The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Achieving SDG 11

Abstract

This study examines the role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in advancing SDG 11, considering the size and population of HEIs as ‘small cities’ and as pivotal platforms for educating individuals across various levels. Integrating SDGs into Malaysian HEIs is still a relatively recent initiative, as the Ministry of Higher Education has not yet established specific guidelines. Accordingly, this research aims to investigate the efforts undertaken by Malaysian HEIs in achieving SDG 11 within their campuses. The study employed a comparative analysis of existing assessment tools used to evaluate sustainable HEIs. Subsequently, the semi-structured interview was conducted at six (6) public HEIs and the analysis was supported by ATLAS.ti software. The result revealed five main themes that shall impact SDG 11 in HEIs from the education perspective namely 1) Curriculum design, 2) research and innovation, 3) Campus setting and infrastructure, 4) Community engagement, and 5) Teaching. This research highlights that achieving SDG 11 can be realized through curriculum integration, research initiatives, campus design, community engagement, and teaching practices. These findings aim to inspire other HEIs in Malaysia to enhance their education systems and contribute further to the development of sustainable cities.

Full text

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6175
www.rsisinternational.org
The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Achieving SDG 11
Farhana Mohd Zaini1, Julaida Kaliwon2*, Farrah Zuhaira Ismail3, Nor Rima Muhamad Ariff4, Izatul
Laili Jabar5
1College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor,
Malaysia.
2,4,5Studies of Building Surveying, School of Real Estate and Building Surveying, College of Built
Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
3Studies of Construction Management, School of Construction and Quantity Surveying, College of
Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803461S
Received: 18 December 2024; Accepted: 25 December 2024; Published: 13 January 2025
ABSTRACT
This study examines the role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in advancing SDG 11, considering the
size and population of HEIs as ‘small cities’ and as pivotal platforms for educating individuals across various
levels. Integrating SDGs into Malaysian HEIs is still a relatively recent initiative, as the Ministry of Higher
Education has not yet established specific guidelines. Accordingly, this research aims to investigate the
efforts undertaken by Malaysian HEIs in achieving SDG 11 within their campuses. The study employed a
comparative analysis of existing assessment tools used to evaluate sustainable HEIs. Subsequently, the semi-
structured interview was conducted at six (6) public HEIs and the analysis was supported by ATLAS.ti
software. The result revealed five main themes that shall impact SDG 11 in HEIs from the education
perspective namely 1) Curriculum design, 2) research and innovation, 3) Campus setting and infrastructure,
4) Community engagement, and 5) Teaching. This research highlights that achieving SDG 11 can be realized
through curriculum integration, research initiatives, campus design, community engagement, and teaching
practices. These findings aim to inspire other HEIs in Malaysia to enhance their education systems and
contribute further to the development of sustainable cities.
Keywords: sustainable higher education institutions, sustainable buildings, sustainable cities, sustainable
development education
INTRODUCTION
Global sustainability issues such as climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and global warming have
consistently been the primary concerns of countries in their development process [1]. Flash floods, extreme
weather, and landslides happen regularly resulting in loss of property and human life. Buildings, the primary
output of the construction industry, are significant contributors to energy consumption, Carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, and environmental pollution and destruction [2]. It was expected that two-thirds of the
global population would live in cities by 2050, leading to the expansion of building construction. The global
building area is expected to double by then, and the building energy demand will increase by 50%, which
will go along with a continued rise in resource consumption and related gas emissions.
As a result, green building rating tools (GBRTs) have been introduced to evaluate the sustainability of
buildings and reduce environmental impact as they are considered the most appropriate tool for measuring

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6176
www.rsisinternational.org
building sustainability. Numerous GBRTs arose including Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method (BREEAM), The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), and many more.
GBI is the first GBRT tool developed in Malaysia by the Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) in 2008 and
the idea came from the Singapore Green Mark and the Australian Green Star System rating tools. It has been
modified to suit Malaysian tropical weather, environmental and development context, and cultural and social
needs [3]. Following its introduction, several other GBRTs have been established in Malaysia. Apart from
GBRTs, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development outlines 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
urging action from individuals and industries. These goals are comprehensive, addressing the three pillars of
sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. One of the goals is to make cities and human settlements
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, which is SDG 11. In context of SDG 11 or sustainable city can be
achieved through sustainable education, renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transportation,
sustainable buildings, waste management and many more [4]. This research emphasizes the development of
sustainable cities through sustainable education, highlighting the significant contributions of HEIs.
