The United Nations' adoption in 2015 of the 2030 Agenda and its seventeen Sustainable Development Goals marked a turning point in the course of global policies, as reconciling the requirements of economic development, preserving environmental resources, and achieving social justice became a shared responsibility borne equally by governments, institutions, and individuals [3]. At the heart of this equation, higher education occupies a strategically pivotal position, as it is the most important incubator for preparing qualified cadres to lead the transformation towards more sustainable and just societies [4]. The university student is not merely a passive recipient of their discipline's knowledge, but rather a future citizen responsible for making life, social, and political decisions with highly significant sustainable dimensions. Hence, academic calls are growing to redesign higher education so that it is no longer limited to developing narrow specialized competencies, but extends to building comprehensive systemic awareness that encompasses the interconnections of contemporary environmental, social, and economic crises [5]. This transformation is considered a necessity rather than an option, in light of the accelerating climate crises, social inequalities, and economic instabilities that require an ambitious and renewed educational response. 

Despite this growing awareness, literature reviews reveal that higher education institutions in many developing countries, especially Arab institutions, still integrate sustainability concepts into their curricula in a marginal and non-systematic manner, characterized mostly by superficial presence rather than genuine depth [6]. Specifically in the Iraqi context, researchers agree that our universities suffer from a dual deficiency: a deficiency in including sustainability content in the curricula, and a deficiency in institutional awareness of the importance of such inclusion in the first place [7,8].

The current study emerges from this research space to explore the reality of understanding the principles of sustainable development among students at Wasit University, aiming to compare those receiving scientific and applied education in the Colleges of Science and Engineering with their counterparts in the Colleges of Arts and Education, which have a humanistic and social character. This is because the nature of the knowledge framework provided by each of these groups to its members is assumed to fundamentally reflect on the depth of understanding and the dimensions of sustainability most present in their knowledge base, which is an assumption that deserves careful empirical examination that this study seeks to provide.

The Problem of the Study

The value of scientific research is not limited to answering existing questions; it goes beyond that to uncover the gaps overlooked by daily academic practice. Among these gaps in the Iraqi university context is the problem of the absence of an integrated methodological understanding of the principles of sustainable development among university students, a group that will lead the national development path in the foreseeable future. The researcher observed during exploratory field visits to the four colleges of Wasit University included in this study that the concepts of sustainable development and its goals are almost completely absent from the approved curricula, and are only mentioned incidentally within some scientific courses, without receiving a deliberate methodological treatment that would make them a genuine part of the educational outcomes.

This problem becomes more acute in light of what studies document that mere academic achievement does not automatically generate awareness of sustainability [2], and that the gap between what a student knows and what they apply in their daily behavior is a deep structural gap that abstract theoretical knowledge does not fill [9]. Al-Khuza'ala [10] adds that, overall, Arab universities lack clear institutional strategies to promote a culture of sustainability among their students, making this culture dependent on informal learning and transient media awareness rather than the result of deliberate and organized education.

In light of this reality, a research problem emerges with two intertwined dimensions: the first is diagnostic, related to determining the current level of understanding of sustainable development principles among Wasit University students; the second is comparative, related to investigating whether the type of academic specialization and gender constitute actual explanatory factors in this understanding, or whether the reality is more complex than what intuitive assumptions suggest. In the absence of well-documented field studies addressing this issue specifically in Iraqi universities, the current study becomes a necessary research response to a clear knowledge gap. Accordingly, the main question of the study revolves around: Main question: What is the level of understanding of Wasit University students regarding the principles of sustainable development, and does this level vary significantly according to specialization (scientific/humanitarian) and gender? This main question gives rise to the following sub-questions: 

• What is the general level of understanding of Wasit University students regarding the four dimensions of sustainable development principles? 

• Are there statistically significant differences at the (α≤0.05) level in the level of understanding attributed to the variable of academic specialization?

