12th ACTS Conference Proceedings Boyle - Australasian Campuses ...

th

08

The 12 Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, jointly hosted by Griffith University, University of the Sunshine Coast and The University of Queensland, held at the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, Queensland 26 – 28 September 2012.

Fall

Teaching Sustainability: A pathway forward for tourism education Andrea R. Boyle School of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University

Recommended Citation Boyle, A. R. (2012). Teaching Sustainability: A pathway forward for tourism education. Proceedings th of the 12 Annual Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Available at http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

th

Proceedings of the 12 Annual Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability Conference 2012

Teaching Sustainability: A pathway forward for tourism education Andrea R. Boyle School of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University Abstract st As educators of the 21 century we are firmly situated in the global sustainability discourse. The body of knowledge to what constitutes sustainable education is garnering interest. Although the concept of sustainability can be viewed as an ideological debate, the literature points towards higher education embracing the path towards education for sustainability (EfS). Progress towards campus sustainability presently overshadows the move toward EfS in curriculum development and learning and teaching (L&T) practices at most Australian universities. The higher education literature reveals discussion concerning a number of barriers and challenges universities experience as they move towards embracing sustainability. A program such as tourism (including hospitality and event) is often set within a business school paradigm promoting graduates to be ‘job ready’. This inclination towards a narrow vocational style of education may be contributing to the challenges of fully engaging with the principles of EfS. Unless the current neoliberal business focus common at universities undergoes a paradigm shift it does not appear to cater for future thinking demands required by EfS. Students need to learn alternative values and become reflexive to enable a resilient society capable of creative thinking and ethically responsible action. The main concepts elicited from the wider EfS literature promote a whole systems-thinking, interdisciplinary approach with the goal of achieving holistic understanding and deep transformative learning by students. This paper distils the current discourse of L&T sustainability in higher education and how this can be incorporated in tourism education. Keywords: education for sustainability, learning and teaching, curriculum, tourism

Introduction The end of the United Nations Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD) 20052014 draws closer. It is thus timely to take a snap shot of the current academic conversation for learning and teaching (L&T) sustainability. Previous global educational declarations proclaim support and encouragement for sustainability, such as the 1990 Talloires Declaration (see Corcoran, Calder, & Clugston, 2002; Wright, 2004). The UNDESD’s builds upon prior declarations with its major goal to integrate the principles, values and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. Evidence of action towards these goals was slow to begin within higher education (Fisher & Bonn, 2011; Pigozzi, 2010; Shephard, 2010). However the higher education literature demonstrates progress is taking place with campus sustainability, often referred as campus ‘greening’ (e.g. recycling and carbon foot print mapping) becoming widely pursued by most institutions (Leihy & Salazar, 2011; Shriberg, 2003). In Australia, university websites reveal acknowledgement of the notion of sustainability in many forms such as sustainability action groups, cycle-to-work programs, recycle and reuse initiatives and funding applications for sustainability projects. A recent report on education for sustainability (EfS) in university curricula in the Australian state of Victoria finds a mixed response in university policies and practice (Leihy & Salazar, 2011). Although evidence for education about campus sustainability represents a promising development, it presently overshadows progress of EfS in curriculum development (Leihy & Salazar, 2011; Savelyeva & McKenna, 2011). The number of academic papers written on the topic of barriers and challenges in Australia and internationally reflects the struggle higher education has to connect with EfS at all levels, but particularly with EfS in curricula (Down, 2006; Fisher & Bonn, 2011; Moore, 2005a; Nowak, Rowe, Thomas, & Klass, 2008; Reid & Petocz, 2006; Sherren, 2005; Sibbel, 2009; Velazquez, Munguia, & Sanchez, 2005; von der Heidt, Lamberton, Morrison, & Wilson, 2011). EfS is starting to gain traction in some disciplines (Bacon et al., 2011; Hazelton & Haigh, 2010; Thomas & Benn, 2009). However there is still widespread confusion over what the term ‘sustainability’ actually represents and Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

