Leer · Providing a gender perspective on sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches: experiences of students from 17 international case studies

Página 1 de 12Providing a gender perspective on sustainability competences and pedag…

p. 1

Sustainable Development

RESEARCH ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

ABSTRACT

During the last three decades, higher education institutions (HEIs) have integrated sustainability into their curricula. Recent research has focused on sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches, and how the latter foster the development of the former. Previous studies have examined the connections between pedagogical approaches and sustainability competences from an educators’ perspective. However, there has been limited research addressing a students’ perspective, particularly in relation to gender. This paper aims to provide insights into developing students’ sustainability competences through pedagogical approaches from a gender perspective. A survey was applied to students at 17 universities from 13 countries. The responses were analyzed using: (1) Descriptive statistics and Friedman tests; (2) t-tests comparing perceptions of male and female students; and (3) correlations between competences and pedagogical approaches comparing both perspectives. The results showed differences in how male and female students’ competences ranked, with female students having a more concentrated range of competences. The pedagogical approaches results showed little to no differences and concurred with the published literature. The results also indicated differences between genders regarding how the pedagogical approaches develop the competences, where female students tend to develop more sustainability competences than males. HEIs must recognise gender-based perceptual differences and develop strategies that build upon the strength of both perspectives and, thus, better implement sustainability competence education.

| Introduction Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) plays a central role in developing society’s capacity to address today’s most important societal challenges (Brundiers et al. 2021). Promoting sustainable development at all educational levels is crucial to educate the future leaders, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, For affiliations, refer to page 10.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2026 The Author(s). Sustainable Development published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. academics, and agents of societal change who can make a difference, so that the future can be sustainable (Leicht et al. 2018; Mulder et al. 2012; Sánchez-Carracedo et al. 2021; Sibbel 2009).

In this context, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have been instrumental in promoting the transition to sustainable societies (Sánchez-Carracedo et al. 2021; Stephens and Graham 2010).

Sustainable Development, 2026; 0:1–12

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.71268

p. 2

During the last three decades, HEIs have incorporated sustainability into their systems, including operations, research, institutional framework, and curricula (Günther et al. 2024; Redman and Wiek 2021; UNESCO 2012).

Two recent developments in incorporating sustainability into HEIs curricula have been the research on sustainability competences (Barth et al. 2007; Lambrechts et al. 2013a) and the use of pedagogical approaches to develop the competences (Hopkinson and James 2010; Lozano et al. 2017, 2019; Yanarella et al. 2000).

The development of students’ sustainability competences has been identified as the main goal of ESD (UNESCO 2014; 2017). Students must modify their mental models, including a transformative capacity to change their knowledge to achieve this goal (Günther et al. 2024; Sipos et al. 2008; Weinert 2001). Several authors have proposed lists of ESD competences and their use (Lambrechts et al. 2013; Lozano et al. 2017; Rieckmann 2012; Wiek et al. 2011), where most research on sustainability competences has focused on the educators’ perspective (Alm et al. 2022; Lozano et al. 2019, Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021; Lozano et al. 2023). There has been limited but growing research focused on the students’ perspective (Alm et al. 2022; Birdman et al. 2022; Briens et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2022).

Developing sustainability competences requires a combination of pedagogical approaches considering gender diversity (Howell 2021; Remington-Doucette and Musgrove 2015). There has been an increasing amount of research on the connections between pedagogical approaches and sustainability competences (Lozano et al. 2017; Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021), with a focus mainly on educators. There has been limited research on such connections focusing on students (Sammalisto et al. 2016; Sánchez-Carracedo et al. 2021; Segalàs et al. 2010a). Students can become future change agents by addressing sustainability issues, mainly through a holistic and transdisciplinary lens (Briens et al. 2023; Desha and Hargroves 2014; Lozano et al. 2017). In parallel, research has found that women play an essential role in contributing to sustainability since they have a more holistic perspective on sustainability issues and higher commitment levels than men (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2019; Von Haartman et al. 2017), and achieving gender equality is essential for sustainability research to become more sustainable (Barreiro-Gen and Bautista-Puig 2022). Most studies on gender and ESD have focused on perceptions and knowledge issues related to climate change and sustainability. There has been limited research on gender and sustainability competences (Cebrián Bernat et al. 2024), with some exceptions, such as women developing better interpersonal competence than men (Remington-Doucette and Musgrove 2015).

This paper is aimed at analysing the differences in gender perspectives on developing students’ sustainability competences through pedagogical approaches. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches; Section 3 explains the methods used; Section 4 presents the results; Section 5 discusses the results; and Section 6 provides the conclusions of this research.

| Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches During the last three decades, ESD learning outcomes have increasingly focused on competences (Günther et al. 2024; Redman and Wiek 2021; UNESCO 2012). Competences can be defined as a “ . . . complex combination of knowledge, skills, understanding, values, attitudes, and desires, which lead to effective embodied human action in the world, in a domain” (Corres et al. 2024; European Commission 2013). Competences describe expected educational outcomes (De Kraker et al. 2007; Lozano et al. 2022; Segalàs et al. 2010a) and encompass cognitive, functional, ethical, and personal dimensions that focus on the ability of students to develop the knowledge, values, aptitudes, and attitudes necessary to address complex issues, such as sustainability (Commission of the European Communities 2005; Lambrechts et al. 2013).

Competence-based education focuses on the outcomes of the teaching and learning process. Its primary goal is to prepare individuals to effectively engage in diverse situations and contexts, thereby contributing to the transformation of their environments (Rieckmann 2012).

