Students’ awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards the sustainable development goals at the University of South Africa

Abstract

Purpose

University students’ awareness, knowledge and attitude towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) contribute to their implementation and localisation. Understanding students’ perspectives in open and distance e-Learning institutions (ODELs) is crucial. This study aims to examine variations in students’ SDG knowledge and awareness across socio-economic characteristics, their engagement in SDGs and their identification of opportunities, gaps and priorities for implementation.

Design/methodology/approach

An online survey (n = 1,009) gathered responses from students across various socio-demographic variables. Descriptive and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test statistics were used to examine differences.

Findings

Students recognised the importance of SDG knowledge across all levels (p < 0.05, except for gender). The expectation for increased SDG content in the curriculum was high. A significant difference (p < 0.001) in these expectations was found across all variables except gender. However, involvement in SDGs and participation in related platforms and workshops was marginal to non-existent. These results guide universities in promoting SDGs to enhance sustainability-focused education strategies.

Originality/value

The article outlines measures universities can take to evaluate their contributions towards SDGs implementation, particularly in open and distance learning institutions.

Citation

Maoela, M.A., Chapungu, L. and Nhamo, G. (2024), "Students’ awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards the sustainable development goals at the University of South Africa", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2023-0518

1. Introduction

In September 2015, the world adopted a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations. These goals together with their 169 associated targets, as well as 230 indicators, are designed to fight the global problems of humanity and set out an ambitious path to sustainability (Rosati and Faria, 2019; Szennay et al., 2019). These global goals are universal, integrated and transformative and require the participation and collaboration of all parties involved, including governmental entities, civil society, businesses and academic institutions (Elder and Olsen, 2019; Pradhan et al., 2017).

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a unique role globally by advancing the SDGs through research and innovation, equipping future leaders and scholars with the knowledge and skills to address sustainability challenges (El-Jardali et al., 2018; Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020). HEIs also help society transition to sustainable development pathways through education and influence (Berchin et al., 2021; Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020). This role is highlighted in SDG 4 (Quality Education), which calls for inclusive, equitable and quality education (Rieckmann, 2017). Goal 4 aims for lifelong learning opportunities and high-quality education for all by 2030 (Elfert, 2019), improving knowledge, skills and competencies (Owens, 2017). Target 4.7 emphasises education that fosters skills and knowledge for sustainable development and lifestyles (United Nations, 2015).

University students, as the catalysts for transformative change in shaping a better global future, are expected to possess a heightened level of awareness and knowledge, surpassing the average standard (Priestley et al., 2012). When university students possess a deeper understanding and extensive knowledge of the SDGs, they can actively contribute to supporting, promoting and attaining development goals through research, innovation and entrepreneurship (Kleespies and Dierkes, 2022). However, there are challenges in involving students in SDGs-related practice, especially for open distance e-learning universities such as the University of South Africa (Unisa). The challenges are mainly influenced by the distance between the university and students, financial constraints, misconceptions around SDGs and lack of enthusiasm towards SDGs (Mawonde and Togo, 2019).

Various HEIs globally have integrated and evaluated SDGs within their strategies, missions, culture, policies, programs and practices (Leal Filho et al., 2021; Rodríguez-García et al., 2019). However, localising the SDGs in HEIs is complex, involving multiple dimensions, levels and actors. It requires a holistic and systemic approach that considers the complexity and interrelatedness of the SDGs (Nhamo, 2021a; Okpara et al., 2018). Additionally, it necessitates appropriate methods and tools to measure and monitor the progress and impact of SDGs initiatives, and to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement.