• Are there statistically significant differences at the level (α≤0.05) in the level of understanding attributed to the variable of gender?

• In which dimensions of understanding does the gap between the two specializations appear more clearly?

Study Objectives

This study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

• Monitoring and diagnosing the current level of Wasit University students' understanding of the principles of sustainable development in its four dimensions.

• Conducting an in-depth analytical comparison between the level of understanding of students in scientific disciplines and their peers in humanities disciplines.

• Revealing the significance of differences in the level of understanding according to the variable of gender.

• Identifying the cognitive dimensions most lacking in each group to guide methodological development efforts.

• Providing practical, evidence-based recommendations that contribute to supporting educational decision-makers at Wasit University.

Importance of the Study

Theoretical Importance: This study provides a cognitive contribution to the literature on Education for Sustainable Development from the perspective of an Iraqi university, which has long remained outside the scope of serious research attention, making any field contribution in this context doubly valuable. The study also tests the validity of theoretical hypotheses related to the impact of academic specialization on shaping sustainability knowledge frameworks in a cultural and academic environment with distinct characteristics, allowing its results to be compared with those of foreign studies to verify generalizability or identify contextual differences.

On a deeper level, the study contributes to enriching the theoretical discussion about the nature of the behavioral gap in the context of sustainability, as it provides new empirical evidence supporting the argument that this gap is a structural phenomenon that goes beyond the limits of specialization and reflects deeper institutional shortcomings, not merely a lack of knowledge. Additionally, the study offers a methodological model that can be replicated in other Iraqi and Arab universities whose researchers wish to study the same subject using standardized tools and unified criteria.

Practical Importance 

The practical importance of this study is evident at multiple interrelated levels. At the level of the university institution, it provides a documented field database that enables the administration of Wasit University and the deanships of its colleges to make developmental decisions based on evidence rather than intuitive estimates; it accurately identifies the weakest cognitive dimensions in each major and guides systematic development efforts toward their proper objectives. 

At the level of national educational policy, the study offers field-based evidence urging the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research to review academic accreditation requirements to explicitly include sustainable development criteria, which is a direction advocated by the UNESCO document [11] and emphasized by the 2030 Agenda. Moreover, the study provides an Arabized and adapted standardized tool for the Iraqi environment, bridging a clear methodological gap in local educational research, as this research suffers from a scarcity of standardized measures suitable for the Iraqi cultural context in the field of sustainability [7].

Scope of the Study

The study was limited to students of Wasit University, in Wasit Governorate, Republic of Iraq, and its sample included students from four colleges: the College of Science and the College of Engineering as representatives of scientific disciplines, and the College of Arts and the College of Education as representatives of humanities disciplines. Temporally, the study was conducted during the academic year 2024-2025, in the months from February to May 2025. As for the thematic scope, the study was restricted to measuring cognitive understanding and its related behavioral dimension through the approved study instrument, without extending to independently measuring affective attitudes and values. Regarding the human aspect, the results pertain to regular undergraduate students, and it is not recommended to generalize them to graduate students or other colleges not included in the research.

Terminology of the Operational Study

Sustainable Development: In this study, it refers to the system of principles and objectives aimed at achieving a dynamic balance between three interconnected systems: the economy, society, and the environment. This balance ensures the needs of current generations are met while preserving the rights of future generations to their resources. This system is embodied in the seventeen goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda [12].

Level of Understanding

Operationally, in this study, this is expressed by the student's overall score on the modified Michalos et al. [1] scale. This score reflects the depth of their understanding of the core concepts of sustainable development, their awareness of its environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and their ability to translate this awareness into practical life practices.

Scientific Disciplines

This study includes students from the College of Science and the College of Engineering at Wasit University, encompassing programs in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and various branches of engineering. 

Humanities Disciplines

These disciplines include students from the College of Arts and the College of Education at Wasit University, and encompass programs in Arabic Language, History, Geography, Sociology, Educational Psychology, and Psychological Counseling.