Several sustainability competence lists have been proposed. Wiek et al. (2011) proposed five overall competence groups (systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, and interpersonal competences). Rieckmann (2012) proposed 12 competences: systemic thinking and handling of complexity, anticipatory thinking, critical thinking, acting fairly and ecologically, cooperation in heterogeneous groups, participation, empathy and change of perspective, interdisciplinary work, communication and use of media, planning and realizing innovative projects, evaluation, and ambiguity and frustration tolerance. Lambrechts et al. (2013a) identified the following: responsibility, emotional intelligence, system orientation, future orientation, personal involvement, and ability to take action. Cebrián and Junyent (2015) developed a theoretical framework of seven competences: developing future/alternative scenarios, visioning, contextualizing, working and living with complexity, thinking critically, developing decision-making, participation, and acting for change approaches, clarifying terms, establishing dialogues between disciplines, and managing emotions and concerns. Bianchi et al. (2022) developed the European sustainability competence framework (GreenComp), comprising four interconnected competence areas: embodying sustainability values, embracing complexity in sustainability, envisioning sustainable futures, and acting for sustainability. One of the most comprehensive lists that synthesised previous work was proposed by Lozano et al. (2017) including 12 competences: systems thinking; interdisciplinary work; anticipatory thinking; justice, responsibility, and ethics; critical thinking and analysis; interpersonal relations and collaboration; empathy and change of perspective; communication and use of media; strategic action; personal involvement; assessment and evaluation; and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. The latter list is used in this paper since it provides a more comprehensive overview.

The ranking of sustainability competences shows that (Lozano et al. 2025), see Figure 1: Interpersonal relations and collaboration, systems thinking, anticipatory thinking, and

Sustainable Development, 2026 10991719, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.71268 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [11/08/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

p. 3

FIGURE 1

| Ranking of sustainability competences from students’ perspective (Lozano et al. 2025). critical thinking and analysis are in the first quartile from the students’ perspective. The second quartile includes: communication and use of media, justice, responsibility and ethics, and personal involvement. The third quartile includes: empathy and changes of perspective, and finally, the fourth quartile includes: strategic action, inter-disciplinary work, assessment and evaluation, and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Students must modify their mental models and cultivate a transformative capacity to enhance their understanding to develop sustainability competences (Sipos et al. 2008; Thoresen 2017). This development requires various pedagogical approaches, acknowledges students’ diversity, and creates an environment that fosters learning (Howell 2021).

Pedagogy is a set of theoretical and applied sciences used in teaching, education, and training as organized and purposeful processes, where the learning process in higher education is implemented through a holistic system that considers teaching methods and technologies (Chernenko 2020). The choice of pedagogical approaches is influenced by the educational objectives and the specific context in which they are applied (Lozano et al. 2017). The diverse array of pedagogical methods is essential, particularly when considering the variety of students involved in an academic program (Sipos et al. 2008).

In addition to traditional pedagogical approaches, such as lecturing, the importance of alternative pedagogical approaches, including various student activation strategies, has been highlighted in the literature (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2022). A combination of pedagogical approaches is essential for developing sustainability competences (UNESCO 2006). The selection of pedagogical approaches depends on the educational objectives and context, including factors such as students, teachers, and the learning environment (de Freitas and Oliver 2005). It is also crucial to consider variations in pedagogical approaches that address students’ diversity (Ceulemans and De Prins 2010; Sommier et al. 2022; UNESCO 2006,

2012).

The ranking of pedagogical approaches (see Figure 2) from the students’ perspective, as reported by Lozano et al. (2025) showed that the first quartile includes Lecturing, Project-or- Problem-based learning, and Case studies. The second quartile includes Mind and concept maps as well as Inter-disciplinary team teaching. The third quartile includes Participatory Action Research and Supply chain/Life cycle analysis. The fourth quartile includes Strategic action, Inter-disciplinary work, Assessment and evaluation, and Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.

Sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches have usually been studied separately (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021; Sánchez-Carracedo et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2022), with some exceptions that have focused on specific assessments of engineering students or the relationship between pedagogical strategies and knowledge areas, particularly within primary and secondary education contexts (Frisk and Larson 2011; Segalàs et al. 2010a; Sprain and Timpson 2012).

Lozano et al. (2017) proposed a framework connecting sustainable development competences to pedagogical approaches from educators’ perspective and then updated it (Lozano et al. 2019). The pedagogical approaches incorporated in the framework are: Case studies, Inter-disciplinary team teaching, Lecturing, Mind and concept maps, Project-or Problem based learning, Community service learning, Jigsaw/Interlinked Teams, Participatory Action Research, Eco-justice and community, Place-based environmental education, Supply chain/Life cycle analysis, and Traditional ecological knowledge. The framework explains how Sustainable Development, 2026

10991719, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.71268 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [11/08/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

p. 4

FIGURE 2

| Ranking of pedagogical approaches according to students’ perspective (Lozano et al. 2025). pedagogical approaches develop sustainability competences, and thus can help educators create and update their courses to provide comprehensive, holistic, and systemic sustainability education to future leaders, decision-makers, educators, and change agents (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021).

The updated framework by Lozano et al. (2025), which connects pedagogical approaches to developing sustainability competences from the students’ perspective, included three groups for both competences and pedagogical approaches. The competences are grouped into Extrospective-social, Introspectivepersonal, and Cogitative-societal. The groups for pedagogical approaches were identified as Universal, Community and social justice, and Environmental education (see Figure 3). The correlations between the twelve competences and twelve pedagogical approaches (see Figure

identified strong correlations in dark green cells, medium correlations in light green cells, and low correlations in white cells (Lozano et al. 2025).