Some such methods for SDG localisation include interdisciplinary courses, case studies and project-based learning, enabling students to explore global challenges and innovative solutions (e.g., Adams et al., 2018). Furthermore, organising workshops, seminars and events focused on SDGs facilitates discussions and engagement (Berchin et al., 2018, 2021). Collaborative partnerships between academia, industry and civil society expose students to real-world applications and offer opportunities for experiential learning (Cebrián, 2017; Décamps et al., 2017; Groulx et al., 2021). These approaches enhance students’ understanding of the SDGs and nurture a sense of responsibility and commitment to positive societal change (Sterling, 2010). These initiatives align with the transformative potential of education to drive sustainable development, reinforcing the idea that universities serve as dynamic hubs for nurturing informed and proactive global citizens (Ciasullo et al., 2020).

Since it is critical to understand how students perceive, accept and evaluate the SDGs, several studies have been conducted utilising various instruments such as questionnaires or structured interviews (Aginako and Guraya, 2021; Ando et al., 2019; Waltner et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2021), and tests such as sulitest (the sustainability literacy test) (Décamps et al., 2017). These instruments attempt to measure overall comprehension of sustainability and evaluate specific deficiencies or barriers in implementing sustainable practices (Smaniotto et al., 2020). Varying results have emerged from these studies, with the majority indicating a lack of knowledge and awareness of sustainable development among students (Brugmann et al., 2019; Gómez-Martín et al., 2021). However, it is important to note that awareness and knowledge of SDGs among students can vary depending on factors such as gender, discipline and qualification (Jati et al., 2019). From this perspective, this paper aims to address this gap by presenting a case study of the Unisa, which is one of the leading distance-learning universities in Africa and a signatory of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC).

This study is part of an ongoing evaluation of higher education strategies to embed sustainability knowledge in Southern African university curricula. It aimed to evaluate students’ awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards SDG implementation at the University of South Africa. The research also mapped existing SDG activities and identified priorities for improvement. The objectives addressed the following research questions:

RQ1.

How do students' SDG awareness and knowledge vary by socio-economic characteristics?

RQ2.

To what extent are students engaged in learning about SDGs, and how are SDGs integrated into their daily activities?

RQ3.

What opportunities, gaps and priorities do students identify for SDG implementation?

Based on the literature, it is hypothesised that students from different disciplines, genders and age groups (a) are aware and knowledgeable about the SDGs and integrate them into their daily lives, and (b) perceive different opportunities, gaps and priorities for SDG implementation.

1.1. A Unisa profile

Unisa, focused on open, distance, and e-Learning (ODeL) methodologies, prioritises addressing crucial challenges in South Africa and the continent (Sevnarayan, 2022). These include issues like inequality, climate change, food and water insecurity, unemployment, and establishing safe cities, all significantly impacting Africa. Committed to sustainability, Unisa became the first South African university to embrace the UNGC in 2007, aligning with sustainability best practices on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption (Nhamo, 2021b).

Acknowledging the importance of aligning academic programs with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Unisa leverages its research expertise, online platforms, alumni network and community engagement to advance the SDGs in response to the 2030 agenda (e.g., Mawonde and Togo, 2019; Nhamo, 2021a, 2021b). In 2022, Unisa improved its Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, moving from the 601+ category in 2020 to 401–600. It excelled in SDGs like Quality Education (SDG 4) and Gender Equality (SDG 5), ranking in the top quartile globally. The university also performed well in Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7) and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17). In the 2023 Webometrics Ranking, Unisa climbed to 795th globally, up from 805th in 2022. These advancements reflect Unisa’s commitment to sustainability and its improved global rankings in alignment with the SDGs, as reported by Times Higher Education (2022).

2. Methods and materials

2.1 Research design

The study utilised an online self-administered questionnaire via QuestionPro to sample students across disciplines in the 2021/2022 academic year. Data collection spanned from February to December 2022 after receiving ethics permission from the Unisa College of Management Sciences Ethics Committee. Employing an open, anonymous and free participation approach, the survey utilised convenience sampling to efficiently recruit participants (Valerio et al., 2016).

