In Colombian engineering education, environmental literacy has deep historical roots, yet its evolution toward a broader sustainability framework remains incomplete. Environmental Education (EE) entered national policy as early as 1974 through the “National Code of Natural Resources” and was reinforced by Law 99 of 1993, which established the National Environmental System (SINA). The 2002 Environmental Education Policy further entrenched EE across all levels of formal and non-formal education, promoting conservationist values and active engagement with natural resource protection.
By contrast, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has no dedicated national policy. While Article 80 of the 1991 Constitution mandates the State to ensure sustainable development in resource management, ESD’s formal integration into higher education has been slow. Efforts such as Law 1549 of 2012 reference sustainable development in environmental education, but without the explicit curricular frameworks seen in EE. This disparity has left engineering programs more aligned with EE’s protectionist ethos than with ESD’s integrated social, economic, and environmental balance.
A recent study surveyed 406 engineering students from eight Colombian universities, spanning disciplines from civil and mechanical to petroleum and agricultural engineering. The instrument, validated with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.8, paired Likert-scale questions on EE and ESD to directly compare perceptions and exposure. Results revealed that while nearly 80% of respondents “strongly agree” they understand both EE and ESD definitions, actual curricular exposure is uneven. Students reported more frequent EE-related instruction, with ESD content less prevalent in formal coursework.
Responses to questions on faculty preparedness underscored a need for greater instructor training, particularly in ESD. When asked about subject content ensuring knowledge of EE or sustainable development, significant minorities selected the lowest agreement options, reflecting gaps in curricular integration. Notably, over 60% expressed strong interest in adding dedicated EE and ESD subjects to their programs.
Open-ended responses highlighted that most EE and ESD learning occurred during regular classes, supplemented by congresses, conferences, and specialized training. However, the frequency of “none” in ESD-related answers signaled a pronounced deficit. Even non-formal activities tended to favor EE, reinforcing its dominance in the academic culture.
The study situates EE and ESD as philosophically distinct. EE, with origins in the 1970s, emphasizes environmental protection, conservation, and fostering a direct connection with nature. It has adapted to modern tools such as mobile applications and augmented reality, yet retains its conservationist core. ESD, emerging in the 1990s and propelled by the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and seeks to balance economic growth, social equity, and environmental stewardship. This anthropocentric orientation can create tension with EE’s protectionist stance, especially when economic development pressures risk overshadowing ecological priorities.
For engineers—professionals whose work inherently alters environments—ESD’s systems-level perspective offers critical tools for reconciling infrastructure development with sustainability imperatives. Yet the survey data indicate that Colombian engineering students are more accustomed to EE frameworks, potentially limiting their preparedness to address the integrated challenges of sustainable development.
The authors propose a mediating model: Environmental Education for Sustainable Development (EESD). This approach would merge EE’s environmental literacy with ESD’s socio-economic integration, reframing conservation within a sustainability context that still places the environment at the forefront. Such a model could address the conceptual blending observed among students, where EE and ESD overlap in practice despite theoretical differences.
Implementing EESD in engineering curricula would require policy support, faculty development, and curricular redesign to embed sustainability across technical subjects. The aim is to move beyond isolated environmental modules toward a holistic framework where engineers are trained to see natural systems, economic viability, and social well-being as interdependent design constraints.
Colombia’s current EE emphasis, shaped by decades of policy and practice, provides a foundation. However, without formalizing ESD in higher education policy, ambiguities will persist, and opportunities to align engineering education with global sustainability goals may be missed. The study’s findings offer both a diagnostic and a roadmap: leverage EE’s established presence, integrate ESD’s broader scope, and cultivate engineers capable of advancing sustainable development without compromising environmental integrity.