2

th


how it is to be manifested (Fuller, 2010; von der Heidt, Lamberton, Wilson, & Morrison, 2012). Generally the concept of sustainability is considered to be so overloaded with implications that it threatens to make it meaningless (Mundt, 2011). Nonetheless contemporary society is urged to change its world view on expectations and goals of what it means to live life collectively as humans and in concert with nature. Supporters of the modern environmental movement which emerged in the 1960s, hope an ‘eco-philosophic’ worldview is adopted in contrast to the anthropocentric ‘dominant Western worldview and its environmentally destructive outcomes’ (Fien, 2002, p. 149). The message underpinning international educational declarations, supported by higher education commentators, is that universities have an important role to play in shaping this societal change. Within the tourism higher education literature discussion exists about what a tourism education should represent (Dredge et al., 2010; Fidgeon, 2010; Sheldon, Fesenmaier, & Tribe, 2011; Tribe, 2005). Some voice concern about tourism education’s move towards a vocational perspective arguing this narrow approach limits the opportunity for students to gain broader perspectives and skills (Dredge et al., 2012) required to tackle the future challenges faced by tourism. The need for EfS within tourism education appears critical since the tourism phenomenon entails significant environmental, socialcultural, economic and political impacts, both at a local and global level. To date there is scant evidence of sustainability being clearly embedded throughout tourism education (Sanders & Le Clus, 2011). This paper considers the learning and teaching (L&T) environment and where current progress is most constrained. To begin with the term EfS is explained. The whole systems-thinking, interdisciplinary approach towards achieving the goal of holistic understanding and transformative learning will then be explicated. A number of key concepts from the EfS literature will be drawn upon to discuss the path forward for EfS in tourism (including hospitality and event) higher education.

Education for sustainability (EfS) A consensus is building in the general higher education literature around the need to change our view of the purpose of education (Fien, 2002; Kearins & Springett, 2003; Tilbury, 1995). Some authors believe education is a ‘deeply moral enterprise’ and should be about ‘equipping people to lead good lives’ (Kelly & Alam, 2009, p. 33) instead of merely training students with skills for the workplace (Inui, Wheeler, & Lankford, 2006; Lewis, 2005). More specifically there is criticism that the current education regime is technocratic and reductionist, thus unsupportive of the principles of sustainability (Fien, 2002; Sterling, 2001). Furthermore, proponents of critical and radical education regard teaching as an overtly political act, whether one likes it or not (Springett, 2005; Sterling, 2001). They urge educators to take responsibility to expose and discuss values and assumptions with students, considered necessary to engage them in learning about sustainability. A few challenges which may need addressing are firstly some teachers do not hold sustainable development as a core value themselves (Reid & Petocz, 2006). Secondly a recent study by von der Heidt et al. (2012) concludes although many business and tourism academics hold strong sustainability beliefs this does not necessarily convert into sustainable curriculum. Finally, students may not consider evaluation of sustainability issues important either (Wright, 2009). Holdsworth, Wyborn, Bekessy, and Thomas (2008) recommend the following solutions of professional development of academics for EfS should be an important first step, followed by the adoption of innovative L&T activities which clearly demonstrate to students the link between critical values thinking and vocational life skills. The term EfS is a relatively recent and predominantly Australian term based on the concept of ‘education for sustainable development’ which is used more globally (Leihy & Salazar, 2011). EfS is education which requires a paradigm shift from traditional ways of thinking and acting upon environmental problems towards a new approach that is future-orientated thinking and acting (Tilbury & Cooke, 2005). It represents a move beyond education that is in and about the environment to one that is for the environment; an approach that promotes critical reflection with an overt agenda for proactive and systemic social change (Tilbury & Cooke, 2005). Judging by the ongoing debate surrounding sustainability, what EfS represents remains unclear (Haigh, 2005; Loader, 2010; von der Heidt & Lamberton, 2011). The notion of sustainability is widely contested (Shephard, 2010), and many academics still consider L&T sustainability not their responsibility (Sherren, 2008a). EfS action is dependent on how academics interpret sustainability through the lens of personal beliefs (Cotton, Bailey, Warren, & Bissell, 2009) and if they are so motivated, remaining at the institute to promote EfS. To stimulate a grassroots momentum of commitment by academics, considerable professional Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