Chapter Two

Theoretical Framework and Previous Studies

Concept of Sustainable Development in its Historical Development: The concept of sustainable development cannot be understood in isolation from the historical trajectory that led to its crystallization and establishment as a global reference point. The first inklings of this concept began with the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, which brought about a qualitative shift in the way the international community thought about the relationship between economic progress and environmental safety [13]. The "Limits to Growth" report, issued in the same year by the Club of Rome, documented, with figures and mathematical models, the impossibility of continuing on a path of unlimited growth in light of dwindling natural resources.

However, the turning point in the history of this concept was the 1987 report "Our Common Future" by the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. This report provided a benchmark definition that remains a reference point for researchers, legislators, and international institutions to this day: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [12]. What makes this definition so impactful is that it shifted the focus of development toward the future and established intergenerational responsibility as a non-negotiable ethical principle.

Following this came a series of pivotal international milestones: the Rio Conference in 1992 and Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Conference in 2002, the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, culminating in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations member states in 2015. This agenda represents, to date, the most comprehensive international roadmap for addressing major humanitarian challenges across their interconnected environmental, social, and economic dimensions [3]. In the Iraqi context, the translation of this agenda into actual academic programs is still underway, while the Ministry of Planning [14] documents a national trend toward aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals that requires a tangible impact on the structure of higher education.

The Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development

The analytical framework for sustainable development is based on three interconnected dimensions, and true sustainability can only be achieved through their integration [15]. These dimensions are often depicted as overlapping circles, the intersection of which represents the true zone of sustainability.

The Environmental Dimension

This dimension focuses on preserving ecosystems and biodiversity, combating pollution, addressing the climate crisis, and transitioning to renewable energy. In the Iraqi context, these issues are particularly relevant given the deterioration of the river system, the worsening desertification and water scarcity, and the increasing frequency of heat waves and dust storms [16]. Studies indicate that students in scientific disciplines possess a greater understanding of this specific dimension [17].

The Economic Dimension

This dimension is concerned with achieving equitable economic growth that reduces development gaps at both the local and global levels and establishes sustainable production and consumption models that integrate environmental considerations into the core of economic activity. Among the most prominent mechanisms of this dimension are the green economy and the circular economy, which transforms the principle of waste reduction into an economic opportunity rather than a burden [18]. It is likely that students in the humanities are better prepared to grasp this dimension, given their curricula which focus on economic and social analysis.

The Social Dimension

This dimension represents the human conscience of sustainable development. It addresses issues of social justice, equal opportunities, and the guarantee of fundamental rights such as education, health, and safe housing for all members of society, regardless of their affiliations. This dimension is particularly important in the Iraqi context, which suffers from deep social and geographical inequalities that are partly the legacy of decades of accumulated crises [8].

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is a transformative educational approach that goes beyond simply transferring knowledge to building the competencies, values, and skills necessary to shape a more just and sustainable future. A UNESCO document [4] identifies five core competencies that this type of education should cultivate in learners: systems thinking, future-oriented thinking, values-based thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and critical thinking. These competencies converge on a deeper goal: to develop an active citizen capable of moving from understanding to influencing.

At the university level, Wals [5] observes a gap between institutional discourse advocating for sustainability and the reality of curricula that still treat this subject as an optional addition rather than a fundamental pillar. He argues that genuine transformation requires a complete reimagining of the philosophy of higher education, not merely the introduction of one or two courses. This approach aligns with what Abu Daf [9] emphasized regarding the necessity of shifting from education about sustainability to education for and through sustainability.

In this context, UNESCO is increasingly focused on integrating sustainability principles into higher education through its ambitious "ESD for 2030" program, which calls upon universities to become learning environments that embody sustainability in their culture, governance, and practices before teaching it in their classrooms [11].

