Search results

This paper aims to investigate different ways in which faculty members of sustainability-related departments in universities across the world perceive, understand and define sustainability and how these definitions are linked to their demographics and epistemological beliefs.

Scholars from different disciplines investigate the sustainability of social-ecological systems from different perspectives. Such differences in the understanding of, and approaches to, sustainability have created ambiguity within the field and may weaken its effectiveness, impact and reputation as a field of research. To contribute to the discussion about sustainability definition, a survey was conducted involving university faculty members working in sustainability-related academic departments around the world. Participants’ responses were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 involving descriptive and inferential statistics and principle component analysis. Additionally, responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively analyzed.

Factor analysis on sustainability definition items reveal four emergent universal definitions of sustainability, labeled as Environmentalism concerns, Common understanding, neo-Malthusian environmentalism and Sustainability as well-being. Statistical analyses indicate that individuals from developed countries are more likely to define sustainability as Environmentalism and Common understanding; however, individuals from developing countries tend to define sustainability as well-being. Also, more heavily engaged scholars in interdisciplinary research of sustainability are more likely to perceive sustainability as Common understanding. Logistic Regression models demonstrate a connection between epistemological perspectives of researchers and sustainability definitions. Qualitative content analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity and collaboration are the most common challenges to sustainability research.

The findings of this study demonstrate disconnects between scholars from developing and developed countries in understanding and defining sustainability, and these disconnects may present further challenges for global sustainability scholarship.

The aim is to examine, critique, and synthesize commonly used methodological approaches that capture middle-aged children’s experiences of their physical environments.

The systematic review identified 174 empirical studies from peer-reviewed journals published in English between 2014 and 2023. Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. A thematic analysis (1) identified study characteristics and common methodological approaches, (2) synthesized the literature to reveal major themes and trends, and (3) pointed out significant research gaps.

Qualitative methods, combining traditional and participatory approaches, are most effective in capturing children’s spatial experiences. Participatory methods offer more authentic insights and reduce power imbalances compared to traditional methods. Place-based methods, such as child-led walks and participant observations, are particularly valuable for capturing the multidimensional and sensory aspects of children’s interactions with their environments.

The choice of keywords, selected databases, and the English-language criterion restricted the number of captured reviewed articles that might contribute to the topic.

This systematic review contributes to a deeper understanding of the methodological approaches used in researching middle-aged children’s experiences of their physical environments. It highlights common strategies used with children to communicate their experience of place, identifying the strengths and limitations of each method. Additionally, the review discusses the various aspects of space revealed by different methods.