Introduction

Integration of the sustainable development paradigm into teaching and learning to empower current and future generations to meet their needs is a key objective of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD; see Balsiger et al 2017; Barth et al 2019). The recently proposed United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) framework for implementing ESD beyond 2019 focuses on strengthening ESD's contribution to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The framework highlights 5 priority areas of action: policy, education and training, educators, youth, and communities (UNESCO 2019).

Although sustainable development is an essential goal for countries in the South Caucasus region, marginalized mountain communities often have limited economic opportunities and hence lack prospects for the future. In Armenia and Georgia, sustainability has become an integral part of development strategies for rural and mountainous regions (VNR 2017, 2018). Successful implementation of these strategies requires participatory decision-making, social learning, and coproduction of knowledge and development solutions with the local population (Gleeson et al 2016; Balsiger et al 2019).

Local stakeholders' ownership and motivation are key factors in enabling innovation in mountain regions, yet external expert knowledge and facilitation skills are often needed. As a result, the outcomes of short-term interventions are often short lived. One way to address this gap is by establishing long-term collaboration between universities and local communities to tackle communities' sustainability challenges. This involves integrating local and case-specific knowledge to coproduce development solutions, as well as bringing research and teaching closer to addressing real-life challenges at local, national, and regional levels (Balsiger et al 2017; Barth et al 2019).

Transdisciplinary teaching and research approaches in line with ESD (Steiner and Posch 2006; Barth et al 2019; Gratzer et al 2019) could provide a way for such community–university collaboration. However, universities in the Caucasus have limited experience of transdisciplinarity. The extent to which higher-education structures are implementing ESD-related measures in general, and transdisciplinary approaches specifically, is unclear. Although the literature covers a range of ESD programs in different regions of the world, mostly in the west (Steinfeld and Mino 2009; Segalàs Coral and Tejedor Papell 2016), the Caucasus region has received less focus (Karatzoglou 2013).

The project Transdisciplinarity for Sustainable Tourism Development in the Caucasus Region (CaucaSusT) was initiated in 2016 by partners in Armenia (Armenian State Pedagogical University [ASPU]), Georgia (Tbilisi State University [TSU]), and Austria (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna [BOKU] and IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems), within the framework of the Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development (APPEAR). Its objectives are to integrate transdisciplinary approaches into university practices in Armenia and Georgia and to contribute to the cocreation of knowledge and long-term sustainable development of the Caucasus mountain region. The core of the project is a transdisciplinary case study course, which has been codeveloped by the partners, integrated into the curricula of ASPU and TSU, and held in 4 mountain communities in Armenia and Georgia.

The project was developed before the recent ESD framework elaboration; however, its main goals and activities are well aligned to the framework priority areas. This paper examines the extent to which the project supports integration of the framework into university practices in Armenia and Georgia. Furthermore, it evaluates the project results with respect to the framework's priority areas. We address this via the following research questions: (1) What are the challenges and successes of implementing transdisciplinary case study courses in Armenia and Georgia? (2) Can this course format contribute to the implementation of the ESD framework for 2030? (3) Is the ESD framework for 2030 a useful tool in evaluating case-study courses?

Transdisciplinary case studies and ESD

Transforming an educational system to integrate sustainable development requires finding new pathways of teaching and learning within and outside of the classroom (Tilbury 2011). It involves equipping the younger generation not only with scientific knowledge but also with soft skills, such as communication and conflict resolution (Steiner and Posch 2006; Segalàs Coral and Tejedor Papell 2016; Rieckmann et al 2017; UNESCO 2019). ESD can be challenging in traditional disciplinary school settings (Balsiger 2015; Rieckmann et al 2017), and success depends on the educator's role as a facilitator ensuring learning among students and between students and teachers (Tilbury 2011; Balsiger et al 2017).

ESD in mountain regions must consider these regions' unique social, cultural, and environmental conditions. Integration of scientific knowledge and the experiential knowledge of local stakeholders is therefore a key factor for successful ESD implementation (McKeown et al 2002; Tilbury 2011; Rieckmann et al 2017).