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are increasingly crucial in advancing sustainability [5] since they are
considered ‘small cities’ due to the large community and campuses [6], high level of social responsibility,
and a crucial role in the development of social behaviors [7, 8]. Adopting sustainable practices in HEIs has
been a longstanding global initiative since the 1990s. The aim of the research is to investigate the potential
contribution of sustainable HEIs towards SDG 11. To achieve the aim, the research objective is as follows:
1. To examine the gap between existing GBRTs in evaluating sustainable HEIs in aspects of
sustainability cities; and
2. Identifying and evaluating the important education components in developing sustainable HEIs in
Malaysia
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainable Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) Vs Sustainable City
Education is an essential discipline in every country, and it is also a powerful driver of development and one
of the most potent instruments not only for the development of sustainable cities but also for reducing
poverty, improving health, gender equality, peace, stability, and many more. It is the right place where all the
17 SDGs can be achieved. For every individual, education promotes employment, earnings, living, health,
and poverty reduction, while for society, it drives long-term economic growth, strengthens institutions, and
fosters social cohesion. Numerous scholars have recognized HEIs as a prime channel for achieving
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through education [9]. In fact, many studies integrate SDG 4 into
HEIs, and it is common. Meanwhile, HEIs that have similar characteristics that contribute to the
development of sustainable city. The definitions and characteristics of a sustainable or green city vary, but
they align with the broader concept of sustainability. The idea of sustainability originally comes from the
1987 Brundtland Report, which defines it as "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [10]. Building on this, the definition
of a sustainable city, as outlined in the LCCF report, refers to a city where people want to live both now and
in the future. It is a city that meets the diverse needs of its current and future populations, is environmentally
conscious, ensures that its lifestyle and consumption patterns do not negatively impact the environment,
preserves its natural ecology, and contributes to a high quality of life [11]. Several studies highlighted that a
sustainable city must include three dimensions of sustainability: environment, society, and economy [12].
Cities and HEIs are considered similar in terms of size and population, but they differ in their primary focus.
Sustainable HEIs should not only focus on environmental improvements but also address the sustainability
of education itself. Many experts emphasize the importance of integrating sustainability into the curriculum,
research, and teaching practices of HEIs.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6177
www.rsisinternational.org
Green Building Rating Tool (GBRT)
As the global environmental crisis arises, many countries have taken initiatives to develop green building
rating tools (GBRTs). To date, it is estimated that more than 600 GBRTs have been developed [13]. The first
establishment of GBRT was the Building Research Establishment Assessment Method (UK's BREEAM) in
1992 followed by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (US's LEED) in 1996 and both are
popular and widely used GRBT [14].
The Malaysian government first introduced the concept of sustainable building through the Industrialized
Building System (IBS). This transition impacted the development of the construction industry, and the
concept of green building was then initiated in 2009 by the Green Building Index (GBI). The various GBRTs
were established in Malaysia (Table 1) after the establishment of GBI.
METHOD
The research was conducted in two stages. The first stage was to identify the tools that can be used in
evaluating sustainable HEIs in Malaysia by comparing existing GBRTs. Subsequently, the most suitable
tools criteria were compared to identifying the research gap. Afterwards, a semi-structured interview was
conducted at six selected public HEIs to investigate the elements or criteria of sustainable education
embedded in HEIs in achieving SDG 11.
Selection of GBRTs
All existing Malaysian GBRTs were identify from the study from CIDB (2018), [11], [15], [16], [17], [18],
and [19] to find the most suitable tools to evaluate sustainable HEIs. Malaysia has developed ten (10) tools
for evaluating green or sustainable buildings. A brief of each GBRT is given below.
a. Green Building Index (GBI) - GBI has more than 18 evaluation categories of rating systems. The
assessment result is divided into 4 categories: platinum, gold, silver, and certified. The categories are
awarded based on the score given from each type of tool criteria. The initiation and development of
the GBI tools allow developers and building owners to design and construct green and sustainable
buildings that contribute to energy saving, water saving, healthier indoor environment, better
connectivity to public transport, and the adoption of recycling and greenery for their projects and
reduce the impact to the environment [20].