Structured into three constructs, the survey focused on SDGs-related knowledge, perception and awareness. The knowledge construct gauged respondents’ understanding of the SDGs, perception analysed their perspectives, and awareness assessed their recognition of SDGs’ impact on personal and professional endeavours (McDonald, 2012; Trevethan, 2017). A 5-point Likert scale measured awareness, knowledge and learning engagement complexity, while multiple choice and >5-point Likert scales evaluated identifying SDGs’ opportunities, gaps and priorities due to their complexity.

The survey’s first section collected demographic data, and an introductory text explained the project. The second construct examined students’ involvement in localising SDGs at their institution, while the third sought to identify implementation priorities, opportunities and gaps. Students were encouraged to provide comments. Cronbach’s alpha ensured the questionnaire’s internal consistency.

2.2 Analytic procedure

Data analysis employed JMP Pro (version 16.2.0, SAS Institute Cary NC) and QuestionPro. Missing data were managed through listwise deletion (Kang, 2013) to exclude cases with missing variables, chosen for its conservative nature in minimising bias. No outliers were identified using the Grubbs test (Adikaram et al., 2015), indicating more reliable data.

Following missing data and outlier analysis, each question/item underwent descriptive statistical analysis, summarised as counts and percentages. The data did not conform to a normal distribution, and variances among groups were unequal according to the Shapiro-Wilks and Bartlett tests for normality and homogeneity of variance. Hence, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test was utilised for all demographic variables, reporting unadjusted p < 0.05 values (Chen et al., 2021).

3. Results

The alpha coefficient for the questionnaire ranged between 0.75 and 0.99 (Table 1), which is a good level of reliability (Eisinga et al., 2013).

3.1 Characteristics of students

A total of 1,009 responses were collected out of 4,911 possible responses (Figure 1). There was a good spread of total student numbers within other considered sociodemographic variables. The age groups of the students varied between 18 and 64, with the highest response rate being in the 25–34 age group (43%). About half of the sample (45%) were students studying towards their bachelor’s degree within the department of education (22%), followed by commerce (20%). Regarding the different levels of studies, the students showed that half of them were in their first year of studies (47.3%), followed by 19% in the second year then 18% in the third year. Students’ characteristics are summarised in Table 2.

The following sections highlight key results on knowledge and awareness of SDGs, and perceptions regarding gaps, opportunities and priorities in implementation.

3.2 Knowledge and awareness of sustainable development goals at the higher education level

Figure 2 presents data on students’ knowledge and awareness of SDGs, showing significant demographic influences, especially age, discipline and qualifications, except gender (p > 0.05). The majority of students agree on the importance of knowledge of SDGs for themselves (46%), teaching staff (47%) and non-teaching staff (61%), with significant differences observed across age groups and disciplines (p < 0.05). The 25–34 age group strongly emphasised the importance of SDGs for both students and teaching staff (15%). In contrast, students in the 35–34 age group agreed that they are important for teaching staff (15%) and non-teaching staff (21%). For the fourth question, most responses indicated that students have learned about SDGs or related content in their study program (40%). However, many students were unsure about “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development document” (42%) and their familiarity with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (42%).

Regarding the fifth quantitative question, which focused on the coverage of the 17 SDGs in the university study program, students’ responses varied widely. The top four SDGs with good coverage (sum of “good” and “very good” responses) in the study programs included SDG 4 (61%), SDG 5 (53%), SDG 3 (51%) and SDG 6 (48%). SDGs 1, 2 and 14 had the least coverage, each with less than 35%. These results are illustrated in Figure 3.