The Impact of Academic Specialization on Shaping the Understanding of Sustainability

Educational literature acknowledges that academic specialization not only provides students with specific knowledge content but also shapes their thinking patterns and lenses for interpreting reality [19]. An environmental engineer trained in monitoring carbon emissions and designing climate adaptation solutions naturally possesses a cognitive advantage in the technical dimensions of environmental sustainability, while a sociology graduate has more nuanced analytical skills for understanding the human dimensions of poverty, inequality, and marginalization.

Zsóka et al. [17] empirically confirmed this conclusion, demonstrating that the environmental superiority of natural science students does not extend to other dimensions of sustainability. In the Arab context, Al-Khaza’leh [10] documented a similar disparity between disciplines in different dimensions of understanding. Al-Rubaie [7] adds that this disparity primarily reflects shortcomings in Iraqi university curricula, which neglect to include integrated sustainability content.

Previous Studies

The following is a presentation of the most prominent studies related to the research topic:

A review of previous studies reveals three key findings: First, university students' understanding of sustainable development principles is generally at an average level, regardless of geographical or cultural context [10,2]. Second, academic specialization is a crucial variable in determining the area in which a student excels in knowledge and understanding, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach [17]. Third, the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical behavior is a structural phenomenon that cannot be resolved by knowledge accumulation alone; rather, it requires a learning environment that encourages action and participation [5,9].

The current study is distinguished by the fact that it: 

• tests these findings within an Iraqi university context that has not received sufficient research attention.

• It includes gender as a moderating variable, which most previous studies in the local context have overlooked. 

• It employs an international scale adapted to the Iraqi environment, rather than instruments designed for the Western context. 

• It uses the college as the unit of analysis, rather than the abstract discipline, allowing for a more accurate and in-depth comparison.

Table 1: Summary of Relevant Previous Studies

The studies were arranged from newest to oldest, with priority given to Arabic studies

Study Methodology and Procedures

Study Methodology: The study adopted the descriptive-comparative method, which allows for an accurate description of phenomena in their current state, followed by a controlled comparison between two or more groups to identify statistically significant differences and measure their effect size [20]. This method is considered the most suitable for the study's objectives, which aim for comparative diagnosis rather than experimental intervention.

Study Population and Sample

Study Population: The study population consists of undergraduate students enrolled in the four targeted colleges: the College of Science and the College of Engineering (scientific disciplines), and the College of Arts and the College of Education (humanities disciplines), during the second semester of the 2024-2025 academic year at Wasit University, Republic of Iraq.

Sample and Selection Method: The study sample was selected using convenience sampling due to procedural considerations related to field application. The final sample consisted of (200) male and female students, equally distributed across the four colleges with (50) students from each college, ensuring balanced representation of both genders and the various academic departments within each college. The sample distribution is as follows in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of Sample Members by College, Specialization, and Gender

The Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Engineering together represent the group of scientific disciplines (n = 100), and the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Education represent the group of humanities disciplines (n = 100)

The Study Instrument

Description and Origin of the Scale: This study adopted the Sustainable Development Understanding Scale, originally developed by Michalos et al. [1] in the Canadian context, to measure the cognitive and behavioral competencies related to sustainability among university students. Leal Filho et al. [2] subjected this scale to extensive international validation across twenty countries, demonstrating high reliability and validity, making it the most widely used reference in international comparative studies in this field. For the current study, the researcher made significant modifications to the original scale, including:

• Translating the items into precise, scientific Arabic that adheres to the terminological accuracy of the Arabic language.

• Adapting the examples and contexts to reflect environmental, social, and economic issues relevant to the Iraqi context.