b. Low Carbon Cities Framework and Assessment System (LCCF) - The tool aims to assist the
developers, local councils, town planners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public in
reducing the level of carbon emission in cities towards achieving sustainable urban development. The
focus area of LCCF is wider as it promotes sustainable cities by reducing the use of energy and the
emission of CO2 including the use of green technology and green practices [11].
c. Penilaian Penarafan Hijau JKR (pHJKR) - The tool is one of the Malaysian government initiatives
towards sustainable development. pHJKR aims to measure the sustainability of their construction
project and to help the improvement of the existing buildings towards sustainable buildings. The
targeted construction project is more focused on government projects and the tool is more suitable to
be used for government projects [15].
d. Melaka Green Seals - It is the initiative of the Melaka State Government. Developed from the
collaboration of Melaka Green Development Organisation (MGDO) and Perbadanan Teknologi Hijau
Melaka in 2012 and established for residential and non-residential buildings, new and existing
buildings. The establishment was based on the MS1525 Energy Efficiency Guide and Uniform
Building by Law (UBBL) [16].
e. Green Real Estate (GreenRE) - It is developed 2013 to drive sustainability in Malaysia's real estate
industry. Similar to GBI, GreenRE is also fully supported by the Malaysian government and local
authorities. To date, GreenRE has produced up to 10 rating tools [21]. After GBI, GreenRE also show

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6178
www.rsisinternational.org
great development of the GBRT tool, and these two tools are considered popular and are widely used
to evaluate green buildings in Malaysia.
f. The Malaysia Green Highway Index (MyGHI) - The tool also developed by the Malaysian
government specifically known as the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) which
focuses on the development of sustainable highways [22] as the construction of roads and highways is
among the major contributions towards the rise of carbon dioxide, deforestation, habitat loss, climate
change and etc.
g. CASBEE Iskandar - The tool is developed in 2016 and used to evaluate a sustainable city
specifically for Iskandar Malaysia (IM) (located in the Southern part of Peninsular Malaysia) [17].
h. Malaysian Carbon Reduction and Environmental Sustainability Tools (MyCREST) - This tool is
also part of the government initiatives, produced to reduce the built environment’s impact and created
to evaluate air-conditioning and non-air-conditioning types of buildings. It is created through the
integration of the members of government agencies, public as well as private institutions, corporations,
and companies in Malaysia known as the Ministry of Works Malaysia (KKR), Malaysian Public
Works Department (JKR), and Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB). It is
compulsory to follow MyCREST for the JKR projects that exceed RM50 million and above [18].
i. Sustainable INFRASTAR - This tool is also another initiative by the Malaysian government after the
development of MyCREST. It was developed in 2019 and specifically designed to evaluate sustainable
infrastructure development primarily at the design and construction stage [19].
j. Green Performance Assessment System (Green PASS) - Developed by the CIDB in 2021 and it is
the latest tool developed. Focusing on buildings, it estimates the emission of carbon from building
construction works throughout a building lifecycle without compromising on the desirable comfort of
the building by assessing the indoor environmental quality.
Comparison of GBRTs
The development of GBRT in Malaysia has seen tremendous growth in the public and private sectors since
2015. The overview of all GBRTs is presented in Table 1. From the perspective of assessment applicability,
various tools have been developed for specific purposes: GBI, GreenRE, Melaka Green Seals, pHJKR, and
MyCREST are designed to evaluate green buildings; MyGHI and Sustainable INFRASTAR are intended for
infrastructure assessment; and LCCF and CASBEE Iskandar focus on urban and city development.
Additionally, MyCREST and Green PASS are tailored to assess green buildings throughout different stages
of construction, including the construction phase, maintenance, and operations. Meanwhile, GBI and
CASBEE Iskandar also assess townships, pHJKR can evaluate buildings, and GreenRE provides tools for
measuring buildings, infrastructure, and townships (see Figure 1). To date, Malaysia has produced up to 49
tools that can evaluate various categories of buildings including infrastructure and township.