3.3 Sustainable development goals–related activities

The study showed varied results on students’ engagement in SDG-related activities, including participation in community engagement, collaboration with stakeholders and their institution’s readiness for SDG localisation. About 51% were neutral regarding their involvement in localising SDGs, with 46% unsure of their institution’s role in community development and 49% uncertain about stakeholder collaboration for SDG implementation. However, 44% reported active participation in community engagement, 42% engaged in research and innovation for SDG promotion and 51% promoted SDG localisation at their institution. Significant differences were observed across age, discipline, qualifications and study levels, with Education and Commerce students showing higher awareness and involvement. Differences in promoting SDG activities were noted by age (p = 0.001), discipline (p = 0.0002), qualification (p = 0.011) and study level (p = 0.041). Regarding institutional readiness for SDG localisation, 50% perceived top management buy-in, with significant demographic variations. Additionally, 53% recognised specific funding for SDG-related work, influenced by age and discipline (p < 0.05). Internal and external partnerships were noted by 50% and 51% of students, respectively, underscoring the role of demographics in SDG engagement. Detailed results are in Figure 4.

In this context, students were asked to indicate the extent of their involvement in SDG-related matters in their daily activities. The top four most involved SDGs were SDGs 4 (Quality Education), 5 (Gender Equality), 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and 6 (Water and Sanitation). However, many students appeared to have limited involvement in climate and marine environment protection, innovation and food security. When asked about the number of SDGs localisation workshops/platforms attended, 56% mentioned that they had not participated in any such workshops/platforms before their involvement in this study. These results are depicted in Figure 5.

3.4 Opportunities, priorities and gaps to sustainable development goals implementation

3.4.1 Barriers to sustainable development goals implementation.

Moving on to the perceived challenges that could hinder the localisation and contributions of Unisa towards achieving the SDGs by 2030, students identified the following as the most significant barriers (based on the sum of 8–10 responses): (a) poor collaboration and attention from the government (29%) and lack of or insufficient funding (28%). On the other hand, inadequate access to good practice cases on SDGs (0.06%) and lack of champions and top management buy-ins on SDGs (0.05%) were identified as the least potential barriers. The results are illustrated in Figure 6.

When asked about their level of agreement regarding two statements:

1. the university should increase the content of SDGs in its curriculum, and

2. graduates from Unisa are adequately equipped to enhance the implementation of SDGs, close to 53% agreed with the former statement, while 35% strongly agreed with the latter.

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences across all socio-demographic variables except for gender. The 35–44 age group and Commerce students strongly agreed with both statements, whereas those over 64 and students from Veterinary Science and Medical and Health Sciences showed the lowest agreement levels. Though differences were found based on the study level, it wasn’t consistent: first-year students expressed more interest in increasing SDG content, while fourth-year students showed the least interest. The results are illustrated in Figure 7.

3.4.2 Opportunities and priorities to sustainable development goals implementation.

Students were asked about opportunities provided by their institutions contributing to SDGs implementation. Among respondents, 30% highlighted policies empowering student participation in SDG workshops and events as crucial. This was followed closely by 27% recognising the significance of knowledgeable lecturers in SDGs. In contrast, only 21% saw student clubs as positively impacting SDG implementation. See Figure 8 for details.

In determining the SDGs that the university should prioritise based on the degree of need and physical possibility, the ratings provided by the students revealed the following SDGs as having the highest need for institutional focus: SDGs 4 (64%), SDG 8 (54%), SDG 3 (53%), SDG 6 (52%), SDG 16 (51.8%) SDG 5 (51%), SDG 1 (50%) and SDG 10 (49.6%). However, it is worth noting that the perceptions regarding SDG 14 were comparatively weaker, with a rating of (35%) concerning the other goals. For a visual representation of these results, please refer to Figure 9.

In an open-ended question, from the 1,009 students, only 8.9% provided additional comments. A strong emphasis was placed on the lack of integration of SDGs within the study programmes and the need for information sharing and collaboration. Some of the responses are highlighted herein:

HEIs should have more students, staff and non-teaching employees engaging in SDGs implementation at various levels […] to speed up the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. It is high time universities make it a prerequisite to have an SDG qualification, project, or know-how to get access to employment. […] All university faculties like Law, Engineering, and Humanities should embrace SDGs through interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary partnerships to embrace various SDGs. Successful universities in SDGs implementation must share success stories with SDGs' upcoming institutions in terms of making a sustainability roadmap. It is a must to involve students in these initiatives as they are future leaders in various jurisdictions.