3

th


development as to the meaning and approach for EfS is recommended by Sibbel (2009) and Thomas and Benn (2009). EfS is concomitant with a whole systems-thinking approach (Sterling & Thomas, 2006) where there is interdisciplinary input achieving holistic understanding (Nowak et al., 2008; Shephard, 2010; Sipos, Battisti, & Grimm, 2008; Sterling & Thomas, 2006). Research shows these deep-seated changes require support from the top (Davis, Edmister, Sullivan, & West, 2003; Nowak et al., 2008). A low level of interest by university leaders restricts the path to EfS as L&T and curricula remains fragmented and duplicated preventing a true across-the-board whole system approach (Cotton et al., 2009). Some institutions appear to be making progress towards EfS partly due to strong commitment and leadership. Discernible champions of EfS are driving impressive changes to L&T of sustainability using action research (Jennings, Kensbock, & Kachel, 2010; Nowak et al., 2008; Thomas & Benn, 2009). Overall this is rare as most institutions worldwide have barriers thwarting EfS (Lang, Thomas, & Wilson, 2006; Shephard, 2010; Velazquez et al., 2005). Research of academic perspectives identifies the following challenges: perceived lack of expertise, paucity of time and crowded curriculum (Blincoe et al., 2009); concern over receiving criticism for indoctrinating students (Shephard, 2008); and confusion over what to teach and how to assess (Reid & Petocz, 2006). Furthermore Shephard (2010) and Kelly and Alam (2009) observed issues of insufficient resources, particularly with regard to time allocations, and disciplinary protectionist silo attitudes still reign. It appears the ideal of interdisciplinary collaboration resulting in an holistic uptake of EfS across an institution depends upon elements often out of the control of those teaching and designing curricula. As Cotton et al. (2009) acknowledge the reality of an era of mass higher education and tight budgets make progress towards EfS challenging. If the mission and vision of the university is not explicitly aligned with sustainability, it is left to individuals or groups of staff to interpret why, where and how principles of sustainability are embedded. The results are often ‘ad hoc’ programs of short duration (Kriflik & Mullan, 2007). Useful frameworks for the design of EfS curriculum are beginning to emerge (de Ciurana & Filho, 2006; Junyent & de Ciurana, 2008). A team of European and Latin American universities collaborated to develop The ACES model (Spanish acronym for ‘greening’ the curriculum) which defines ten characteristics required to ‘green’ the curriculum (de Ciurana & Filho, 2006; Junyent & de Ciurana, 2008). Some of the characteristics include: commitment to change towards sustainability; disciplinary flexibility and permeability and the need to contextualise the curricula in space (local and globally) and in time (past, present and future) in an integrated and holistic manner. Junyent and de Ciurana (2008, p. 778) acknowledge some of the model’s characteristics are not unique to EfS but advise the harnessing of this ‘potentiality’ if they are already occurring. The ACES model does not advocate a ‘recipe’ for EfS but is a useful generator of strategies and actions for moving forward with the concept of EfS (Junyent & de Ciurana, 2008). Further empirical research is recommended to explore and expand on this approach for EfS (von der Heidt et al., 2012). By using a spectrum of ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ sustainability (Sterling, 1996) a university’s approach towards EfS can be interpreted (Kearins & Springett, 2003; Sterling & Thomas, 2006). The ‘weak’ approach denotes a tokenistic, add-on in the curriculum resulting in superficial understanding, or focus on learning about isolated tasks such as paper recycling. This view also represents the business as usual attitude with changes made tending to be a symbolic act (Sanders & Le Clus, 2011). The ‘strong’ approach, although being the ideal one, is hardest to achieve (von der Heidt et al., 2011). However there is clear consensus that regardless of discipline a move towards ‘strong’ sustainable focussed curricula is the goal. Some disciplines appear to be moving towards this (for example see Lozano, 2010). A group of academics at the University of Colorado Boulder suggest that universities follow a four phase path towards interpreting EfS (Krizek, Newport, White, & Townsend, 2012). Table 1 outlines the characteristics common for each of the four phases. Krizek et al. (2012) concede they are yet to be acquainted with an institution which is located at phase four but encourage institutions to aspire towards this phase. Although it is somewhat comforting to know most institutions are on a course of sustainability albeit at different stages, it will be beneficial when there are exemplar universities modelling phase four ‘strong’ approach to sustainability. Achieving such a goal requires institutions to be cooperative and less competitive (Gadotti, 2010; Moore, 2005a) and encouraged to share EfS resources (Leihy & Salazar, 2011; Moore, 2005b). Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

4

th


Table 1: Phases of university approaches to sustainability Phases of approaches to sustainability First phase: Grassroots Represents the ‘weakest’ approach sustainability Second phase: Executive acceptance of the business case sustainability

to

for

Third phase: Visionary campus leader

Fourth phase: Fully self-actualised and integrated campus community Represents the ‘strongest’ approach sustainability

to

Characteristics displayed by the university Minimal response by campus leadership Reliance on champions to advocate for sustainability related services and policies Ad hoc activities and programs of sustainability. E.g. recycling programs, bicycle campaigns, faculty creating new course work The above programs become entrenched and define the future culture of sustainability Campus leadership emerging Executive acceptance given only if ‘sustainability’ concept enhances brand recognition and/or is cost effective New sustainability programs (major, minor, certificate) are created and accepted only if they meet student demands Sustainability committee formed Full executive leadership and explicit support of a sustainability vision A sustainability concept is included in strategic plan and all goals Mid level sustainability professional roles are elevated to the executive level Resistance to sustainability concept begins to emerge from entrenched interests A return to the status quo arises if the visionary leadership moves away Engaged visionary leadership Sustainability is integral to all aspects of campus life Sustainability is woven throughout every degree program including student, staff, and community engagement Activities model all sustainability principles and practices Systems-thinking and interdisciplinary cooperation are the central mission of all departments