The flexibility and application of the Malaysian green building rating tool (GBRTs) vary. GBI, LCCF, and
GreenRE can be applied nationwide, while Melaka Green Seals is specific to Melaka state, and CASBEE
Iskandar is limited to Iskandar Malaysia. Tools such as pHJKR, MyGHI, MyCREST, Sustainable
INFRASTAR, and Green PASS are mainly used for government projects. This is because contractors
involved in these projects must comply with the GBRT requirements, as these projects are typically large in
scale and have significant environmental impacts, such as the development of infrastructure and public
facilities [23].
The oldest GBRT is the GBI tool, developed in 2009, while the most recent is the Green PASS, introduced in
2021. The development of GBRTs in Malaysia has been notably active between 2009 and 2021, with
approximately 47 different GBRTs created by various organizations. As the oldest tool, GBI offers 18
categories of assessment, followed by GreenRE with 14 categories. This extensive coverage makes both GBI
and GreenRE the most popular green building rating systems in Malaysia [24].
These tools can be classified into four main types: residential new construction, residential existing
buildings, non-residential new construction, and non-residential existing buildings. GBI and GreenRE offer

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6179
www.rsisinternational.org
additional categories, including tools for hotels, resorts, industrial buildings, interiors, hospitals, historic
buildings, super low-energy buildings, and renewals. Infrastructure-specific tools are limited, with MyGHI
being the only one designed to evaluate sustainable highways. LCCF focuses on township assessments, a
category also found in GBI, GreenRE, and CASBEE Iskandar. Overall, Malaysia's GBRTs primarily
evaluate green buildings, infrastructure, townships, and construction progress. The assessment is considered
comprehensive, as there are tools that also evaluate historic buildings and interior spaces. Based on the
comparison, GBI Township, GreenRE township and LCCF tools are the most appropriate to evaluate
sustainable HEIs.
Table 1: Review of Malaysian GBRTs
Tool
Application
Year
Types
Categories
GBI
All states
2009
18
Non-residential new construction (NRNC), residential new
construction (RNC), Non-residential existing building
(NREB), NRNC data centre, NREB data centre, NRNC
Retail, NREB Retail, NRNC hotel, NREB hotel, NRNC
resort, NREB resort, township, hotel, NREB hotel, NRNC
resort, NREB resort, township, Industrial new construction,
Industrial existing building, Interiors, NRNC hospital tool,
NREB hospital tool, NREB historic building
LCCF
All states
2011
1
Township
pHJKR
Gov. projects
2012
2
Building and Road
Melaka Green
Seals
Melaka state
2012
4
Residential new construction, residential existing building,
non-residential new construction, non-residential existing
building
GreenRE
All states
2013
14
residential, existing non-residential, residential, existing
residential, industrial, existing industrial, office interior, data
centre, existing data centre, healthcare, township,
infrastructure, super low energy, retail,
MyGHI
Gov. projects
2015
1
Highway
CASBEE
Iskandar
Johor state
2016
3
Building, Urban development, city
MyCREST
Gov. projects
2018
3
Design, construction, Operation, and maintenance
Sustainable
INFRASTAR
Gov. projects
2019
1
Infrastructure
Green PASS
Gov. projects
2021
2
Building construction, building operations
Semi-structured interview
The second phase of the research method is the semi-structure interview. The research aims to identify key
educational indicators to be integrated into sustainable Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), contributing to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6180
www.rsisinternational.org
the development of sustainable cities, with a focus on selected public HEIs in Malaysia. As the interview
involved human as a subject, the interview strictly adheres to ethical guideline throughout data collection
process. The ethical approval was granted by The Research Ethics Committee (REC) of MARA Technology
University, ensuring that the research complies with existing laws and regulations.
Sample Size
The research was conducted at six (6) selected public HEIs in Malaysia. The targeted respondents from the
HEIs are those from the sustainability department, either academic or non-academic. The reason for
choosing six (6) HEIs was based on similar study from Isa, Sedhu [25]. A brief overview of the study,
including its aim and objectives, will be provided, along with assurance that responses are solely for research
purposes and that all information will be kept confidential. As a token of appreciation, all respondents will
receive a small gift, and the interview sessions will be conducted face-to-face at each selected HEI. The
interview is expected to last around 30 minutes to one hour. Briefs of each interviewee are shown in Table 2.
Each respondent from the selected HEIs was assigned an identifier (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6) to ensure
the privacy of the collected data.