2.1

| Sustainability Competences and Gender According to Remington-Doucette and Musgrove (2015), the development of sustainability competences in students can be influenced by gender. Gender differences in educational environments are often associated with significantly different learning styles and communication patterns. The research examined how five sustainability competences—systems thinking, normative, strategic, anticipatory, and interpersonal—develop among undergraduates in an introductory course, while considering different age groups. The results showed that female students tend to display connected learning styles, valuing cooperation, relationships, listening, and empathy. Male students tend to exhibit a separate style emphasizing autonomy, control, direction, and abstraction.

Enhancing the role of women through education is essential and should be promoted at all levels, from primary to higher education, since education is crucial for raising awareness of gender equality in society and should be a priority objective for fostering long-term social change (Algül 2024). Understanding gender differences in educational settings is essential as students with strong interpersonal competence can inspire and facilitate problem-solving through effective communication, negotiation, and leadership (Wiek et al. 2011). This approach promotes the balanced development of competences for female and male students, ensuring that all students can contribute meaningfully to sustainable practices (Remington-Doucette and Musgrove 2015). There have been few studies that examine specifically sustainability competences from a gender perspective, for instance, at the primary level, Lukman et al. (2013) found women tend to be more concerned about environmental sustainability than men. However, Cebrián Bernat et al. (2024) observed similar perceptions of sustainability competences in research conducted in secondary schools, identifying differences in only one of the three dimensions evaluated. Studies at the higher education level also show some differences, such as the study developed by Von Haartman et al. (2017), which focused on engineering and nursing disciplines and found that female students have a more positive attitude toward sustainable development. As a result, the findings are not directly comparable. Overall, the existing literature shows variability in both approaches and results. This underscores the need for more comprehensive research using a systematic, holistic approach to provide a more integrated understanding of gender differences in sustainability competences in higher education.

p. 5

FIGURE 3

| Updated framework connecting pedagogical approaches to developing sustainability competences from the students’ perspective. Colour legend: White, unlikely; light green, maybe; and medium green, likely (Lozano et al. 2025).

| Methods A survey was developed to investigate the development of sustainability competences from the students’ perspective in 17 universities from 13 countries. The case studies were selected from previous experience research (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021; Lozano et al. 2023) through an opt-in approach, and due to their considerable work in incorporating sustainability into their curricula. The survey consisted of five sections:

1. Background questions about the respondents’ characteris-

tics (in general and sustainability),

2. Self-assessment of sustainability with a six-point scale (do

not know, never, seldom, from time to time, often, and all the time),

3. Pedagogical approaches used on a five-point scale (never,

seldom, from time to time, often, and all the time):

4. Competences covered in the courses on a five-point scale

(not at all, mentioned, discussed, complementary to the courses, and integral to the courses),

5. Open-ended questions about the incorporation of sustain-

ability in courses.

The survey was translated into each of the local languages for each case study and double-checked to ensure that the meaning of the questions was not misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. The respondents could choose from English, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish.

The survey was carried out using the online survey tool (Qualtrics 2018). It was sent to students from the case studies regarding their perception of the incorporation of sustainability into their courses. The survey was open from February to September 2023, and three reminders were sent out. The survey was sent via the gatekeepers to mailing lists or emails in each HEIs (refer to Table 1).

The survey responses were anonymous, and all data was confidential and GDPR1 compliant. The respondents were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary and that they could withdraw from the survey at any time.

The responses were analysed in three steps: (1) using Descriptive statistics, Friedman tests (a non-parametric method to test for relative ranking between items) to rank the competences and pedagogical approaches (at p < 0.01); (2) t-tests to analyse the difference between male and female students in developing competences by pedagogical approaches; and (3) using correlations between competences and pedagogical approaches comparing both perspectives. The analyses were done using IBM SPSS 29

(IBM 2022).

3.1

| Limitations of the Methods The internal validity of this research may have been limited by the survey, which may not have provided a comprehensive model of how students learn sustainability in each case study. The number of respondents in each HEI may not allow a complete generalization of sustainability teaching in each institution. Non-response bias may occur when people refuse to answer or complete the survey. In one case, the gatekeeper had to engage in face-to-face contact with the respondents, which may reduce the generalizability of the results due to non-random sampling. The survey was conducted across three different continents, where academic years may vary, and some students might have been overloaded with their regular educational activities, which prevented them from having the time to answer the survey.

| Results From the survey, 3730 responses were obtained, with 2055 male,

1592 female, 42 non-binary, and 40 preferred not to answer for a

gender selection. The latter two were excluded from the analysis due to their limited number of responses.

4.1

| Ranking of Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches Figure 4a,b show the ranking of the sustainability competences according to the male and female students, divided into quartiles. Sustainable Development, 2026

p. 6

TABLE 1

| Details of the case study HEIs.

Name of HEI Level Country Number of respondents (students) Tecnologico de Monterrey Whole institution Mexico

590

Universidade Aberta (UAb) Whole institution Portugal

397

University of Parma Whole institution Italy

309

Warsaw University of Technology Faculty Poland

309

Universidade da Coruña (UDC) Whole institution Spain

295

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná

(PUCPR)

Faculty Brazil

295

University of Debrecen Whole institution Hungary

292

University of Helsinki Whole institution Finland

215

European University of Lefke Whole institution North Cyprus

209

Nyíregyháza University Whole institution Hungary

160

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Whole institution (with no distinction between faculties) Spain

158

Universidad de las Américas Puebla

(UDLAP)

Whole institution Mexico

135

Griffith university Whole institution Australia

University of Belgrade Faculty Serbia

University of the Sunshine Coast Whole institution Australia

Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales (U.D.C.A.)