Source: Adapted from Krizek et al. (2012)

Tourism education Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Australia experienced rapid growth in the number of tourism higher education programs available (Breakey & Craig-Smith, 2008). The programs are often set within a business school paradigm, promoting graduates to be ‘job ready’. Tourism research shows that most students just want to ‘get a job’ and industry wants graduates who are skilled for work (Dredge et al., 2010; Wang, Ayres, & Huyton, 2010; Zehrer & Mössenlechner, 2009). Indeed, results of an Australian case study reveal a tendency by the tourism industry to place low value on subjects regarding social development in favour of business skills that can deliver economic profit (Wang et al., 2010). Research by Dredge et al. (2010) confirms tourism education has adopted a vocational focus driven by a highly competitive consumer (student and tourism industry) orientated market. In Australia, and internationally, there is debate on how to balance the current tension between liberal versus vocational tourism studies (Dredge et al., 2010; Tribe, 2002b). Conceptually the overwhelming view is that EfS fits best with a more liberal style of education (Kelly & Alam, 2009; Sherren, 2005, 2008b), which emphasises social justice, equity and wellbeing (Clifton & Amran, 2011). There is concern the current narrow vocational delivery does not adequately develop the necessary EfS skills of critical thinking and reflection, problem solving, innovation and creativity required by tourism leaders of tomorrow (Inui et al., 2006; Lewis, 2005). Since many institutions teaching tourism are possibly too far down the path of ‘vocationalism’, Tribe (2005) claims this requires a major upheaval and paradigmatic change to philosophy and practice. Therefore the outcome of the ‘liberal’ versus ‘vocational’ tourism debate may well determine tourism’s propensity to fully engage with EfS.

Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

5

th


In line with the view expressed by other disciplinary educators (see Kelly & Alam, 2009; Sherren, 2005), tourism teachers may perceive challenges over how to include global social, cultural, environmental and political issues in an already crowded business focused curriculum. However, unless the current neoliberal business focus undergoes a paradigm shift it does not appear to cater to these future thinking demands (Ayikoru, Tribe, & Airey, 2009). So far the literature suggests tourism education generally displays weak engagement with sustainable curriculum (Deale, Nichols, & Jacques, 2009). Further research is required to ascertain the extent tourism curriculum embeds sustainability as a holistic concept in its university courses (Sanders & Le Clus, 2011).

Sustainability in tourism education The importance of considering sustainability is deemed particularly fundamental in tourism (Sharpley, 2000). Tourism is highly dependent on natural resources which are often fragile and/or within sensitive socio-cultural environments. Extensive research demonstrates the tourism phenomenon contributes to a wide range of environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political impacts, both at a local and global level (see Connell & Rugendyke, 2008; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). Tourism is an excellent vehicle through which to examine issues such as unsustainable development and ensuing impacts, for example socially on ‘host’ societies (Boksberger & Laesser, 2007). Indeed, it is essential for all stakeholders of tourism to consider the implications of tourism development from all perspectives - environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political, throughout the total tourism operation and visitor experience to eliminate that which is unsustainable with practices that are more sustainable. Tourism commentators such as Sharpley (2000) believe for sustainable tourism development to be possible, tourism management can no longer afford to focus on economic ramifications at the expense of ignoring the socio-cultural, environmental and political influences and consequences. Therefore the consideration of sustainability is required in tourism education not just because it is deemed important generally for higher education and a UNESD goal, but because it is even more crucial in this area of study than many others. The goals for EfS in tourism education are potentially far reaching. They range from the specific goal to create environmentally and socially responsible tourism professionals, to a broader goal that aims to contribute to the fostering of environmental and socially aware citizenship. Farber Canziani, Sönmez, Hsieh, and Byrd (2012, p. 14) add that a learning goal for EfS is to ‘invite personal transformation and the development of sustainability education leadership for the future of the tourism industry’. Furthermore, some consider it important that our future tourism leaders are educated in all matters towards an ‘eco-philosophical’ world view (Fien, 2002) where alternative non-anthropocentric ideologies are considered (Wals, 2007). If the goals of sustainable development necessitate an understanding of all the aforementioned viewpoints, often referred to in business as the triple bottom line then, according to Sterling (2004), an innovative shift to a different view of curriculum, pedagogy and organisational change is to be undertaken by higher education. In order to meet the challenges facing the tourism industry, fundamental changes are required of tourism education (Sheldon et al., 2011). A number of strategies are offered as a path forward to achieve the goal of sustainability within tourism education. To begin with, tourism curricula are encouraged to undertake a paradigm shift away from the current narrow business focus (Ayikoru et al., 2009; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006). It is important to collaborate with tourism industry stakeholders to achieve a relevant curriculum (Farber Canziani et al., 2012; Padurean & Maggi, 2011; Shakeela, Breakey, & Ruhanen, 2012). However, tourism education should not focus on the needs and expectations driven by economics and employment requirements (Inui et al., 2006). In order for tourism education to reflect the sustainability principles embodied in EfS, it is recommended that a move towards a more balanced liberal and vocational style of education is undertaken rather than pursuing one which narrowly reflects the views of an industry (Lewis, 2005). A balanced tourism curriculum provides students with a holistic understanding of tourism as it relates to global and local social, cultural, environmental and political issues. Students can question and reflect how these relate to the responsibilities of tourism and think critically about the future of the industry (Inui et al., 2006). It is recommended that a tourism curriculum reflects a swing away from a passive, non-critical culture which is value-free, to one that challenges current students’ way of thinking, is value-laden and emancipatory (Springett, 2005). This values-based education refers to the importance of the ‘affective’ domain of learning (Littledyke, 2008; Shephard, 2008; Sipos et al., 2008) allowing students to reflect on their values, beliefs and attitudes to generate learning about sustainability (Lewis, Mansfield, & Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