Data Collection
The face-to-face interview sessions started in May 2024 and ended in September 2024 at six (6) public HEIs.
The selected HEIs are 1) UPM, 2) UTM, 3) UM, 4) UiTM, 5) UMP and 6) UNiSZA. The focused location
was the sustainable department or office that was in charge of campus sustainability and the target
respondents are the academic or non-academic staff. The interview sessions ranged 30 to 120 hours
depending on the respondent's feedback on the questions. The choice language was significant as Malay
language serve the primary means of communication among Malaysians. However, the interview guides
were designed in both English and Malay Language to ensure effective communication since some of the
terms are understandable in English.
Data Analysis
The interviews were audio-recorded and were further transcribed in English using clideo online tools and
stored on a secure drive. The analysis of interviews was analyse thematically with the aid of ATLAS. ti.
Software. Atlas. Ti software enables the automated text extraction of themes and sub themes from a text set.
The themes were set pertaining to respondents’ roles, and the sustainable education criteria. All themes
coded before the identification of patterns within the data. At the end, all codes were generated through the
network.
RESULTS
Result of comparison between GBI Township, GreenRE Township and LCCF tool
Figure 1 presents a comparison result of the three (3) assessment tools based on township criteria and
indicators. In total, thirteen (13) criteria were identified in the assessment tools. The criteria are divided into
13 categories, focusing on aspects such as site setting and planning, transportation, energy, water, green
building and sustainable construction, environment, waste, climate, community, innovation, biodiversity,
flood and rainwater management, and traffic management. Among these, site setting and planning account
for the highest percentage (21%) of indicators, followed by transportation (14%) and energy (10%), in
relation to sustainable township development. In contrast, traffic management contributes the lowest
percentage (2%) other than climate (3%) and flood and stormwater management (3%). Additionally, the
traffic management indicator is exclusively found in the LCCF tool. On the other hand, innovation indicators
are present only in the GBI Township and GreenRE Township tools. None of these indicators are found in
the LCCF tools, indicating that the LCCF does not address the economic aspects of sustainability. The
overall results indicate that none of the selected tools specifically incorporate education criteria in measuring

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6181
www.rsisinternational.org
the sustainability of HEIs. This is confirmed through the detailed comparison of each tool assessment criteria
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Assessment Criteria for GBI Township, GreenRE Township and LCCF tools.
Result of Semi-structure interview
Respondents’ Background
Table 2 presents Section A demographic background of the semi-structured interview comprising 6
individuals. All respondents were categorized within sustainable office roles based on their respective Higher
Education Institution (HEI). They are responsible for completing essential campus sustainability tasks to
ensure each HEI meets the established sustainability criteria and indicators. Some respondents, such as
respondent R3, are fully dedicated to sustainability activities, while others, including respondents R1, R2,
R4, R5, and R6, have teaching and research responsibilities, as they are considered academicians.
Respondent R1, from the Faculty of Design and Architecture, is part of the sustainability and green campus
initiatives at UPM, along with 23 other members, and is responsible for the green campus outlook.
Respondent R2 from Sustainable @ UM is gathering and organising all necessary data for university ranking
submissions, including for the UI Greenmetric. R3 is from UTM Campus Sustainability (UTMCS) and is the
Deputy Director of the UTMCS and works together with the Director and is responsible for the overall look
of UTMCS sustainability planning, strategy and policy. R4 is from UiTM Green Campus (UGC). He is the
coordinator of green initiatives and research. He is responsible for looking for all the campus sustainability
criteria together with the other coordinators of campus and setting infrastructure, waste, water, energy and
climate change, education and transport clusters. This is similar to R5 and R6, as both represent Green

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6182
www.rsisinternational.org
UMPSA from UMP and Lestari UNiSZA from UNiSZA. R5 belongs to the Quality Education cluster,
focusing primarily on overall educational quality, while R6 is part of the Water cluster, specifically
addressing water-related initiatives in UNiSZA, including the maintenance of UNiSZA's lake. R1 and R3
oversee overall campus sustainability, R2 focuses on task force activities, while R4, R5, and R6 are
responsible for specific green campus criteria.