Whole institution Colombia

Dresden University of Technology Faculty Germany

TOTAL

3730

FIGURE 4

| Ranking sustainability competences from students’ perspective, considering gender perspectives. (a) Male students’ perspective and (b) Female students’ perspective.

As can be observed, there are differences in the rankings. In the male case, there are four competences in the first quartile, two in the second and third quartiles, and four in the fourth quartile. In the female case, there are two competences in the first, four in the second, and three in the third and fourth. It should be noted that the range in the Friedman test is bigger for male students (from 4.60 to 8.49) than for female students (from 5.06 to 8.33), indicating that male students have a wider spread of competence perception than female students.

In both cases, seven competences are in the same quartile: Systems thinking and Interpersonal relations and collaboration are in the first quartile; Communication and use of media are in the second; Empathy and change of perspective are in the third; and Interdisciplinary work, Assessment and evaluation, and Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty are in the fourth quartile. The other competences changed one rank between male and female students: Critical thinking and analysis and Anticipatory thinking are in the first quartile for male

p. 7

FIGURE 5

| Ranking of pedagogical approaches from students’ perspective, considering gender perspectives. (a) Male students’ perspective and (b) Female students’ perspective.

students and in the second for female students; Justice, responsibility, and ethics are in the second for male students and in the third for female students; Personal involvement is in the third quartile for male students and in the second for female students; and Strategic action is in the fourth quartile for male students and in the third for female students.

The ranking of pedagogical approaches (see Figure 5a,b) is quite similar between the male and female students, with only one change (Supply chain/Life cycle analysis), which is in the fourth quartile for the male students and in the third for the female ones.

4.2

| Gender Comparison of the Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches A t-test was carried out as the second step of the analysis to check for differences in competences between male and female students; the results are presented in Table 2 (the green cells indicate a statistically significant difference, p < 0.05). The t-test showed that nine of the twelve competences had a statistic significant difference (p < 0.05), with Systems thinking, Strategic action, Personal involvement, Assessment and evaluation, and Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty higher for female students; and, Justice, responsibility and ethics, Critical thinking and analysis, Interpersonal relations and collaboration, and Empathy and change of perspective higher for male students. The competences Inter-disciplinary work, Anticipatory thinking, and Communication and use of media had to statistical significant differences between the female and male students.

Table 3 presents the results of pedagogical approaches used of the male and females perspectives. The results show significant differences in eight pedagogical approaches, where Case studies and Lecturing were higher from the male students; and, Jigsaw/Interlinked teams, Participatory action research, Eco-justice and community, Place-based environmental education, Supply chain/Life cycle analysis, and Traditional ecological knowledge were higher from the female students.

4.3

| Correlations Between the Pedagogical Approaches and the Sustainability Competences The third step of the analysis was to carry out correlations between the twelve competences and the twelve pedagogical approaches and compare the two gender perspectives. These correlations reveal the connections between pedagogical approaches and the sustainability competences developed, as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 (male and female students’ perspectives). These figures were developed from the correlation coefficients (Spearman’s rho), using a three-color scale: Unlikely (white, rho less than 0.1), Maybe (light green, rho greater than 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.5), and Likely (dark green, rho greater than 0.5), which has been previously tested and validated (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen 2021; Lozano et al. 2023). As it can be observed, Lecturing is the least likely to develop sustainability competences, according to both genders.

The male students’ analysis (see Figure 6) has four competences with at least one “likely” correlation. The results show that Interpersonal relations and collaboration competence have a “likely” correlation with Project-or Problem-based learning pedagogical approach (corresponding to the Universal group of pedagogical approaches). Three competences show connections with the pedagogical approaches: Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, Strategic action, and Assessment and evaluation; the pedagogical approaches correspond to Eco-justice and community, Place-based environmental education, Supply chain/Life cycle analysis, and Traditional ecological knowledge (corresponding to the Environmental education group of pedagogical approaches). Overall, the perspective of male students identifies thirteen “likely” correlations as described.

The female students’ results (see Figure 7) concur with the male perspective regarding four competences with at least one “likely” correlation: Interpersonal relations and collaboration, Tolerance Sustainable Development, 2026

p. 8

TABLE 2

| Sustainability competences gender comparison (results of the t-test). Competence Mean Std. deviation t-test Male students Female students Higher results Male students Female students t Significance (one-sided p) Systems thinking

4.453

4.522

Female

1.187

1.138

−1.799

0.036

Inter-disciplinary work

3.634

3.642

1.164

1.141

−0.203

0.420

Anticipatory thinking

4.284

4.240

1.191

1.184

1.104

0.135

Justice, responsibility, and ethics

4.120

3.947

Male

1.194

1.191

4.341

< 0.001 Critical thinking and analysis

4.316

4.232

Male

1.176

1.187

2.145

0.016

Interpersonal relations and collaboration

4.539

4.450

Male

1.169

1.176

2.279

0.011

Empathy and change of perspective

3.986

3.809

Male

1.200

1.229

4.350

< 0.001 Communication and use of media

4.103

4.065

1.136

1.145

0.989

0.161

Strategic action

3.654

3.808

Female

1.328

1.309

−3.495 < 0.001 Personal involvement

3.968

4.078

Female

1.126

1.106

−2.946

0.002

Assessment and evaluation

3.469

3.658

Female

1.344

1.348

−4.200 < 0.001 Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty

3.498

3.642

Female

1.280

1.283

−3.377 < 0.001 Note: The green cells indicate a statistically significant difference, p < 0.05.