6

th


Baudains, 2008; Nowak et al., 2008; Sterling, 1996). This aspect of sustainability education is crucial for tourism students as they need to learn alternative value systems and become reflexive to enable a resilient society capable of creative thinking and ethically responsible action (Wals, 2011). Similar to values-based education, the study of ethics is important in a student’s higher education experience (Hultsman, 1995; Rundle-Thiele & Wymer, 2010; Tribe, 2002a). By discussing and reflecting on a range of different ethical standpoints, a pluralistic approach enables students to develop a critical attitude (Ohman & Ostman, 2008). Evaluation of ethical principles can be woven into the tourism curriculum via discussions about the role of corporate social responsibility, organisational behaviour, professional practice and the 1990 Global Ethics Code for Tourism (Kazimierczak, 2006). The Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI) framework for a values-based tourism curriculum (Sheldon, Fesenmaier, Woeber, Cooper, & Antonioli, 2007) may provide guidance as to how to incorporate EfS. TEFI outlines five key values to be embedded into tourism curricula: ethics, stewardship, knowledge, mutuality and professionalism (Sheldon, Fesenmaier, & Tribe, 2009; Sheldon et al., 2011). Studies by Gretzel, Isacsson, Matarrita, and Wainio (2011) and Barber (2011) demonstrate successful application of TEFI values in teaching tourism by creating an innovative learning environment. Another recommended strategy for harnessing sustainability education in tourism is the use of experiential and participatory social learning opportunities within the curriculum to improve awareness of social and moral responsibilities (Coll, Taylor, & Subhashni, 2003). Internship and other workbased learning is a common feature of tourism education which offers potential for exploring EfS opportunities (Maclean & Fien, 2009). Students not only acquire vocational and technical knowledge, but learn to understand and address ethical stewardship responsibilities by critical thinking and practical application (Wals, 2007). Finally, in order to achieve the ‘capacity building’ skills of critical thinking, reflection, innovation and problem solving skills advocated by Tilbury, Keogh, Leighton, and Kent (2005) opportunities for deeplearning and education that is transformative are recommended (O'Sullivan, 2004; Tilbury et al., 2005; Warburton, 2003). Furthermore Sterling (2010) argues that in these times of uncertainty students need to be prepared as ‘resilient learners’ to enable the development of resilient social-ecological systems. It is vital tourism curricula embraces a future orientation to enable students to think deeply and creatively about their vision of tourism (Ring, Dickinger, & Wöber, 2009). As the principles of sustainability are long term and slow to transpire (Wheeller, 2005), it is necessary for tourism educators and tourism programs to equip students with the ability to undertake ongoing learning and development through life.

Conclusion The principles of sustainable development are clearly of importance in higher education today, as revealed in the number of universities, teachers and degrees focusing on sustainability. Tourism is an important area of study socially, culturally and environmentally, and thus sustainability has a central role. The challenge before tourism educators is to respond and embed sustainability within the curriculum. The aim of EfS within tourism education is to equip future tourism leaders with knowledge and skills to act in an environmentally and socially responsible manner, responding to the increasingly important triple bottom line initiatives. This discussion paper draws upon some of the main themes circulating in the wider EfS literature. The need for genuine institutional top-down and bottom-up commitment and support is evident. Although top-level leadership affects the ultimate long term success of EfS there are some initiatives which L&T can undertake to stimulate sustainable education. Moves towards a whole systems-thinking, holistic approach with interdisciplinary input into the curriculum is recommended. Tourism education can benefit especially from adopting the concepts advocated in the wider EfS discourse. A radical rethink of what a futures-orientated tourism education looks like is required. Rather than educating students to be passive citizens with limited capacity to reflect, problem solve and innovate solutions to the problems they will face, tourism programs are encouraged to lean towards a more liberal and critical educational approach. A move toward sustainability in education is guided by skills and capacity building. It is therefore important to establish what this move entails from an ethical and values-based tourism perspective and embed this into all tourism programs. Also a pedagogical shift which is transformative and experiential is recommended to embody the principles Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/