4. Discussion

4.1 Knowledge and awareness of sustainable development goals

According to Leal Filho et al. (2019), awareness is crucial for achieving optimal outcomes. It is widely recognised that without sufficient awareness, optimal attainment becomes unattainable. The results of this study indicate that just over half of students across disciplines are aware of SDGs and consider knowledge of SDG important for all university staff, irrespective of their roles (teaching or non-teaching). This is relatively low, considering that in 2019, Unisa declared its intent to localise 12 of the 17 SDGs, and in 2007, the university became a United Nations Global Compact signatory (Nhamo, 2021a). One would assume that by now, SDGs should be fully integrated into the university structures. This gap necessitates further research to investigate the challenges and obstacles that may have hindered the university’s progress in SDG implementation. Undoubtedly, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 have presented challenges for sustainability processes and frameworks in higher education (e.g., Aslam et al., 2022). COVID-19 added pressure to university programs and budgets, resulting in fewer funds likely being available to support sustainability efforts (Hoque et al., 2024).

Based on the survey, there was no difference in awareness and knowledge of SDGs between males and females. Significant statistical differences were observed among different age groups and none for gender. The lack of gender differences contradicts some studies that suggest women are more sensitive to sustainable development issues (Ambusaidi and Washahi, 2016; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014). The observed decreasing knowledge and awareness of SDGs with increasing age groups aligns with a couple of studies in which younger respondents had a better knowledge of SDGs compared to the elderly (Dlamini et al., 2023). In contrast, a survey in Italy found that first-year students showed low knowledge of SDGs, with better awareness observed in older students (Smaniotto et al., 2020). Though not explored in this study, the discrepancy in knowledge and awareness of SDGs between young and older respondents can be explained by older respondents having been exposed to more educational initiatives related to sustainability (Yuan et al., 2021), younger respondents prioritising other academic subjects over SDGs (Tuan Ismail et al., 2022) and older students link SDGs to future professional impact.

Statistically significant difference in knowledge and awareness of SDGs were observed across various disciplines, qualifications and levels of study in different contexts, aligning with other studies (Dlamini et al., 2023; Novieastari et al., 2022; Umwigama et al., 2023). For instance, Jati et al. (2019) found that most of students were from education and commerce discipline, and this dominance of education and commerce backgrounds was attributed to the emphasis on sustainability education in these fields. This aligns with the broader goal of integrating all key sustainability dimensions, including social, economic and governance aspects, in environmental management education (Zwolińska et al., 2022).

Incorporating the SDGs into educational and work environments is essential for their achievement without leaving anyone behind (Heleta and Bagus, 2021). This is particularly important when ensuring that all graduates are equipped to make significant contributions to building a sustainable society. Regarding the coverage of SDG-related content within study programs, it appeared that SDGs aligned with a social framework were given more importance than those primarily focused on the natural environment. This could be attributed to the fact that the social aspects of certain SDGs carry more weight compared to the environmental aspects, which are typically emphasised in SDGs like Life under Water (SDG 14) or Life on Land (SDG 15) that are more environmentally oriented (Schroeder et al., 2019).

4.2 Sustainable development goals–related activities

Moon et al. (2018) found that the effectiveness of SDGs localisation and sustainability initiatives is best measured by students’ behavioural change, which varies based on their profile. This can be evaluated by their engagement with individual SDGs and participation in university sustainable development projects, seminars and workshops. The study shows a patchy picture, with SDG 14, in particular, being marginal or non-existent in students’ daily activities and participation in SDGs-related functions. This pattern is evident in studies by Aleixo et al. (2021) and Leal Filho et al. (2021). This might be attributed to prevailing attitudes in developing nations, where economic and social SDG issues, like peace and security, are rated as particularly important (Kleespies and Dierkes, 2022). Fisheries (SDG 14) encompass social, economic and environmental aspects relevant to environmental education (Said and Chuenpagdee, 2019). Aung and Hallinger (2023) suggest that these disparities may result from internal factors, such as influential individuals within an organisation, and external factors like policies and regulations set by funding bodies.