Table 2. Respondents’ Background
HEIs
Sustainable
Department
Position
Teaching
Roles
Roles
Respondent
UPM
Lestari @
UPM
Committee
Lestari @ UPM
Yes
Green campus outlook at UPM
R1
UM
Sustainable @
UM
Officer
No
Gathering and organising all necessary
data for university ranking submissions,
including for the UI Greenmetric
R2
UTM
Sustainable
Campus UTM
Deputy director
Yes
Works together with the Director and is
responsible for the overall look of
UTMCS sustainability planning,
strategy and policy
R3
UiTM
UiTM Green
Centre (UGC)
Coordinator
Green Initiatives
and research
Yes
Responsible for looking for all the
campus sustainability criteria together
with the other coordinators of campus
and setting infrastructure, waste, water,
energy and climate change, education
and transport clusters
R4
UMP
MyGreen
UMPSA
Head of Cluster
Quality
Education
Yes
Focusing primarily on overall
educational quality
R5
UNiSZA
Lestari
UNiSZA
Coordinator
Head of Water
Yes
Specifically addressing water-related
initiatives in UNiSZA, including the
maintenance of UNiSZA's lake.
R6
Education Criteria
Sustainable Curriculum
The initial step toward establishing sustainable HEIs is the integration of sustainable curriculum design,
encompassing sustainable programs, courses, learning outcomes, and related elements. Since the primary
focus of HEIs has traditionally been academic achievement, introducing sustainable programs and courses
can significantly contribute to various professions, ultimately supporting the development of sustainable
cities.
“Sustainability program and sustainability courses can be found in all faculties, but most of it are from the
Faculty of Built Environment” [R4]
“When we talk about Architecture, it has to be sustainable” [R1]
According to the interview findings, all participating HEIs have integrated sustainability into their programs
and courses, as evidenced on their respective sustainability websites. R4 further emphasized that the Faculty
of Built Environment is the most responsible for delivering sustainable programs. Additionally, R4
highlighted that the responsibility for sustainability extends beyond the label "sustainable" and is embedded
within the unique sustainability roles of each program.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6183
www.rsisinternational.org
Sustainable Research and Innovation
Research and innovation are key priorities for each HEI, significantly contributing to the innovation industry.
Similar to sustainable curriculum design, integrating sustainability into research and innovation is crucial to
ensure that every research initiative supports the sustainable development goals. Sustainable research and
innovation in HEIs should encompass aspects such as sustainable publications, sustainable research
practices, open access to research, sustainable conferences, collaborative efforts, and other related elements.
“They are starting to include green and sustainability keywords in every research application and
publication” [R5]
“They must be SDGs impact in every research grant submitted” [R1]
Each participating HEI has actively worked toward achieving all 17 SDGs by embedding relevant SDG
keywords into their research activities, as emphasized by R1 and R5. Integrating sustainable research and
innovation not only fosters the development of sustainable professions but also contributes to building a
sustainable community across various income levels, industries, and age groups which is important in
developing and maintaining a sustainable city. This is proven from the respondent R2.
“UM has four types of research grants. It is the secular economy, carbon exploration, eco campus living lab
and SDG lab” [R2]
Setting and Infrastructure
As highlighted in the previous section of this research, setting and infrastructure account for the largest
contribution to developing sustainable cities. While the primary focus of HEIs may not be infrastructure, the
educational perspective on setting and infrastructure is essential. This includes creating sustainable platforms
such as websites, social media channels like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, sustainable reports,
sustainability guidelines, and related initiatives. These elements play a vital role in spreading sustainability
awareness and guidelines, reaching both the HEI community and a global audience.
“We promote sustainability though social Media like Tiktok account, Instagram and Facebook” [R6]
“We have university sustainability blueprint” [R3]
Community Engagement
Community engagement is a crucial factor in developing sustainable cities through sustainable HEIs, given
their significant population. Interview findings indicate that, from the perspective of sustainable education,
community engagement should encompass sustainable student and staff organizations and activities,
corporate social responsibility initiatives, related start-ups, and other relevant elements. The interview
findings revealed that all participating HEIs have implemented community engagement initiatives. These
efforts directly contribute to target 11a of SDG 11 by enhancing economic, social, and environmental
planning.