7

th


of EfS and encourage life-long learning. Tourism education has potential to maximise social learning from community engagement or internship opportunities in the curriculum. Finally, as Jucker (2011) contends it is not the writing of more frameworks, but the active enabling and engagement with sustainable practice through collaboration across the entire education process which will send universities on a path towards achieving EfS. Regardless of where an institution could be positioned on the ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ spectrum of sustainability, it is essential that advancement towards EfS is undertaken in tourism education. Exploring progress of EfS at curricula level in Australia for programs such as tourism is ripe for further empirical research.

References Ayikoru, M., Tribe, J., & Airey, D. (2009). Reading tourism education: Neoliberalism unvelied. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 191-221. Bacon, C. M., Mulvaney, D., Ball, T. B., DuPuis, E. M., Gliessman, S. R., Lipschutz, R. D., & Shakouri, A. (2011). The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and student praxis projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(2), 193-208. Barber, E. (2011). Case study: Integrating TEFI (Tourism Education Futures Initiative) core values into the undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11(1), 38-75. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2011.548732 Blincoe, K., Fuad-Luke, A., Spangenberg, J. H., Thomson, M., Holmgren, D., Jaschke, K., . . . Tylka, K. (2009). DEEDS: a teaching and learning resource to help mainstream sustainability into everyday design teaching and professional practice. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 1-23. Boksberger, P., & Laesser, C. (2007). A socio-cultural perspective of sustainable tourism development Paper presented at the Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges CAUTHE National Conference, Sydney. Breakey, N., & Craig-Smith, S. (2008). Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality degree education in Australia - will the bubble burst? Paper presented at the Where the bloody hell are we? CAUTHE National Conference, Gold Coast. Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 121-136. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0538-6 Coll, R. K., Taylor, N., & Subhashni, N. (2003). Using work-based learning to develop education for sustainability: A proposal. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 55(2), 169-182. Connell, J., & Rugendyke, B. (Eds.). (2008). Tourism at the grassroots: villages and visitors in the Asia- Pacific (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Corcoran, P. B., Calder, W., & Clugston, R., M. (2002). Introduction: Higher education for sustainable development. Higher Education Policy, 15(2), 99-103. Cotton, D., Bailey, I., Warren, M., & Bissell, S. (2009). Revolutions and second-best solutions: education for sustainable development in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 719-733. doi: 10.1080/03075070802641552 Davis, S. A., Edmister, J. H., Sullivan, K., & West, C. K. (2003). Educating sustainable societies for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(2), 169179. de Ciurana, A., M. Geli , & Filho, W. L. (2006). Education for sustainability in university studies: Experiences from a project involving European and Latin American universities. [Article]. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(1), 81-93. Deale, C., Nichols, J., & Jacques, P. (2009). A descriptive study of sustainability education in the hospitality curriculum. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 21(4), 34-42. Down, L. (2006). Addressing the challenges of mainstreaming education for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(4), 390-399. Dredge, D., Benckendorff, P., Day, M., Gross, M., Walo, M., Weeks, P., & Whitelaw, P. (2010). Conceptualising the perfect blend in the tourism and hospitality curriculum space. Paper presented at the Tourism & Hospitalty: Challenge the Limits, CAUTHE National Conference, Hobart. http://www.tourismhospitalityeducation.info Dredge, D., Benckendorff, P., Day, M., Gross, M., Walo, M., Weeks, P., & Whitelaw, P. (2012). Crises, Conundrums and Curricula: A New Golden Age for Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management Education? Paper presented at the CAUTHE National Conference, Melbourne. http://www.tourismhospitalityeducation.info