• Removing the items that the reviewers deemed unsuitable for the local cultural environment. The scale, in its final form, includes (60) items according to a five-point Likert scale (1 = I don't know at all to 5 = I know very well) distributed across five axes:

Instrument Validity

Validity was verified through two integrated levels: first, expert validity, where the scale was presented to a committee of ten faculty members specializing in education, psychology, environment, and social sciences at Wasit and Baghdad Universities. Items achieving an agreement rate of at least 80% were adopted. Second, construct validity, where confirmatory factor analysis on a pilot sample of (45) students revealed acceptable factor saturations for all items (λ>0.45) with good fit indices (CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06).

Table 3: Structure of the modified Michalos et al. [1] scale and its item distribution

The levels of understanding are determined according to the following standard (Al-Zahrani, 2021: 167): Low (1.00 – 2.33), Medium (2.34 – 3.67), and High (3.68 – 5.00)

Instrument Reliability

Reliability was estimated using two methods: Cronbach's alpha coefficient for internal consistency and the two-week test-retest method (n = 45). The results are presented as follows in Table 4.

Table 4: Cronbach's alpha coefficient values ​​for the axes of the Michalos et al. scale. [1] Revised

Note: The correlation coefficient in the test-retest method is 0.86, which indicates the instrument's reliability over time

The recorded values ​​indicate high reliability, qualifying the instrument for field application according to the standards adopted in psychological and educational measurement [21].

Statistical Methods

The study data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 and the following statistical methods:

• Arithmetic means and standard deviations to describe levels of understanding at the dimension and overall scale levels.

• Independent samples t-test to compare the scientific and humanities disciplines.

• Independent samples t-test to compare the male and female groups.

• One-way ANOVA to compare the four colleges.

• Pearson's correlation coefficient to identify relationships between the scale dimensions.

• Eta-squared (η²) to measure the practical effect size of statistically significant differences.

The statistical significance level (α≤0.05) was adopted as the standard for all tests. 

Results Related to the General Level of Understanding of Sustainable Development Principles

The results in Table 5 reveal an overall level of understanding that falls within the medium range (M = 3.07, P = 0.56), reflecting the systematic absence of sustainable development content in the curricula of the four colleges included in the study. The environmental dimension tops the scale (M = 3.28), likely driven by the environmental content provided, albeit indirectly, by the scientific disciplines' curricula, as well as the extensive coverage of climate issues by social media and other media outlets [22].

Conversely, the behavior and practice dimension ranks last (M = 2.79) within the low range, illustrating the structural gap between knowledge and action identified by Leal Filho et al. [2] on a global scale. Abu Daf [9] argues that this gap is not bridged by the accumulation of theoretical knowledge but requires an educational environment that cultivates the motivation and practical skills for sustainable action. This result is remarkably consistent with what Al-Khaza'leh [10] observed in the Jordanian context, indicating that the common ground among Arab universities in this area is deeper than what individual studies reveal.

Table 5: Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations of the Overall Scale and its Dimensions (n ​​= 200)

M = arithmetic mean, P = standard deviation. Interpretation criteria: low (1.00–2.33), medium (2.34–3.67), high (3.68–5.00)

Results of the Comparison Between Scientific and Humanities Disciplines

The results in Table 6 reveal a complex web of differences that goes beyond the simplistic notion of one discipline being superior to another. In the environmental dimension, science students demonstrate a significant advantage (m = 3.71 vs. m = 2.86) with a large effect size (η² = 0.19). This likely reflects the inclusion of explicit environmental content in physics, chemistry, and biology curricula, which regularly expose students to concepts such as climate change, ecosystems, and resource management. Zsóka et al. [17] documented this same advantage in a different context, suggesting a structural effect inherent in the nature of science education.

In contrast, humanities students demonstrate a significant advantage in both the economic (m = 3.17 vs. m = 2.68, η² = 0.12) and social (m = 3.36 vs. m = 2.83, η² = 0.14) dimensions. This superiority seems logical in light of the specialized analytical tools provided by geography, history, sociology, and educational psychology curricula for understanding the social and economic dynamics of human societies [13].