“The sustainable staff organization activities are from ourselves which is our sustainable department as we
do sustainable activities” [R4]
“We reproduce chicken feather to get the best cost tools” [R5]
“We have the 'Gelam Oil' project, initiated by our lecturers and students. This project utilizes the Gelam tree
to produce 'Gelam Oil,' which we then market and sell” [R6]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6184
www.rsisinternational.org
Teaching
The final criteria is the teaching, which differs from the curriculum criteria by emphasizing the importance
of HEIs in providing sustainability-related training, including orientation programs and ongoing training.
While most criteria focus on developing 'sustainable students,' this criterion is primarily concerned with the
academic and non-academic staff within the HEI community.
“Yes, we provide training for facilitators during orientation and deliver talks as part of the program. While
we accommodate requests for ongoing training, we are also planning to establish a dedicated training
program for staff. Additionally, certain staff members are required to complete at least one sustainability
course” [R2]
All participating in HEIs integrate sustainability education into their programs, demonstrating a commitment
that impacts not only SDG 4 (Quality Education) but also SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
The influence of sustainable education extends far beyond the campus, shaping individuals throughout their
entire life cycle. This approach ensures that the principles of sustainability remain a lifelong pursuit,
continuing well beyond graduation.
DISCUSSION
The development of sustainable cities should extend beyond urban and suburban areas to include Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs), given their rapid growth and increasing population. Integrating sustainable
education as a key component in the framework for evaluating sustainable cities is vital, particularly for
HEIs, where its significance is amplified. Education is a cornerstone of progress in every nation and serves
as a powerful catalyst for development. It is among the most effective tools for reducing poverty, enhancing
health outcomes, promoting gender equality, fostering peace, ensuring stability, and driving numerous other
positive societal transformations. The development of various Green Building Rating Tools (GBRTs),
beyond just the creation of green buildings, highlights the sustainability efforts undertaken by both the
Malaysian government and the private sector. This includes tools for evaluating sustainable cities, such as
the GBI Township, GreenRE Township, and LCCF tools. However, these evaluation methods are considered
incomplete for assessing sustainable cities, as they fail to incorporate the element of sustainable education
when measuring the sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs). According to the results of semi-
structured interviews conducted at six public HEIs, sustainable education should encompass sustainable
curriculum, sustainable research and innovation, setting and infrastructure, community engagement, and
teaching. These elements not only contribute to the development of sustainable cities but are also being
integrated into the educational framework of all participating HEIs. Therefore, incorporating these elements
into the evaluation of sustainable HEIs is both relevant and necessary.
CONCLUSION
The research seeks to examine the role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in advancing Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 11, with specific consideration of institutional size and population. To achieve this
aim, two primary objectives were established:
1. To identify gaps in existing Green Building Rating Tools (GBRTs) for evaluating sustainable HEIs,
particularly in the context of sustainable cities. A comparative analysis of GBRTs in Malaysia
revealed the existence of various tools designed to measure sustainability, not only for individual
buildings but also for diverse infrastructure, including townships. Among these, the GBI Township,
GreenRE Township, and LCCF tools emerged as the most relevant for assessing HEIs. However, these
tools lack essential elements related to sustainable education, making them inadequate for
comprehensively evaluating sustainable HEIs. Sustainable education is a critical component of
sustainable cities [4], and its absence is a significant limitation, especially considering that education is

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6185
www.rsisinternational.org
central to the mission of HEIs. The comparative analysis identified a clear gap: the omission of
sustainable education criteria in the existing tools used to measure sustainable HEIs.
2. To address this gap, the second objective was achieved through semi-structured interviews conducted
with representatives from six selected HEIs. These interviews aimed to identify key elements of
sustainable education that could be incorporated into the assessment framework. The findings revealed
five essential components of sustainable education: sustainable curriculum, sustainable research and
innovation, campus setting and infrastructure, community engagement, and teaching practices. These
elements were consistently present across the participating institutions and are recommended for
inclusion in tools designed to evaluate sustainable HEIs.
The study concludes by emphasizing the need for sustainable education to transcend the boundaries of
campuses, advocating for a lifelong approach to sustainability awareness and education that extends
throughout the human life cycle. This holistic approach is essential for fostering sustainable development in
the broader context of urban sustainability.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
The ethical approval was granted by The Research Ethics Committee (REC) of Universiti Teknologi MARA,
ensuring that the research complies with existing laws and regulations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi MARA and INTI International University for the
support given in completing this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of Interest was reported by the Authors.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data supporting the findings of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.
