator development to show their visions for
the 2030 qualitatively and quantitatively. Group 3 highlighted QOL as one of the
most important indicators and proposal plans were presented to improve the QOL
of Bangkok citizens.
4.4.2 Reviews of the Unit
To evaluate the program design and unit performance, feedbacks from the involved
faculty members are shown, clearly indicating strengths and weaknesses or points
for improvement in Table 4.5 . There was a common strength of the unit design for
both cases in that the unit was conducted by a nontraditional style of teaching with
a blend of theory, practice, fi eldwork and discussion. Two different approaches of
the group work were also evaluated as strengths, as they work effectively to achieve
the group work task. Overall, the fi rst case in 2009 had more weaknesses and the
second case in 2011 had more strengths, which indicates signifi cant improvements
in the unit design and implementation as the faculty’s experience and teaching
capacity increased.
4 Leadership Development for Sustainable Urban Environmental Management
their efforts. The connection between the contents of the unit program and the group
work topics are as follows: Group 1 picked a topic from the fi eld visit to the E-waste
recycling activity at Suan Kaew temple, and addressed the related health issues in
their project. Group 2 took a hint from the fi eld visit to the waste transfer station in
Bangkok, where they observed several improper waste management practices and
addressed the need for a vision for sustainable SWM. Group 3 took the example of
Sainoi Landfi ll site in Nonthaburi and addressed GHG emission reduction issues by
applying technological scenario analysis using a LCA approach.
4.4.1.2 Thailand Unit 2011
In 2011, group work was conducted based on the “approach fi nding” strategy for the
proposal development. Given suffi cient information on the unit theme and relatively
less pressure of time restrictions, students were able to spend time on discussions
about the sustainability indicator analysis and on the proposal development. Because
the importance of the scientifi c approach for the proposal development was emphasized, students worked hard to collect comprehensive information by themselves
and to fi nd a logical approach to develop a proposal plan for their vision for 2030.
In other words, this approach helped students develop practical leadership based on
wider knowledge and expertise about the concerning issues, instead of having only
idealistic but vague images for the future.
Table 4.4 shows details of the group work outcomes, which were presented in the
9th SEAWE, more than 3 months after the unit implementation. The logical
approaches taken by the student groups are explained as follows: Group 1 employed
an approach of system thinking and framework analysis to systematically explain
their plans for the sustainable urban water use and management towards 2030.
Group 2 focused on sustainability indicator development to show their visions for
the 2030 qualitatively and quantitatively. Group 3 highlighted QOL as one of the
most important indicators and proposal plans were presented to improve the QOL
of Bangkok citizens.
4.4.2 Reviews of the Unit
To evaluate the program design and unit performance, feedbacks from the involved
faculty members are shown, clearly indicating strengths and weaknesses or points
for improvement in Table 4.5 . There was a common strength of the unit design for
both cases in that the unit was conducted by a nontraditional style of teaching with
a blend of theory, practice, fi eldwork and discussion. Two different approaches of
the group work were also evaluated as strengths, as they work effectively to achieve
the group work task. Overall, the fi rst case in 2009 had more weaknesses and the
second case in 2011 had more strengths, which indicates signifi cant improvements
in the unit design and implementation as the faculty’s experience and teaching
capacity increased.
4 Leadership Development for Sustainable Urban Environmental Management