TABLE 3

| Pedagogical approaches, considering the perspective of male and female students (t-test). Pedagogical approach Mean Std. deviation t-test Male students Female students Higher results Male Students Female students t Significance (one-sided p) Case studies

4.398

4.283

Male

1.349

1.443

2.465

0.007

Inter-disciplinary team teaching

3.805

3.839

1.526

1.487

−0.674

0.250

Lecturing

4.865

4.752

Male

1.315

1.289

2.597

0.005

Mind and concept maps

3.849

3.878

1.278

1.314

−0.674

0.250

Project- or Problem-based learning

4.490

4.486

1.285

1.276

0.090

0.464

Community service learning

3.295

3.282

1.434

1.364

0.288

0.387

Jigsaw/Interlinked teams

3.127

3.291

Female

1.402

1.383

−3.519 < 0.001 Participatory action research

3.413

3.617

Female

1.578

1.515

−3.966 < 0.001 Eco-justice and community

2.890

3.088

Female

1.385

1.389

−4.269 < 0.001 Place-based environmental education

3.063

3.276

Female

1.420

1.410

−4.515 < 0.001 Supply chain/Life cycle analysis

3.285

3.508

Female

1.505

1.456

−4.518 < 0.001 Traditional ecological knowledge

3.181

3.353

Female

1.420

1.422

−3.623 < 0.001 Note: The green cells indicate a statistically significant difference, p < 0.05. for ambiguity and uncertainty, Strategic action, and Assessment and evaluation. However, the female students identify “likely” correlations in three other competences: Communication and use of media, Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, and Personal involvement.

Twenty-six strong correlations can be observed from the female students’ analysis, with three “likely” correlations in the Universal group, seven “likely” correlations in the Community and social justice group, and sixteen “likely” correlations in the Environmental education group.

p. 9

FIGURE 6

| Framework considering male students connecting pedagogical approaches to developing sustainability competences. Colour legend: White, unlikely, light green maybe, and dark green likely.

FIGURE 7

| Framework considering female students connecting pedagogical approaches to developing sustainability competences. Colour legend: White, unlikely, light green maybe, and dark green likely. The results for the Universal group of pedagogical approaches highlight two “likely” correlations with Inter-disciplinary team teaching and one “likely” correlation with Project or Problem based learning. In the Community and social justice group, the pedagogical approaches of Community service learning and Participatory action research had four and three strong correlations, respectively. The Environmental education group had the highest number of “likely” correlations, with three “likely” correlations for Supply chain/Life cycle analysis, four “likely” correlations for Traditional ecological knowledge and Eco-justice and community. Lastly, the pedagogical approach of Placed based environmental education shows the maximum number of “likely” correlations, identifying five correlations within the Environmental education group.

| Discussion The analysis of the competences ranking showed differences between the male and female students, with variations in the rankings. The male students’ ranking had four competences in the first quartile, two in the second and third, and four in the fourth; whereas the female students’ ranking had two competences in the first quartile, four in the second, and three in the third and fourth. The male students have a wider spread of competence perception than female students. These results provide gender-specific insights into sustainability competences ranking literature from the students’ perspective (see Lozano et al. 2025). The results of the pedagogical approaches ranking show a fairly similar ranking for female and male students, which concurs with the ranking of Lozano et al. (2025). There was one exception in the ranking of male students, where Supply chain/Life cycle analysis was in the fourth quartile for male students and in the third quartile for female students.

The comparison of competences between the male and female students’ results showed statistically significant differences in nine competences. The results indicated that female students’ results were higher in “Cogitative-processual” competences (Systems thinking, Strategic action, and Assessment and evaluation) and “Introspective-personal” (Personal involvement and Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty). The male students’ results were higher in “Extrospective-social” competences (Critical thinking, Interpersonal relations and collaboration, and Empathy and change of perspective), and Justice, Responsibility, and Ethics (Introspective-personal).

This study complements the research by Lozano et al. (2025) by providing a gender perspective, and advances the works of Lukman et al. (2013) and Von Haartman et al. (2017), who reported that female students may be more sensitive to and emphasize environmental issues by providing a perspective on developing sustainability competences through pedagogical approaches. The results disagree with the findings from Cebrián Bernat et al. (2024), who contended that high school students perceive sustainability competences similarly regardless of gender. Sustainable Development, 2026

p. 10

The Interpersonal relations and collaboration competence observed higher perception from male students. This contrasts with the results of Remington-Doucette and Musgrove (2015), which evaluate a similar competence, called Interpersonal competence, and find the opposite effect: female students are at higher levels than men.

A gender-based comparison of pedagogical approaches shows significant differences across eight approaches. Female students reported higher perceptions in all approaches within the “Environmental education” group, including Eco-justice and community, Place-based environmental education, Supply chain/Life cycle analysis, and Traditional ecological knowledge. Female students’ results were also higher for Jigsaw/Interlinked teams and Participatory action research in the “Community and social justice” group (concurring with Lukman et al. 2013; Von Haartman et al. 2017). Finally, male students’ perceptions were higher for two pedagogical approaches integrated into the “Universal” group: Case studies and Lecturing, providing insights from a gender perspective for Lozano et al. (2025).