REFERENCES
1. Ferguson, T. and C.G. Roofe, SDG 4 in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2020. 21(5): p. 959-975.
2. Wang, M. and C. Feng, Exploring the driving forces of energy-related CO2 emissions in China's
construction industry by utilizing production-theoretical decomposition analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2018. 202: p. 710-719.
3. Gomez, C. and N. Yin, Development of a progressive green university campus maturity assessment
tool and framework for Malaysian universities. MATEC Web of Conferences, 2019. 266: p. 01018.
4. Sodiq, A., et al., Towards modern sustainable cities: Review of sustainability principles and trends.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 227: p. 972-1001.
5. Howarth, R., et al., Integrating education for sustainable development into a higher education
institution: beginning the journey. Emerald Open Research, 2023. 1(3).
6. Santa, S.L.B., J.M.P. Ribeiro, and J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra, Green Universities and Sustainable
Development. Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2019: p. 851-856.
7. Heravi, G., D. Aryanpour, and M. Rostami, Developing a green university framework using statistical
techniques: Case study of the University of Tehran. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021. 42: p.
102798.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue IIIS December 2024 | Special Issue on Education
Page 6186
www.rsisinternational.org
8. Sepasi, S., U. Braendle, and A.H. Rahdari, Comprehensive sustainability reporting in higher education
institutions. Social Responsibility Journal, 2019. 15(2): p. 155-170.
9. Adhikari, D.R. and P. Shrestha, The context and concept of higher education for sustainable
development: the case of Nepal. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2024.
25(2): p. 238-264.
10. Brundtland, G.H., Brundtland report. Our common future. Comissão Mundial, 1987. 4(1): p. 17-25.
11. Tenaga, K. and T.H. dan Air, Low carbon cities framework & assessment system. Putrajaya, Kuala
Lumpur: KeTTHA, 2011.
12. Liu, J., et al., Predictive evaluation of city sustainability based on benchmarking method - A case
study of 34 cities in northeastern China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2024. 112: p. 105627.
13. Wen, B., et al., Evolution of sustainability in global green building rating tools. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2020. 259: p. 120912.
14. Leu, S.-S. and J.-Y. Shi, Effective green building design assessment support using sequential
multidisciplinary design optimization. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024. 96: p. 110543.
15. Zakaria, M., MyGHI and pHJKR comparison for succeeding criteria on sustainable road design and
construction activities of road green tools. Unpublished master's thesis). Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2020.
16. Vadeveloo, T., et al., An Overview of Renewable Energy Programmes towards A Green City
Development Concept at Melaka Local Government. International Journal of Academic Reserach in
Economics and Management Sciences, 2021. 10(4).
17. bin Hishammuddin, M.A.H., et al., Application of Comprehensive Assessment System for Built
Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) at City Level in Johor Bahru. 2019.
18. Ohueri, C.C., W.I. Enegbuma, and H. Habil, MyCREST embedded framework for enhancing the
adoption of green office building development in Sarawak. Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, 2020. 10(2): p. 215-230.
19. Mustaffa, N.K., et al., Key Challenges and Strategies Towards Sustainable Infrastructure Development
in Malaysia. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 2023. 15(2): p. 1-13.
20. CIDB, <13.2018-built-it-green.pdf>. 2018.
21. Zulkifli, N.A.A. and S.S.A. Azis, The Effects of Tangible and Intangible Green Elements on Green
Residential Value from Professional Perspectives. 2021, Latin American Real Estate Society
(LARES).
22. Nusa, F.N.M., et al. Application of Success Factor Model for Green Highway Projects in Malaysia. in
2020 11th IEEE Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium (ICSGRC). 2020. IEEE.
23. Musau, P. and C. Kirui, Project management practices and implementation of government projects in
Kenya, case of Machakos County government. International Academic Journal of Information
Sciences and Project Management, 2018. 3(2): p. 58-79.
24. Razman, R., et al. Readiness of Malaysia’s construction industry in adopting green building rating
tools. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2023. IOP Publishing.
25. Isa, H.M., et al., Strategies, challenges and solutions towards the implementation of green campus in
Uitm Perak. Planning Malaysia, 2021. 19.