Foundations: Integrating Sustainable Development into Higher Education
C l im a te change ECO
fe
just space f or and SO
CIAL
E OV
RS
HO
OT
Inequitable path that undermines the socio-economic foundations
SH
OR
TF
AL
L
Education
Income and work
Gender equality
Re
g
si t er d iv Bi o l os s
Social equity
y
ve
L c o n an d ver sion
Peace and justice Political voice
and distrib
e utiv
ec
on
ph N i os tr o ph ge or n a us n loa d di n g
n
a
Alternative, safe, and just development paths
ical Che m ion pol lu t
A i r p o l l ut i o
m
Food
Housing
ati
IAL FOUNDATI ON SOC
Health
Networks
er
hu
ION
Energy
en
Oc e ifi an ca tio
ty
Water
FOUNDAT
id
y
sa
ac
om
he
LOGICAL CEILING
ni
T
r ye la on i et l p
n
O zo de n
e
Unsafe path that transgresses the planetary boundaries LC LOGICA EILING ECO
ter h wa a l s F r es w a r d wi t h
Figure 6: Doughnut Model of Sustainable Development (Raworth 2017). The outer circle encompasses the nine planetary boundaries considered central (RockstrĂśm et al. 2009). The inner circle represents the internationally debated socio-economic minimum requirements for human well-being. In the upper right-hand corner, we illustrate the idea of different development paths.
The planetary boundaries mark the threshold of environmental pollution: if we overstep them, the resulting environmental damage may be irreversible. Specifically, the model addresses nine different problem areas: climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, freshwater withdrawals, land conversion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and ozone layer depletion. These are juxtaposed with 12 socio-economic minimum requirements for human well-being in the fields of water, food, health, education, income and work, peace and justice, political voice, social equity, gender equality, housing, networks, and energy. In the search for thematic links to one’s own discipline, not all disciplines will find their links in the Doughnut Model. It is therefore important to expand the model by topics that are not included but are relevant to SD, e.g. faith, cultural sustainability, technology. The UN SDGs provide a concrete political entry point to identify thematic links between the various scientific disciplines and SD (Fig. 7, the comprehensive international agenda for SD: Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The advantage of this entry point is that the SDGs were approved in 2015 by the 193 member states of the UN and will thus form the global political basis for decision-making in the coming years. The goals encompass the following 17 areas: no poverty; zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation, and infrastructure; reduced inequalities; sustainable cities and communities; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life below water; life on land; peace, justice, and strong institutions; and partnerships for the goals. In using this model it is important to address aspects of SD that are not explicitly mentioned, and to formulate possible goals.
The international discourse, which builds on scientific and political insights and the UN consensus, offers anchoring points for each discipline to identify links to SD.
20