Conference Agenda

Concerning the topic of higher education for sustainable development, Rieckmann (2012) and Barth et al. (2007) have addressed key competences for sustainable development. These studies consider future-oriented higher education through the promotion of different types of thinking: a systematic type, an anticipatory type and a critical type. Barth (2011) has also addressed the integration of sustainability in education through changes in higher education; while Barth et al. (2011) have addressed the students’ points of view on higher education as an innovative approach to make changes to education. Among other issues, it has been identified the challenge of transfer sustainable development approaches to universities (Adomssent et al., 2007), analysis of a transdisciplinary approach to teaching sustainability (Scholz et al., 2006) and the ethics of sustainability addressed by Biedenweg et al. (2013). In the case of the Technical University of the North of Ecuador, Barth and Rieckmann (2012) addressed the role of academic staff in guiding higher education towards a sustainable development approach. The study confirmed that competencies of academic staff are an essential prerequisite to achieve a paradigm shift in the approach of higher education for sustainable development. Peer et al. (2011) have addressed the role of universities as agents of change for sustainability. They conducted two case studies on the analysis of infrastructure for waste and energy management, highlighting the contribution of universities to local and regional development. These studies considered a conceptual framework based on the theory of teaching-planning-implementation. Bauer et al. (2018) recognize that Higher Education Institutions are not only virtual locations, but actual buildings that present their own sustainability challenges, stating as for example resource procurement and supply chain management, energy use and waste disposal.

According to Velázquez (2006), the focus of "sustainability on campus" is a recent debate in the discussion of strategies for promoting sustainability in universities. While some projects, programs or initiatives in education, research and communication are being implemented since the early seventies, sustainability initiatives on campus begun until the late nineties. With this research it is expected to expand the knowledge on the adaptation of campuses management and built environment toward a more sustainable system, considering the statement of Sonetti et al (2015) when highlighting the role of management capacities for a social responsibility transition.

The general objective of the research is to create a holistic “Sustainable University” model that enables an “ideal” university campus and built environment as a living laboratory for territorial development. This objective will be addressed through the definition of tools and methodologies for the comparison of sustainable university campuses and its institutional decision-making mechanisms when considering the higher education for sustainable development approach.

As stated previously, though higher education for sustainable development (HESD) has been approached broadly, it has been little addressed the role of territorial management in the context of HESD and its relationship with the concept of “sustainable campus”. Against this background, a Systematic Literature Review is being conducted to address the following research question: “What are the main and common variables that typify a holistic management model of an ’ideal’ sustainable university campus as a living laboratory for territorial development?”. The specific objective of the systematic literature review is to identify the State-of-the-art in the scientific debate of the relationship between the university campus-built environment characteristics and territorial management under the umbrella of higher education for sustainable development.

The central concept of the paper encompasses the learning characteristics achieved and developed through Forest Schools (FS) and the wider implications FS has for pupils and practice. The paper covers the pilot study and results and answers several research questions including: How do the experiences of Forest School support and develop characteristics of learning?

A recent movement in culture originating within the Scandinavian education system created a realignment in pedagogy across Europe that refocused learning on the outdoors and increasingly on Forest Schools (Sääkslahti, 2022). Outdoor education and Forest Schools were received positively by teachers, leading to a paradigm shift emerging within Britain in the 1990s and continues today (Mann et al., 2021). The same shift in practice and pedagogy has been seen in the development of new style playgrounds in Germany that encourage risk taking opportunities as well as the increase in Forest School and other outdoor learning within the UK. The initial influx of Forest School and its adaptation into schools has also begun to be seen within other countries such as America and Canada. Those within formal education have increasingly looked towards alternative provision to support pupils in classrooms but until recently Forest School and other outdoor learning provisions have lacked the research support for it to become an evidence-based practice within schools. This research fits into this year’s conference theme in several ways, it highlights the need for pedagogical change as well as learning context and culture. Forest School itself is also a force for inclusion as it should be available for all.

The pilot study results were derived from the pupils lived experiences and narratives, providing an insight into the lived experiences and possible skills gained through children’s attendance within forest school, meeting a documented need in education currently to provide recommendations for practice. Having multiple roles as researcher, FS leader and educator led to careful consideration of approach therefore, Interpretive phenomenology (IP) formed the epistemological, ontological, and theoretical underpinning of the study to reflect on and embrace the challenges and consideration of insider research. IP is socially constructed, and information is interpreted through roles such as practitioner and pupil, as well as symbols and values (Argarwal and Sandiford, 2022). Using this approach ensured three core benefits: it embraced the idea of insider researcher reducing conflict between researcher and practitioner roles, it supported symbolic and complex meaning to be understood from the words used by the participants within the Forest School context, and thirdly it provided a framework to conduct the research within the ethical guidelines and welfare principles of the Forest School setting. Forest School is grounded within practices and principles that put children’s wishes at the centre of Forest School practitioner’s planning and actions, these principles concur with IP’s theoretical underpinnings.

The paper contains the initial pilot study results and findings derived from this. This includes changes to the study and initial themes drawn from the participant’s discourse. The pilot study allowed reflexivity and introspection which lead to an understanding of the changes required to make the research more impactful and insightful which is reflected within the paper. The pilot study also provided several insights and aligned with theory that outdoor education and Forest School are beneficial and increased understanding in this area which will be covered within the conference session.

The paper and related study are part of a professional doctorate and as such must meet the strict criteria of ethics set out by the University. The paper introduces FS as well as provoking conversation and discussion about the future of learning and implications for future practice.