Transdisciplinarity provides a framework for such discourse by focusing academic inquiry on real-world problems, cocreating societally relevant knowledge, and transcending academic and disciplinary boundaries (Klein et al 2001; Pohl et al 2017; Nicolescu 2018; Pearce et al 2018). It was designed to approach complex societal problems collaboratively by bringing together academic and nonacademic stakeholders to coproduce knowledge and jointly elaborate on actions to address the respective challenges (Enengel et al 2012), thus fostering sustainable development processes (Lang et al 2012; Barth et al 2019). Transdisciplinarity is a mutual learning process that takes into account real-life problems, integrating abstract and case-specific knowledge, to provide solutions for complex sustainability issues through systematic analysis (Fam et al 2018). Mochizuki and Yarime (2016: 19) see transdisciplinarity as a method or approach in ESD for promoting “active collaboration with various stakeholders throughout society, organizing processes of mutual learning among science and society.”

Case-based work is a practical way of organizing transdisciplinary research and teaching (Muhar et al 2006; Scholz et al 2006; Steiner and Posch 2006; Hansmann et al 2009). Transdisciplinary case studies can contribute to understanding of real-world problems and initiate collaboration between experts and community members, and students as young researchers can play a key role (Scholz and Tietje 2002). By integrating research and learning, issues of sustainable development are addressed in a concrete, real-life setting and therefore provide a potential instrument for SDG implementation at a local level (Gratzer et al 2019). We consider transdisciplinarity in general and transdisciplinary case study approaches specifically in line with, and as part of, ESD.

The CaucaSusT case study format

The overall objective of the CaucaSusT case study course was to bring together students and teachers from different disciplines and local stakeholders to develop ideas and implement projects in the wider field of sustainable tourism in the mountains. The main long-term goal was for academic and nonacademic stakeholders to cooperate in addressing challenges related to sustainable development. The academics brought expertise in geography, planning, economics, and sociology, among others. Learning objectives were initially guided by the key competencies of sustainability proposed by Wiek et al (2011): systems thinking (ie systems and network analysis), anticipatory competence (ie scenario development), normative competence (ie critically assessing sustainable and unsustainable development aspects), strategic thinking (ie planning and management of the course and proposed interventions), and interpersonal competence (ie working in interdisciplinary groups of students, teachers, and local stakeholders to realize the value of local knowledge).

The Armenian and Georgian partners integrated these competencies into the specific learning objectives for each university (eg ASPU courses included teaching-related learning objectives) and adapted them each year according to the types of students. During the second year, adaptation of the ASPU case study course additionally considered the ESD competencies and learning outcomes proposed by Vare (2018).

It has been planned to conduct 2 case study courses in each country within the CaucaSusT project (4 courses in total). However, the format had to be arranged to enable this activity to continue beyond the project period as part of the regular study program curriculum. Students were involved for the equivalent of about a semester. This included preparatory courses at their home universities (principles of sustainable development, tourism, transdisciplinarity, soft skills, etc) and onsite stays in the mountain areas for 10–14 days. Case study sites were located in the Lesser Caucasus (Tsaghveri, Georgia, and Meghradzor and Dilijan, Armenia) and the Greater Caucasus (Stepantsminda, Georgia), as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Case study areas of the CaucaSusT project.

Preparation for the course included area selection, initiation of cooperation with key stakeholders, needs analysis, compilation of information on the public, and organization of working space and accommodation in the case study areas. At the same time, the participating universities made curriculum adjustments, trained teachers, recruited students, and timetabled activities.

The course format was based on that proposed by Scholz and Tietje (2002) for cohorts of about 25 students. These students were assigned to working groups of 4–5, facilitated by 1–2 teachers. Students were grouped according to their interests and their disciplinary backgrounds to provide an appropriate mix of disciplines. After the preparatory phase on campus, these groups conducted interviews and group discussions onsite with local residents to define local sustainability issues and codesign scenarios for sustainable development (Klein et al 2001; Muhar et al 2006; Scholz et al 2006; Lang et al 2012; Pohl et al 2017). After the field phase, the results were compiled into a joint project report. Table 1 presents the critical topics raised by local stakeholders that formed the main research topics in the case study regions.

