Search results

Integrating sustainability into university curricula brings diverse challenges and conflicts as separate units vie for ownership of courses and topics. This case study presents a six dimensions sustainability framework developed at The Ohio State University to organize curricula under an inclusive strategy.

An interdisciplinary group of faculty focused on sustainability education engaged in a three-phased process including review of sustainability definitions from diverse disciplines; analysis of key aspects of the definitions in conjunction with course descriptions and learning outcomes; and identification of commonalities across the key aspects. This yielded six foundational dimensions of sustainability which serve as a means to assess curricular contributions across University units and topics. The six dimensions framework has been used in practice in multiple contexts.

The six dimensions framework provides a way to identify and foster diverse sustainability curricula efforts. It has enabled academic units to describe their disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives on diverse sustainability topics and the University to advance a broad sustainability vision.

The six dimensions framework provides a novel “big tent” approach to integration of sustainability into higher education curricula. The framework provides guidance about what counts as sustainability while maintaining the breadth that widens participation.

Attention in US literature and practice addressing sustainable development has focused on a limited number of communities such as Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. These communities have been identified as making difficult decisions and ground‐breaking policies to advance sustainability initiatives. However, these communities are considered by some to be atypical and their experiences do not relate to the typical US city. The US landscape is dominated by more “average” places. Explores the use of a graduate level planning class to help bring sustainability concepts to a more typical US city, Columbus, Ohio. Examines impediments and opportunities that were encountered in the process, and identifies three key factors that have characterized the Columbus experience: timing, leadership, and a non‐continuously successful process.