The correlation analysis revealed differences in perceptions between males and females. The male students’ correlation had 13 ‘likely’ correlations, which are almost identical and in the same pairings as those reported in the literature, with 14 ‘likely’ correlations when gender was not considered (see Lozano et al. 2019, 2025). The female students had 26 ‘likely’ correlations, and in different pairings that did not consider gender (see Lozano et al. 2019, 2025). The correlation analyses showed that Lecturing does not develop sustainability competences, concurring with Lozano et al. (2025), Lozano and Barreiro-Gen (2021), and Segalàs et al. (2010); nonetheless, it should be noted that Lecturing is key in content transfer and in education, in general.

| Conclusions Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) plays a central role in building society’s capacity to tackle today’s most important societal challenges. Promoting sustainable development across all educational levels is crucial in addressing such challenges. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are essential in promoting sustainable societies by educating future leaders, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, and academics. During the last three decades, HEIs have incorporated sustainability into their systems, operations, and curricula.

Recent research on the integration of sustainability into HEIs’ curricula by focusing on sustainability competences, the use of pedagogical approaches, and how the latter develop the former. Prior studies have examined the connections between pedagogical approaches and sustainability competences, primarily from the educators’ perspective. However, there is limited research on the students’ perspective. Additionally, studies have suggested that women play a vital role in promoting sustainability. Nonetheless, most research on gender and ESD has highlighted perceptions and knowledge regarding climate change, while limited studies address sustainability competences. This paper is aimed at analysing the differences in gender perspectives on developing students’ sustainability competences through pedagogical approaches.

A survey was developed to investigate competences and pedagogical approaches. The survey was sent to 17 different universities from 13 countries. The responses were analysed from a gender perspective, distinguishing between male and female students, through a three-step process: (1) using descriptive statistics and Friedman tests (a non-parametric method to assess relative ranking among items) to rank the competences and pedagogical approaches; (2) conducting t-tests to assess differences between male and female students in developing competences based on pedagogical approaches; and (3) using correlations to analyse the relationships between the competences and pedagogical approaches comparing both perspectives.

The male and female students comparative analysis resulted in differences in the competence ranking. The results of the pedagogical approaches ranking show a fairly similar ranking for female and male students. The female students’ results showed that the “Cogitative-processual” competences were more developed than the male students. The male students’ results showed that the “Extrospective-social” competences were more developed than the female students. The pedagogical approaches considering gender showed significant differences between male and female students in eight of the twelve pedagogical approaches, where female students’ perceptions were higher in all the “Environmental” pedagogical approaches and some of the “Social” ones. The male students’ results were higher in two Universal ones (Case Studies and Lecturing). The correlation analysis revealed differences in perceptions between male and female students, with female students tending to develop more sustainability competences than their male counterparts. The results shared in this research provide the bases for further research on a gender perspective on developing sustainability competences through pedagogical approaches.

HEIs must recognise gender-based perceptual differences and develop strategies that build upon the strength of both perspectives and, thus, better implement sustainability competence education.

Further research should be carried out regarding other potential variables that affect the gender differences in developing sustainability competences, such as the role of disciplines, cultural contexts, academic level, and student prior knowledge and attitudes. Author Contributions Gabriela Ortiz-Martínez, Maria Barreiro-Gen, and Rodrigo Lozano contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, project administration, writing of the original draft, and overall supervision of the study, as well as were responsible for data curation and formal analysis. All the authors contributed to the literature review and data collection, and read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Affiliations 1School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico | 2Research Institute for Sustainability Science and Technology, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain | 3ECOBAS, C+D Group, Universidade da Coruña, Coruña, Spain | 4Center for the Future of Cities, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico | 5Center for Global Studies (CEG-UAb), Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal |

p. 11

6Department of Engineering for Industrial Systems and Technologies, Parma University, Parma, Italy | 7Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland | 8Economic Development and Social Sustainability, Department of Business, Universidade da Coruña, Coruña, Spain | 9Business School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil | 10Faculty of Humanities, Institute of Psychology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary | 11European University of Lefke, Lefke, Cyprus | 12Institute of Environmental Science, University of Nyíregyháza, Nyíregyháza, Hungary | 13Ecology Department, INAECU, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain | 14Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de Las Americas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico | 15Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia | 16Faculty of Agriculture—University of Belgrade, Beograd-Zemun, Serbia | 17School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Petrie, Australia | 18Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, Bogotá, Colombia | 19Faculty of Business and Economics, Chair of Business Administration, Esp. Sustainability Management and Environmental Accounting, Dresden, Germany | 20International Institute Zittau, Chair of Business Administration, Esp. Environmental Management, Dresden, Germany Acknowledgments Dr. Rodrigo Lozano is funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) Programme grant (BG24-00005) given to the Universidade da Coruña by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Spanish Government.

Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Endnotes 1GDRP is the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (https://gdpr-info.eu).

References Algül, Y. 2024. “Assessing the Relationship Between Broad Gender Inequality and the Gender Unemployment Gap: Insights From an Extensive Global Macroeconometric Panel Analysis.” Discover Sustainability 5, no. 1: 422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00663-y. Alm, K., T. H. Beery, D. Eiblmeier, and T. Fahmy. 2022. “Students’ Learning Sustainability – Implicit, Explicit or Non-Existent: A Case Study Approach on Students’ Key Competencies Addressing the SDGs in HEI Program.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23, no. 8: 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2020-0484. Barreiro-Gen, M., and N. Bautista-Puig. 2022. “Women in Sustainability Research: Examining Gender Authorship Differences in Peer-Reviewed Publications.” Frontiers in Sustainability 3: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/ frsus.2022.959438.