8

th


Farber Canziani, B., Sönmez, S., Hsieh, Y., & Byrd, E. T. (2012). A learning theory framework for sustainability education in tourism. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(1), 3-20. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2012.650052 Fidgeon, P. (2010). Tourism education and curriculum design: A time for consolidation and review? Tourism Management, 31(6), 699-723. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.019 Fien, J. (2002). Advancing sustainability in higher education: Issues and opportunities for research. Higher Education Policy, 15(2), 143-152 Fisher, J., & Bonn, I. (2011). Business sustainability and undergraduate management education: An Australian study. Higher Education, 62(5), 563-571. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9405-8 Fuller, R. (2010). Beyond cliche : Reclaiming the concept of sustainability Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 7-18. Gadotti, M. (2010). Reorienting education practices towards sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 4(2), 203-211. Gretzel, U., Isacsson, A., Matarrita, D., & Wainio, E. (2011). Teaching based on TEFI values: A case study. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11(1), 94-106. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2011.548743 Haigh, M. (2005). Greening the university curriculum: Appraising an international movement. [Article]. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 31-48. doi: 10.1080/03098260500030355 Hazelton, J., & Haigh, M. (2010). Incorporating sustainability into accounting curricula: Lessons learnt from an action research study. Accounting Education, 19(1/2), 159-178. doi: 10.1080/09639280802044451 Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1192-1208. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.020 Holdsworth, S., Wyborn, C., Bekessy, S., & Thomas, I. (2008). Professional development for education for sustainability: How advanced are Australian universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 131-146. Hultsman, J. (1995). Just tourism: An ethical framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 553567. Inui, Y., Wheeler, D., & Lankford, S. (2006). Rethinking tourism education: What should schools teach? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. Jennings, G., Kensbock, S., & Kachel, U. (2010). Enhancing ‘education about and for sustainability’ in a tourism studies enterprise management course: An action research approach. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(2), 163-191. doi: 10.1080/15313221003792019 Jucker, R. (2011). ESD between systemic change and bureaucratic obfuscation: Some reflections on environmental education and education for sustainable development in Switzerland. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(1), 39-60. Junyent, M., & de Ciurana, A. M. G. (2008). Education for sustainability in university studies: A model for reorienting the curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 763-782. Kazimierczak, M. (2006). Code of ethics for tourism. Studies in Physical Culture & Tourism, 13(1), 9397. Kearins, K., & Springett, D. (2003). Educating for sustainability: Developing critical skills. Journal of Management Education, 27(2), 188-204. Kelly, M., & Alam, M. (2009). Educating accounting students in the age of sustainability. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 3(4), 30-44. Krizek, K. J., Newport, D., White, J., & Townsend, A. R. (2012). Higher education's sustainability imperative: How to practically respond? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(1), 19-33. doi: 10.1108/14676371211190281 Lang, J., Thomas, I., & Wilson, A. (2006). Education for sustainability in Australian universities: Where is the action? Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 45-58. Leihy, P., & Salazar, J. (2011). Education for sustainability in university curricula: Policies and practice in Victoria (C. f. t. S. o. H. Education, Trans.). In P. f. S. Victoria (Ed.): University of Melbourne. Lewis, A. (2005). Rationalising a tourism curriculum for sustainable tourism development in small island states: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 4(2), 4-15. Lewis, E., Mansfield, C., & Baudains, C. (2008). Getting down and dirty: Values in education for sustainability. Issues in Educational Research, 18(2), 138-155. Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1-17.


9

th


Loader, D. (2010). Sustainablity. Australian Council for Educational Research: Teacher 209(March), 67-68. Lozano, R. (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: An empirical example from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 637-644. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005 Maclean, R., & Fien, J. (Eds.). (2009). Work, Learning and Sustainable Development : Opportunities and Challenges. Dordrecht, NLD: Springer. Moore, J. (2005a). Barriers and pathways to creating sustainability education programs: Policy, rhetoric and reality. Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 537-555. Moore, J. (2005b). Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(4), 326-339. Mundt, J. (2011). Tourism and sustainable development: Reconsidering a concept of vague policies. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag Nowak, M., Rowe, A., Thomas, G., & Klass, D. (2008). Weaving sustainability into business education. Journal of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, 14(2), 19-34. O'Sullivan, E. (2004). Sustainability and transformative educational vision. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: Problematics, promise, and practice (pp. 163-180). Dordercht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ohman, J., & Ostman, L. (2008). Clarifying the ethical tendency in education for sustainable development practice: A Wittgenstein-inspired approach. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 13(1), 57-72. Padurean, L., & Maggi, R. (2011). TEFI values in tourism education: A comparative analysis. [Article]. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11(1), 24-37. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2011.548729 Pigozzi, M. (2010). Implementing the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD): achievements, open questions and strategies for the way forward. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 56(2/3), 255-269. doi: 10.1007/s11159-010-9163-y Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2006). University lecturers' understanding of sustainability. Higher Education, 51(1), 105-123. Ring, A., Dickinger, A., & Wöber, K. (2009). Designing the ideal undergraduate program in tourism: Expectations from industry and educators. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 106-121. doi: 10.1177/0047287508328789 Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Wymer, W. (2010). Stand-alone ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability course requirements: A snapshot from Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 5-12. Sanders, D., & Le Clus, M. (2011). Sustainability in the university tourism curriculum Paper presented at the Tourism: Celebrating a brilliant blend, CAUTHE National Conference, Adelaide. Savelyeva, T., & McKenna, J. R. (2011). Campus sustainability: Emerging curricula models in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 55-66. Shakeela, A., Breakey, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2012). Tourism education's roles in sustainable tourism development: A case study of SIDS introduction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 24(1), 35-43. Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Jourmal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1-19. Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., & Tribe, J. (2009). The Tourism Education Futures Initiative. e-Review of Tourism Research, 7(3), 39-44. Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., Woeber, K., Cooper, C., & Antonioli, M. (2007). Tourism Education Futures, 2010–2030: Building the capacity to lead. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(3), 61-68. Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D. R., & Tribe, J. (2011). The Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI): Activating change in tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11(1), 2-23. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2011.548728 Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87-98. Shephard, K. (2010). Higher education's role in 'education for sustainability'. Australian Universities' Review, 52(1), 13-22. Sherren, K. (2005). Balancing the Disciplines: A multidisciplinary perspective on sustainability curriculum content. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 97-106.


