7. The “footprint” of the project – conclusions and perspectives

Vasile Gherheș, Mariana Cernicova-Bucă, Gabriel-Mugurel Dragomir, Adina Palea

Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, in her later capacity as Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development, defined sustainability in 1987 as being “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). Nearly four decades later, the concept of sustainability has evolved and from rarely being present in public discourse it grew to being an extremely consistent topic of concern. There is little time left until 2030, the target set by the United Nations for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. The pace of fulfilling the obligations assumed by states, companies and other major social operators does not encourage a too optimistic prognosis regarding the possibility of meeting the ambitious goals (Agenda 2030). However, the responsibility for sparing the planet’s resources does not lie only with the big players on the international arena: studies show that the carbon footprint generated by human activity is up to 60–70% due to individual consumption decisions. Even if concrete numbers are challenged, and even with the skeptical trend in current public opinion, according to which the climate will change and the planet will reach its own equilibrium no matter what individuals are committed to undertaking (van der Linden, 2015; Wang and Kim, 2018; Marshall et al., 2019), the Paris Agreement (to which Romania is a signatory part) on climate change takes into account individual households as contributors that need to act in order to curve global warming below the threshold of 1.5°C (Agreement, 2015). The signatory states also committed to pushing the target of zero emissions in the plans of all signatory parties, as well as to implement a mechanism through which states accelerate the decarbonization process every five years. The “zero emissions” target has become extremely visible, at least in Europe, and the implementation of solutions to achieve this target is assumed not only by industries or countries, but also by numerous universities of the world (Progress, n.d.; Sen, 2022). Moreover, universities are committed to being at the forefront of the transition towards a more sustainable world, as they also pursue this goal by educating new generations in such a spirit, and through their current operations, by taking measures to reduce their own carbon footprint (Kaur and Kaur, 2022; Sen et al., 2022; Žalėnienė and Pereira, 2021; Valls-Val and Bovea, 2021; Badea et al., 2020; Rodriguez-Andara et. al., 2020; Azeitero and Davim, 2019; Santovito and Abiko, 2018).

The project described in this volume is part of the interventions that teams from different universities around the world have adopted to accelerate transition processes towards a more sustainable campus (Sharp, 2009; Lozano et al., 2013; Martins et al., 2021; Sugiarto et al., 2022; Bui et al., 2023; Alvarenga et al., 2024). The approach follows the “research-action” model, the research component being the basis of activities adapted to the specificity, conditions, and institutional context of the Politehnica University Timișoara (Cernicova et al., 2024; Kemmis 2010; Greenwood and Levin, 2007). Another essential feature of the project was the participatory approach, the university stakeholders being involved in identifying the problems to be solved, in developing and implementing the formulated solutions, as seen in the chapters dedicated to describing the project implementation phases (Trencher et al., 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021; Cernicova-Bucă et al., 2024). Finally, since universities are ‘learning institutions’, each project, each experience leads to the enrichment of the portfolio of resources on which HEIs base their strategic plans (Sharp, 2002). This volume capitalizes on these experiences and offers them, as models of good practice, for debate and/or inspiration, to other universities that implement or want to implement sustainability principles on their campuses.

To sum up, the project team appreciates that each of the university stakeholders played a significant role, conducted specific actions, and went through a process at the end of which they were subjected to direct effects, as seen in the table below:

Table 1. Role and activities of stakeholders in light of the effects of the USE-REC project

Encouraging behavior change toward a (more) sustainable variant is one of the most pressing challenges for public policy, as highlighted by many researchers (Lohman et al., 2024; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021; Azeitero and Davim, 2019; Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). The quasi-unanimous problem is that behavioral changes take place under the influence of certain stimuli, not necessarily financial, but over time the reaction to stimuli “wears out”, habituation occurs and even falling into old behavioral paths (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008; Lohman et al., 2024). A single behavior change campaign, even a successful one, must be resumed, with updates and adaptations, so that the process of reinforcing messages and reinforcing behaviors is not interrupted (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021). Stakeholder participation in institutional development cannot be regarded as a static element (Snow et al., 1986). Project activities and information-awareness campaigns take place in a dynamic environment, in given contexts, which enhance or inhibit the mobilization capacity of the target audience. In implementing the USE-REC project, the team considered the academic calendar, institutional flagship events, messages in favor of sustainable behaviors coming from the media, the rhythms of student life and students’ information-documentation habits and channels. The organization of activities in online, offline, or mixed formats was also calibrated according to a complex of factors specific to the academic community. The project team took measures to avoid cultivating so-called “clicktivism” (Wojtowicz et al., 2024) – i.e., an automatic and non-committal reaction of students to online posts on project objectives and activities. The campaigns included extensive components in which students were invited to effectively engage either with their own posts and video productions, or with participation in trainings (proposed webinars, summer schools or trainings), or face-to-face activities and events. The approach alternated persuasion techniques based on reasoning and scientific demonstration with emotion-based communication strategies that value sustainability-oriented behavior and stimulate pride as an “eco-citizen student”, without stigmatizing groups that do not embrace (yet) such models. The ethical component guided the careful formulation of messages so that they did not slide into propaganda or segregation of student groups. Rather, in today’s academic environment, a constructivist approach to supporting students’ education to define a personal and professional identity as sustainable individuals is, in the opinion of the project team, a consolidated, verified solution leading to success. The student years are for young people engaged in tertiary education, the years of vocational training, but also the years of preparation for autonomous life as adults. Universities, in their modern sense, assume the role of providing education, but also experiences that validate beliefs, values (personal and professional), young people’s concepts about their own life and about their role in society. Life in student dormitories especially facilitates accommodation with a modern lifestyle and the anticipation of autonomy. In campus life, students sometimes encounter realities that were a rarity or completely missed from their prior experience. That is the reason for which university support, offered both through procedural channels and through informal support systems, plays a significant role in the becoming of the younger generation (Barnett, 2010). Social development is impossible to achieve without a globally shared, interdisciplinary values-based education that encourages critical thinking and readiness for lifelong learning. If social development can be both a coordinated-directed process (through the development of social programs at macro level) and a diffuse one (resulting, for example, as an effect of technical-scientific progress) (Zamfir and Stoica, 2006), community development through projects is strictly a process based on the effort and voluntary support of community members, in our case, of the academic community of the Politehnica University Timisoara, aimed at increasing social capital and optimizing the way of interacting with the new generations of young people who knock at the gates of recognition as professionals. The described project is, we believe, an example of local intervention that considers global trends in higher education, sustainability, and an optimistic vision of the transformative power of education.