Barth, M., J. Godemann, M. Rieckmann, and U. Stoltenberg. 2007. “Developing Key Competencies for Sustainable Development in Higher Education.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8, no. 4: 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582. Bianchi, G., U. Pisiotis, and C. Giraldez. 2022. GreenComp the European Sustainability Competence Framework, edited by Y. Punie and M. Bacigalupo. Publications Office of the European Union. Birdman, J., M. Barth, and D. Lang. 2022. “Connecting Curricula and Competence Through Student Learning Journeys.” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 18, no. 1: 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/

15487733.2022.2097773.

Briens, E. C. M., Y. Chiu, D. Braun, et al. 2023. “Assessing Sustainability Knowledge for Undergraduate Students in Different Academic Programs and Settings.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 24, no. 1: 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2021-0455. Brundiers, K., M. Barth, G. Cebrián, et al. 2021. “Key Competencies in Sustainability in Higher Education—Toward an Agreed-Upon Reference Framework.” Sustainability Science 16, no. 1: 13–29. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11625-020-00838-2.

Cebrián Bernat, G., Á. Moraleda, J. X. Olano, A. Boqué, and J. Prieto.

2024. “Las competencias en sostenibilidad del alumnado de educación

secundaria según el género.” Enseñanza de Las Ciencias. Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas 42, no. 1: 65–83. https://doi.org/10. 5565/rev/ensciencias.5948.

Cebrián, G., and M. Junyent. 2015. “Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Exploring the Student Teachers’ Views.” Sustainability 7, no. 3: 2768–2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032768. Ceulemans, K., and M. De Prins. 2010. “Teacher’s Manual and Method for SD Integration in Curricula.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18, no. 7: 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.014. Chernenko, O. 2020. “Modern Pedagogical Technologies in Higher Education.” Pedagogy and Education Management Review 2: 52–59. https://doi.org/10.36690/2733-2039-2020-2-52.

Commission of the European Communities. 2005. “Towards a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Commission of the European Communities.”

Corres, A., I. Ruiz-Mallén, and M. Rieckmann. 2024. “Educators’ Competences, Motivations and Teaching Challenges Faced in Education for Sustainable Development: What Are the Interlinkages?” Cogent Education 11, no. 1: 2302408. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2302408. de Freitas, S., and M. Oliver. 2005. “Does E-Learning Policy Drive Change in Higher Education?: A Case Study Relating Models of Organisational Change to e-Learning Implementation.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27, no. 1: 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/

13600800500046255.

De Kraker, J., A. Lansu, and R. Van Dam-Mieras. 2007. “Competences and Competence-Based Learning for Sustainable Development.” in Crossing Boundaries. Innovative Learning for Sustainable Development in Higher Education, edited by J. de Kraker, A. Lansu, and M. C. van Dam-Mieras. 103–114. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag für Akademische Schriften.

Desha, C., and K. Hargroves. 2014. “A Peaking and Tailing Approach to Education and Curriculum Renewal for Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 6, no. 7: 4181–4199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074181. European Commission. 2013. “Supporting Teacher Competence Development for Better Learning Outcomes.”

Frisk, E., and K. Larson. 2011. “Educating for Sustainability: Competencies & Practices for Transformative Action.” Journal of Cleaner Production 2: 1–20.

Günther, J., S. Muster, K. Kaiser, and M. Rieckmann. 2024. “A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on the Development of Key Competencies for Sustainability in Education for Sustainable Development at School.” Environmental Education Research 30, no. 10: 1651–1667. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13504622.2024.2349934.

Hopkinson, P., and P. James. 2010. “Practical Pedagogy for Embedding ESD in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Curricula.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11, no. 4: 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011077586. Howell, R. A. 2021. “Engaging Students in Education for Sustainable Development: The Benefits of Active Learning, Reflective Practices and Flipped Classroom Pedagogies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 325: 129318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129318. IBM. 2022. “IBM SPSS Software [Computer software].” http://www-01. ibm.com/software/be/analytics/spss.

Lambrechts, W., I. Mulà, K. Ceulemans, I. Molderez, and V. Gaeremynck.

2013. “The Integration of Competences for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development, 2026

p. 12

in Higher Education: An Analysis of Bachelor Programs in Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 48: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2011.12.034.

Leicht, A., J. Heiss, and W. J. Byun. 2018. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development. 2018th ed. UNESCO. https://doi.org/

10.54675/YELO2332.

Lozano, R., and M. Barreiro-Gen. 2019. “Analysing the Factors Affecting the Incorporation of Sustainable Development Into European Higher Education Institutions’ Curricula.” Sustainable Development 27, no. 5: 965–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1987.

Lozano, R., and M. Barreiro-Gen. 2021. Developing Sustainability Competences Through Pedagogical Approaches, edited by R. Lozano and M. Barreiro-Gen. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-64965-4.

Lozano, R., M. Barreiro-Gen, D. D’Amato, et al. 2023. “Improving Sustainability Teaching by Grouping and Interrelating Pedagogical Approaches and Sustainability Competences: Evidence From 15 Worldwide Higher Education Institutions.” Sustainable Development 31, no. 1: 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2396.

Lozano, R., M. Barreiro-Gen, F. J. Lozano, and K. Sammalisto. 2019. “Teaching Sustainability in European Higher Education Institutions: Assessing the Connections Between Competences and Pedagogical Approaches.” Sustainability 11, no. 6: 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11061602.

Lozano, R., M. Barreiro-Gen, G. Ortiz-Martínez, et al. 2025. “Students’ Perspectives on Sustainability Competences and Pedagogical Approaches: Groupings and Interrelations Results From 17 International Case Studies.” Sustainable Development 33: 4689–4701. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sd.3368.