These differences highlight the need for the university to integrate the SDGs holistically into its curricula and strategies, as advocated by Leal Filho et al. (2019). Sustainable development and SDGs education in higher institutions should include human rights and integral human development (Aslam et al., 2022). Teaching basic scientific knowledge alone is insufficient. SDGs’ importance should be considered across all disciplines, not just specific ones. Thus, integrating SDG topics into study programs is imperative, enabling students to become agents of change and convey the significance and relevance of the SDGs to the community. Additionally, higher education networks focused on sustainability and voluntary student actions on campus should be strengthened and encouraged (Aleixo et al., 2021; Cebrián et al., 2019; El-Jardali et al., 2018). Networking has the potential to drive systemic change in higher education, positively influencing local communities(Watson, 2005), and fostering collaboration between the public sector, business and the community (Duran y Lalaguna and Dorodnykh, 2018).

Unisa can use these results to embed SDGs in various disciplines and courses, either through interdisciplinary courses or by incorporating relevant content into existing ones (Ferguson et al., 2022). The study recommends including case studies, project-based learning and collaborative projects related to SDGs to help students connect theoretical knowledge with real-world challenges (Birdman et al., 2022). Experiential learning and practical engagement are also significant. Unisa can partner with local communities, NGOs, and industry stakeholders aligned with SDGs to provide hands-on experiences, internships and research projects, enabling students to see sustainable development principles in practice (Miller et al., 2021). Workshops, seminars and SDG-related events can serve as platforms for dialogue and knowledge exchange, encouraging students to explore and debate sustainability topics actively (Berchin et al., 2018).

While Unisa has sustainability programs, strategies, policies and work plans in its 2019 Sustainability Framework, students’ perceptions of its readiness for SDGs localisation seem limited. This result is crucial for higher education decision-makers. It has governance implications, and top-level support and a comprehensive approach are necessary to change students’ “cynical” or “instrumental” attitudes towards sustainability (Moon et al., 2018). Therefore, steps taken by HEIs to implement “greening” measures, as identified by Mawonde and Togo (2019), will serve as a default governance measure for this research. These adjustments in campus operations should be accompanied by best practices to enhance performance and cultivate relationships with key internal and external stakeholders needed to advance SDG localisation.

4.3 Barriers, priorities and gaps to sustainable development goals implementation

Understanding barriers to sustainability within universities is crucial for managers and the academic community to formulate effective strategies (Ávila et al., 2017). The results show that poor collaboration and lack of government attention are seen as key barriers by students, followed by a lack of funding. Other barriers include policies, infrastructure, resources, capacity and institutional culture, consistent with previous studies (Ávila et al., 2017; Lambrechts et al., 2018). To overcome these barriers, HEIs must transform their educational environments, revise curricula, provide adequate teaching materials and establish sustainability competencies for future teachers (Monteiro et al., 2024). Measures such as enhancing training, defining reporting frameworks and aligning curricula with SDGs can strengthen HEIs’ contributions to global sustainability challenges (Lazarov and Semenescu, 2022).