The most significant indication is the absence of statistically significant differences in the behavior and practice dimension (p = 0.231), suggesting that the behavioral gap affects both groups equally and is not addressed by the current university education system. In the researcher's view, this conclusion constitutes the strongest evidence for the need for new educational approaches that instill sustained action, not merely knowledge of it.

Table 6: Results of the t-test comparing the level of understanding between students of the two disciplines (n for scientific disciplines = 100, n for humanities disciplines = 100)

*Statistically significant at (α≤0.05). η²: < 0.06 small, 0.06–0.14 medium, >0.14 large

Comparison Results by Gender Variable

Table 7 shows that gender has a limited statistically significant impact on the overall level of understanding (p = 0.112), with no significant overall differences recorded. However, further examination of the sub-dimensions reveals two interesting and significant effects: males outperformed females in the environmental dimension (m = 3.41 vs. m = 3.14, p = 0.008) with a small effect size (η² = 0.04), and females outperformed females in the social dimension (m = 3.18 vs. m = 3.02, p = 0.042), also with a small effect size.

The male superiority in the environmental dimension can be explained by their higher representation in engineering disciplines that include environmental and technical content, while the female superiority in the social dimension aligns with studies that have observed a higher inclination among female students towards humanitarian and social issues [22]. These differences remain of limited practical significance, indicating that gender is not a pivotal explanatory variable in this research context, unlike specialization, which has proven to have a greater and more consistent impact.

Table 7: Results of the t-test for comprehension level between males and females (n males = 97, n females = 103)

*Statistically significant at (α≤0.05). Effect size is small for all significant differences

Discussion of Results in Light of the Theoretical Framework and Previous Studies

The results of this study can be placed within a broader theoretical framework that explains the patterns of knowledge gaps according to specialization frameworks. Students in scientific disciplines and students in humanities disciplines differ not only in the quantity of knowledge about sustainable development but also in the nature of the cognitive dimensions they focus on, which aligns with the theory of specialization-specific cognitive frameworks [19]. While scientific education prepares individuals to understand natural systems and their crises, humanities education provides them with the tools to analyze the social and economic structures that determine the distribution of opportunities and resources.

This research adds a dimension to the theoretical approach that is absent in many studies: the equal behavioral gap between the two groups. If the knowledge gap is explained by specialized frameworks, then the unified behavioral gap points to a common factor that transcends specialization: the absence of an institutional sustainability environment that transforms awareness into a way of life. Wals [5] argues that universities that do not embody sustainability in their institutional culture, architecture, restaurants, and transportation policies cannot cultivate genuine sustainable behaviors, no matter how lofty the teaching rhetoric in their classrooms.

In light of the study's findings, the following conclusions can be formulated with reasonable confidence:

• University of Wasit students' understanding of the principles of sustainable development is at an average level, revealing a basic awareness nurtured more by media and informal education than by formal university curricula.

• The knowledge frameworks of the disciplines produce a structural disparity in the dimensions of understanding: scientific disciplines dominate the environmental dimension, while humanities disciplines dominate the economic and social dimensions. 

• The behavioral gap, equally evident in both groups, is the most serious feature of these results, as it indicates a structural institutional deficiency that cannot be addressed by adding a single course.

• The gender variable has a limited and non-comprehensive statistical effect, suggesting that specialization is a stronger and more consistent explanatory variable.

Recommendations

• Iraqi universities should adopt a mandatory general university course entitled "Sustainable Development: Principles and Applications," taught to all students regardless of their college or specialization. This course should focus on integrating the three dimensions and connecting them to the local context in Wasit Governorate.

• Universities should establish an institutional sustainability unit to coordinate research and educational efforts and measure indicators.

• Joint research and educational projects should be encouraged between the Colleges of Science and Engineering, on the one hand, and the Colleges of Arts and Education, on the other, to address sustainability issues using multidisciplinary approaches.

• Project-based learning (PBL) methodologies with a sustainability focus should be adopted to reduce the behavioral gap. 