1 0

th


Sherren, K. (2008a). Higher environmental education: Core disciplines and the transition to sustainability. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(3), 189-196. Sherren, K. (2008b). A history of the future of higher education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 238-256. Shriberg, M. (2003). Is the "maize-and-blue" turning green? Sustainability at the University of Michigan. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(3), 263-276. Sibbel, A. (2009). Pathways towards sustainability through higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(1), 68-82. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 6886. Springett, D. (2005). Education for sustainability' in the business studies curriculum: A call for a critical agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 146-159. Sterling, S. (1996). Education in change. In J. Huckle & S. Sterling (Eds.), Education for Sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-visioning learning and change. Totnes, Devon UK: Green Books. Sterling, S. (2004). Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: Problematics, promise, and practice (pp. 47-70). Dordrecht: : Kluwer. Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5-6), 511-528. Sterling, S., & Thomas, I. (2006). Education for sustainability: The role of capabilities in guiding university curricula. Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(4), 349-370. Telfer, D. J., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Assessing the impacts of tourism Tourism and Development in the Developing World (pp. 174-204). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Thomas, J., & Benn, S. (2009). Education about and for sustainability in Australian business schools Stage 3: An action research program. Canberra: Retrieved from www.aries.com.au/. Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195-213. Tilbury, D., & Cooke, K. (2005). A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in Australia: Frameworks for sustainability. Canberra: Retrieved from www.aries.mq.edu.au Tilbury, D., Keogh, A., Leighton, A., & Kent, J. (2005). A national review of environmental education and it's contribution to sustainability in Australia: Further and higher education - key findings Vol 5. Canberra. Tribe, J. (2002a). Education for ethical tourism action. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4), 309324. Tribe, J. (2002b). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 338-357. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(01)00038-x Tribe, J. (2005). Tourism, knowledge and the curriculum. In D. Airey & J. Tribe (Eds.), An international handbook of tourism education. London: Elsevier. Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., & Sanchez, M. (2005). Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: An appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(4), 383-391. von der Heidt, T., & Lamberton, G. (2011). Sustainability in the undergraduate and postgraduate business curriculum of a regional university: A critical perspective. Journal of Management and Organisation, 17(5), 670-690. von der Heidt, T., Lamberton, G., Morrison, D., & Wilson, E. (2011). Does the Bachelor of Business curriculum reflect the sustainability paradigm shift? Interim results from a study of first-year subjects. Paper presented at the ANZAM Annual conference, Wellington, NZ. von der Heidt, T., Lamberton, G., Wilson, E., & Morrison, D. (2012). To what extent does the Bachelor of Business curriculum reflect the sustainability paradigm? An audit and evaluation of current sustainability embeddedness in curriculum and assessment in the first-year Bachelor of Business in Southern Cross Business School and School of Tourism and Hospitality Management unpublished final report. Southern Cross Univeristy. Lismore. Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177-186.


1 1

th


Wals, A. E. J. (Ed.). (2007). Social learning: Towards a sustainable world. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic. Wang, J., Ayres, H., & Huyton, J. (2010). Is tourism education meeting the needs of the tourism industry? An Australian case study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 22(1), 814. Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1), 44-56. Wheeller, B. (2005). Issues in Teaching and Learning. In D. Airey & J. Tribe (Eds.), An international handbook of tourism education (pp. 309-318). London: Elsevier. Wright, T. (2004). Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability (pp. 7-19): Springer Netherlands. Wright, T. (2009). Sustainability, internationalization, and higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning(118), 105-115. Doi: 10.1002/tl. Zehrer, A., & Mössenlechner, C. (2009). Key competencies of tourism graduates: The employers' point of view. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 9(3/4), 266-287. doi: 10.1080/15313220903445215


1 2