Search

Purpose Air travel is becoming increasingly recognized as a source of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. This is particularly relevant for the university sector, which relies heavily on staff air travel for domestic and international mobility.Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative content and textual analysis of Australian university sustainability policies, documents and Web pages, this paper discusses the extent to which these organizations take the task of reducing emissions from flying seriously.Findings Universities fall into one of three groups in this regard. “Air Travel Ignorers” are organizations that either have no sustainability policy or none that recognize air travel as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. The second group – “Recognition without Intervention” – describes universities that do acknowledge the role of air travel in their carbon footprint, but do not propose any means to reduce the amount of flying they do. Third, “Air Travel Substituters” seek to substitute their air travel with a digital form of mobility, usually video conferencing.Research limitations/implications The authors then highlight the need to decrease and denormalize university air travel through shifting shared expectations of mobility for events such as conferences and meetings.Practical implications By way of a conclusion, the authors discuss the nature of air travel for Australian academia and the relationship between various forms of mobility, connectedness and co-presence.Originality/value This is the first comprehensive analysis of Australian university sustainability policies with respect to air travel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of the research is to investigate education for sustainability (EfS) practice and perceptions in three university contexts in England, Australia and Greece with a view to identify a suitable systems model for effective EfS across the university. Design/methodology/approach – Research tools involved interviews of key people engaged in EfS (n=25) supported by observations plus appropriate documentary analysis as a basis to establish perceived good practice, barriers and ways to improve EfS. Findings – Clear vision, leadership and support for EfS were considered vital, while agreed understanding about the importance, purpose and nature of EfS was necessary to achieve effective EfS across the university. Wide consultation, consensual agreement and collaborative practice were viewed as important to achieve collective views and coordinated action. A distributed model of leadership in which individuals are responsible and collectively empowered to action is relevant to a systems model for EfS. A systems model for coordination of EfS integrates approaches to governance, curriculum and infrastructure management. Details of examples of good practice and ways to improve practice are discussed. Research limitations/implications – As the research was qualitative in design and focussed on three universities, the sample size is restricted and there are limitations in the generalisability of specific results outside of their contexts. However, the overall results have some broadly significant implications and trends that have relevance for the university sector. Practical implications – The structure and processes for an approach to systems organisation and identified good practice, barriers and perceived ways to improve practice have relevance for coordination of EfS across the university sector. Social implications – The findings have significant social implications, as EfS has urgent and important international priority, while universities have important functions in educating the next generation of professionals across a wide range of contexts. Originality/value – The paper is an original contribution to establishing an effective systems model for EfS coordination; hence it is of significant educational and social value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of sustainability can be controversial and difficult to define. As a result, it has been suggested that there should be specific pedagogies and teaching methods for education for sustainability (EfS). How well these methods are used within universities can inform the future of EfS pedagogy. One quarter of the teaching academics in every discipline of every Australian university (except one) (n = 38) was sent an online questionnaire asking for their recollections of their teaching practices and EfS. Data were obtained from 1819 respondents (26% response rate) and analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics (χ2tests of independence and one-way between-groups analysis of variance). This study presents the views of approximately 6% of the entire university teaching workforce of Australia. It presents the findings that academics prefer, and utilise, lectures, tutorials, critical thinking and discussions in their teaching. Although the adoption of the pedagogies and teaching methods advocated for EfS is low, there is evidence that academics are actively seeking to make their lessons more interactive. Although EfS is largely not practiced within classrooms, when EfS is taught, teaching methods remain the same as when it is not taught – suggesting EfS is not currently associated with pedagogical innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]