Research Proposals

The current study proposes the following:

• A comparative study among several Iraqi universities to test the generalizability of the current findings.

• An experimental study to measure the effectiveness of a proposed teaching program in raising students' awareness of sustainable development concepts.

1. Michalos, A.C. et al. “Measuring Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours Concerning Sustainable Development among Tenth Grade Students in Manitoba.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 106, no. 2, 2012, pp. 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9809-6. 

2. Leal Filho, W. et al. “Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Teaching at Universities: Falling Behind or Getting Ahead of the Pack?” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 232, 2019, pp. 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309. 

3. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution A/RES/70/1). United Nations General Assembly, 2015. 

4. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO Publishing, 2017. 

5. Wals, A.E.J. “Sustainability in Higher Education in the Context of the UN DESD: A Review of Learning and Institutionalization Processes.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 62, 2014, pp. 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007. 

6. Alshuwaikhat, H.M., and I. Abubakar. “An Integrated Approach to Achieving Campus Sustainability: Assessment of the Current Campus Environmental Management Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, no. 16, 2008, pp. 1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002. 

7. Al-Rubaie, Kadhim Manhal. “The Reality of Environmental Education in Iraqi Universities and the Requirements for Its Development in Light of Comprehensive Quality Standards.” Journal of Arts of Kufa, University of Kufa, no. 35, 2018, pp. 29–58. 

8. Al-Shammari, Awad Jassim. “Iraqi University Students' Attitudes Towards Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development.” Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Human Sciences, Al-Qadisiyah University, vol. 20, no. 3, 2017, pp. 115–140. 

9. Abu Daf, Mahmoud Khalil. “Education for Sustainable Development: Vision and Challenges.” Journal of the Islamic University for Educational and Psychological Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1–34. 

10. Al-Khaza'leh, Muhammad Salameh. “The Level of Awareness of Sustainable Development Concepts Among University of Jordan Students.” Journal of Educational Sciences Studies, University of Jordan, vol. 46, no. 4, 2019, pp. 327–344. 

11. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. UNESCO Publishing, 2020. 

12. Brundtland, G.H., editor. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, 1987. 

13. Ayasrah, Maan Ali, and Yousef Muhammad Farhan. Sustainable Development and Education: Visions and Starting Points. Dar Al-Hamid for Publishing and Distribution, 2018. 

14. Iraqi Ministry of Planning. The Sustainable Development Framework in Iraq 2030: Vision, Goals, and Indicators. General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, 2022. 

15. Purvis, B. et al. “Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins.” Sustainability Science, vol. 14, no. 3, 2019, pp. 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. 

16. Supreme Council for Planning and Development. Second National Report on Sustainable Development. Ministry of Planning, Republic of Iraq, 2021. 

17. Zsóka, Á. et al. “Greening Due to Environmental Education? Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, Consumer Behavior and Everyday Pro-Environmental Activities of Hungarian High School and University Students.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 48, 2013, pp. 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030. 

18. Costanza, R. et al. “Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services.” Global Environmental Change, vol. 26, 2015, pp. 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002. 

19. Hamdan, Muhammad Ziyad, and Khalid Muhammad Abu Sha'ira. “Higher Education and the Requirements of Sustainable Development: A Critical Perspective.” Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Education and Psychology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 37–62. 

20. Obaidat, Thawqan, and Suhaila Abu Al-Smeed. Scientific Research Methodology in Education and the Humanities. 3rd ed., Dar Al-Fikr for Publishing and Distribution, 2016.

21. Nunnally, J.C., and I.H. Bernstein. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1994. 

22. Al-Harbi, Abdullah bin Saad. “Environmental Awareness Among Saudi University Students and Its Relationship to Some Demographic Variables.” Journal of the Message of Education and Psychology, Saudi Association for Educational and Psychological Sciences, no. 70, 2020, pp. 11–42.