The results show variations in students’ perceptions of the university’s focus on individual SDGs based on need, feasibility and capability. These differences may stem from varying emphasis among disciplines and academic levels. Such variations can guide decision-makers in HEIs to integrate targeted promotion of specific SDGs into the curriculum. Departmental or college-specific actions can address SDG awareness and knowledge. As a distance learning institution, Unisa can save resources by providing online study material, reducing the need for printed materials. Allowing staff to work remotely also cuts emissions and saves resources. Large buildings no longer needed for in-person work could be repurposed for low-cost housing, addressing poverty. By considering these actions, Unisa can adopt a more sustainable and socially responsible approach to education.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has important implications for Open Distance e-Learning institutions like Unisa. It highlights areas, such as integrating SDGs into curricula and activities, that need further development to fully implement sustainable development principles. Limited understanding, lack of engagement and insufficient resources hinder SDG integration in university operations and programs. Unisa should adopt holistic approaches, including interdisciplinary teaching, experiential learning and collaborations with external stakeholders. Raising SDG awareness extends beyond the classroom, requiring sustainability initiatives such as awareness campaigns and community engagement. Creating a supportive environment that empowers students to address global challenges is essential, especially for SDGs like SDG 14, where engagement is limited. While the quantitative data offers an overview, qualitative insights from faculty could further enrich understanding. Although focused on students, faculty perspectives would help interpret results and shape future actions. The sample size is also noted as a limitation.

5.1 Future research and action plan

Moving forward, Unisa must continue prioritising the integration of SDGs into its education, research and campus operations. Key actions include:

• develop curricula that integrate SDGs across disciplines, ensuring students understand how these goals apply in various fields;

• strengthen connections with local communities through SDG-focused initiatives, enabling students to apply their knowledge and contribute to local development;

• engage faculty in interpreting research results and developing strategies for SDG integration, using their insights to shape effective educational practices;

• launch campaigns to raise awareness of specific SDGs, particularly those less familiar to students, through workshops and interactive activities;

• ensure adequate resources for SDG-related activities, including funding, training and infrastructure to support sustainable practices; and

• conduct longitudinal studies to assess the impact of these initiatives and continuously improve strategies.

By taking these steps, Unisa can enhance its commitment to sustainable development and set an example for other Open Distance e-Learning institutions, contributing to SDG adoption in the university, local community and South Africa.

Figures

Figure 1.

Sample flow diagram

Figure 2.

Students’ awareness and knowledge of SDGs (n = 1,009)

Figure 3.

Students’ perceptions on the coverage of all the 17 SDGs in their study programme

Figure 4.

Students’ involvement in SDG-related activities

Figure 5.

Descriptive analysis of students’ involvement in SDG-related activities in their day-to-day running and the number of SDGs localisation workshops/platforms participated in before data collection

Figure 6.

Perceived barriers to SDGs localisation and contributions by Unisa towards the attainment of the SDGs by 2030

Figure 7.

Association between demographic characteristics with perceptions of students about potential barriers towards contribution and implementation of SDGs

Figure 8.

Opportunities available to enhance the implementation of SDGs

Figure 9.

Perception of priorities of students concerning the implementation of each of the SDGs

Table 1.

Cronbach’s alpha of each construct (n = 1,009)

Construct	Theme	Cronbach’s α
C1	Knowledge and awareness of SDGs at higher education level	0.85
C2	SDGs activities	0.99
C3	Opportunities, priorities and gaps	0.75

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 2.

Demographic variables: count and percentage (n = 1,009)

Demographic variable	Count (%)
Gender
Male	314 (31)
Female	580 (58)
Wish not to disclose	115 (11)
Age group
18–24	198 (20)
25–34	433 (43)
35–44	219 (22)
45–54	110 (11)
55–64	34 (2.5)
Above 64	5 (0.5)
Wish not to disclose	10 (1)
Discipline
Social sciences	69 (7)
Agriculture	8 (1)
Earth, environmental and natural sciences	63 (6)
Humanities and arts	113 (11)
Commerce	200 (20)
Law	144 (14)
Education	220 (22)
Engineering	25 (2)
Medical and health science	16 (2)
Veterinary science	7 (1)
Other	144 (14)
Qualification being pursued
Bachelor’s degree	457 (45.3)
Master’s degree	43 (4.3)
Certificate	184 (18.3)
Diploma	206 (20.4)
Doctor of philosophy	57 (5.6)
Other	62 (6.1)
Level of studies
First year	477 (47.3)
Second year	193 (19.1)
Third year	188 (18.6)
Fourth year	148 (14.7)
Other	3 (0.3)

Source: Authors’ own work