TABLE 1

Critical topics raised by local stakeholders.

As an international cooperation project, there was a lot of exchange among the 4 partner universities via joint seminars and teacher training and mutual field visits, among others. Regular reflective steps allowed adjustments to be made during the project period. Table 2 summarizes the project timeline and activities and explains the connection to the priority areas of the UNESCO ESD framework. The data collection methods and the resulting outputs and documents are given in  Appendix S1 (mred-40-04-05_s01.pdf) (Supplemental material,  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00023.1.S1).

TABLE 2

Project timeline, activities, and their relevance to ESD priority areas.

Methods of analysis

All activities listed in Table 2 were observed and documented by the team members, who participated either actively as trainers and organizers or passively as observers. To gain an in-depth understanding, we conducted qualitative content analysis, which is considered a useful method for evaluating transdisciplinary research (Vienni Baptista and Rojas-Castro 2020).

Apart from document analysis, we conducted individual interviews and focus group discussions with participating students (n = 81), teachers (n = 22), and local stakeholders (n = 40), with questions focusing on the evaluation of the transdisciplinary case study course in individual, institutional, and community contexts. The duration of the interviews averaged approximately 40 minutes for local stakeholders and 1 hour for teachers and students. All interviews were recorded and transcribed with the permission of the interview partners. Understanding the local languages in both countries was helpful in interpreting implicit expressions by teachers, students, and local stakeholders.

We conducted thematic data analysis by using an inductive approach through open coding of the data (Maxwell and Chmiel 2014). Significant keywords of the transcribed data were collected and considered with respect to results from other studies (Klein et al 2001; Fam et al 2018). Codes were grouped in different themes with reference to the 5 ESD priority areas as described by UNESCO (2019). Relevant successes and challenges were then identified as presented in Table 3. The detailed results are given in  Appendix S2 (mred-40-04-05_s01.pdf) (Supplemental material,  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00023.1.S1).

TABLE 3

Contribution of the project outcomes to the priority areas of the UNESCO ESC framework.

TABLE 3

Continued.

Outcomes and discussion

The UNESCO ESD framework with its reference to 5 priority areas proved to be a useful tool to evaluate and reflect on the project results. Our analysis showed that the 2 investigated countries from the Caucasus region, Armenia and Georgia, face similar challenges regarding ESD, resulting from the transition processes after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The project was successful in achieving its short-term goals—specifically, in establishing interdisciplinary cooperation in both partner universities (at the levels of departments, teachers, and students) and in initiating contact and collaboration among the universities, local community members, and other nonacademic stakeholders. This was productive and appreciated by both local and academic stakeholders. Nevertheless, the different existing mentalities and cultures of cooperation within and outside of academia make this process challenging. As such, the long-term goal to integrate sustainability issues into academic work and establish strong collaboration with local communities requires continuous work, enthusiasm, and resources.

The outcomes of the CaucaSusT project relate to all priority areas of the UNESCO framework. However, they have differing degrees of impact: the project provided valuable contributions to the priority areas of education and training, educators, and youth, but it was less impactful with respect to the priority areas of policy and communities.

Conclusions and recommendations

The CaucaSusT project opened a pathway to university–community collaboration in the Caucasus mountain region and initiated stronger integration of ESD into activities of partner universities. The UNESCO ESD framework for 2030, along with its priority areas, was a useful tool to reflect on the implementation and results of the transdisciplinary teaching and research project.

Based on the lessons learned, and considering the importance of achieving better outcomes for university–community collaboration in the Caucasus region, we have developed several recommendations. We identified features, differentiated for the range of stakeholder groups, that are critical to implementing the ESD framework within the higher-education sector in Armenia and Georgia. To enhance the likelihood of adoption and hence success of ESD through integration of transdisciplinary case study teaching and learning approaches, interventions should do the following:

We believe that ESD is a way to contribute to sustainability in the Caucasus countries. It is crucial not only to adopt sustainable development approaches at the national and local levels but also to ensure their practical implementation in real-life cases. Close collaboration between universities and communities will foster the transformation of attitudes of academic and nonacademic stakeholders toward a sustainable future in the Caucasus mountain region.