Lozano, R., M. Barreiro-Gen, J. Pietikäinen, et al. 2022. “Adopting Sustainability Competence-Based Education in Academic Disciplines: Insights From 13 Higher Education Institutions.” Sustainable Development 30, no. 4: 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2253. Lozano, R., M. Merrill, K. Sammalisto, K. Ceulemans, and F. Lozano.

2017. “Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sus-

tainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal.” Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1889. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su9101889.

Lukman, R., R. Lozano, T. Vamberger, and M. Krajnc. 2013. “Addressing the Attitudinal Gap Towards Improving the Environment: A Case Study From a Primary School in Slovenia.” Journal of Cleaner Production 48: 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.005. Mulder, K. F., J. Segalàs, and D. Ferrer-Balas. 2012. “How to Educate Engineers for/in Sustainable Development.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 13, no. 3: 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/

14676371211242535.

Qualtrics. 2018. “Qualtrics [Computer software].” Redman, A., and A. Wiek. 2021. “Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability.” Frontiers in Education 6: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785163.

Remington-Doucette, S., and S. Musgrove. 2015. “Variation in Sustainability Competency Development According to Age, Gender, and Disciplinary Affiliation.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16, no. 4: 537–575. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2013-0005. Rieckmann, M. 2012. “Future-Oriented Higher Education: Which Key Competencies Should Be Fostered Through University Teaching and Learning?” Futures 44, no. 2: 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.

2011.09.005.

Sammalisto, K., A. Sundström, R. von Haartman, T. Holm, and Z. Yao. 2016. “Learning About Sustainability—What Influences Students’ Self-Perceived Sustainability Actions After Undergraduate Education?” Sustainability 8, no. 6: 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060510. Sánchez-Carracedo, F., B.

Sureda, F.

Moreno-Pino, and D. Romero-Portillo. 2021. “Education for Sustainable Development in Spanish Engineering Degrees. Case Study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 294: 126322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126322. Segalàs, J., D. Ferrer-Balas, and K. F. Mulder. 2010. “What Do Engineering Students Learn in Sustainability Courses? The Effect of the Pedagogical Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18, no. 3: 275–284. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.012.

Sibbel, A. 2009. “Pathways Towards Sustainability Through Higher Education.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 10, no. 1: 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370910925262. Sipos, Y., B. Battisti, and K. Grimm. 2008. “Achieving Transformative Sustainability Learning: Engaging Head, Hands and Heart.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9, no. 1: 68–86. https://doi. org/10.1108/14676370810842193.

Sommier, M., Y. Wang, and A. Vasques. 2022. “Transformative, Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Learning for Developing HEI Students’ Sustainability-Oriented Competences: A Case Study.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 27: 20453–20470. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10668-022-02208-7.

Sprain, L., and W. M. Timpson. 2012. “Pedagogy for Sustainability Science: Case-Based Approaches for Interdisciplinary Instruction.” Environmental Communication 6, no. 4: 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/

17524032.2012.714394.

Stephens, J. C., and A. C. Graham. 2010. “Toward an Empirical Research Agenda for Sustainability in Higher Education: Exploring the Transition Management Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18, no. 7: 611–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009. Thoresen, V. W. 2017. “How Transformational Learning Promotes Caring, Consultation and Creativity, and Ultimately Contributes to Sustainable Development: Lessons From the Partnership for Education and Research About Responsible Living (PERL) Network.” International Review of Education 63: 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9688-4. UNESCO. 2006. “Framework for the un DESD International Implementation Scheme—ED/DESD/2006/PI/1”.

UNESCO. 2012. Education for Sustainable Development Sourcebook. Education for Sustainable Development in Action. Learning & Training Tools. Vol. 1. 1st ed, 20–34. UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2014. UNESCO Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. UNESCO. UNESCO. 2017. “Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives.” http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/. Von Haartman, R., K. Sammalisto, R. Lozano, and P. Blomqvist. 2017. “A Longitudinal Comparison of Sustainability Learning Between Men and Women in Engineering and Nursing Programmes.” Sustainability 9, no. 8: 1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081464.

Wang, Y., M. Sommier, and A. Vasques. 2022. “Sustainability Education at Higher Education Institutions: Pedagogies and Students’ Competences.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23, no. 8: 174–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2021-0465. Weinert, F. E. 2001. “Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification.” In Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, edited by D. S. Rychen and L. H. Salganik, 45–65. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Wiek, A., L. Withycombe, and C. L. Redman. 2011. “Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development.” Sustainability Science 6, no. 2: 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-011-0132-6.

Yanarella, E. J., R. S. Levine, and H. Dumreicher. 2000. “The Space of Flows, the Rules of Play, and Sustainable Urban Design.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1, no. 1: 48–66. https://doi. org/10.1108/1467630010307093.

Cita: Lozano, Rodrigo, Ortiz Martínez, Gabriela, Barreiro-Gen, María, SEGALAS, JORDI, Mendoza, Alberto, Caeiro, Sandra, Simão, João, Favi, Claudio, Gladysz, Bartlomiej, Alló, María, Gago-Cortés, Carmen, Ubiratã Tortato, Mónus, Ferenc, Bostanci, Sevket, Dobróné Tóth, Márta, Jiménez Munguía, María Teresa, Benayas, Javier, Flores Cervantes, Déborah Xanat, Lara Díaz, René Alejandro, Ramírez Corona, Nelly, Desha, Cheryl, Hales, Rob, Boddy, Jennifer, Djekic, Ilija, Caldera, Savindi, Sáenz, Orlando, Azizi, Dr. Leyla, Sassen, Remmer (2026), Providing a gender perspective on sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches: experiences of students from 17 international case studies, Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales, p. N. https://repository.udca.edu.co/handle/11158/7199