Conference Agenda

Ecological crises are the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment (UNESCO, 2019). They encompass issues that we must tackle from a wide range of angles as a global society. Aligning education policies and practices with sustainability objectives is paramount. Educating our youth to lead more sustainable lifestyles and in harmony with nature must be a pillar for the social and economic changes we must undergo in the next 30 years. The 1977 Tbilisi UN conference focused on environmental issues and education and it was stated that human activities may have ‘detrimental and possibly irreversible consequences’ on the environment (UNESCO, 1997). It was also determined that education would have to play a crucial role in the face of environmental issues (UNESCO, 1997).

Climate change is not a scientific problem, but rather a social and economic one. Teaching students about such a complex and politicized topic, how to be critical thinkers or life-long learners is not neutral nor it is context neutral (Perkins et al., 2018). The fact that Education for Sustainability (EfS) is fundamental to redirecting teaching and learning upon our climate emergency has been widely accepted in academy and in the international organisations’ arena. However, there seems to be little consensus about what EfS should look like, who and how it should be provided and how to adapt pedagogical practices to ensure its effectiveness (Reid, 2019).

The relationship between human development and environmental impact is complex. People with high educational achievements living in the Global North are more likely to have a larger carbon footprint, which is harmful to local and global ecosystems. This is often due to an overall higher consumption of goods, food and water waste, as well as high CO2 emissions as a result of regular use of cars and aeroplanes(Wals and Benavot, 2017) Conversely, access to environmental education and knowledge about climate change and ecology has promoted behavioural change towards recycling, reducing waste and energy use and selecting less carbon-intensive methods of transport if possible. This implies that some types of education prove to be effective in increasing care for the environment at the local and global levels (Wals and Benavot, 2017).

Education for Sustainability (EfS) -or Transformative Education for Sustainability- (Laininen, 2019) can be both instrumental and emancipatory. It can help to create citizens who are aware of environmental issues and provide them with tools to act. It investigates ways of living in a more sustainable manner with the environment and with the rest of society. This type of education tends to promote learning by doing, collaboration, participation and transformation in nature. In some cases, it involves questioning not only how we live but also production and consumption systems, local eco-social problems and how they relate to global issues, as well as carrying out action and awareness campaigns. One of the main objectives of this type of education is to promote more just and environmentally sustainable societies.

This research has the following central questions:

• How can we educate our youth (11-15) towards more sustainable lifestyles?

• What are the main characteristics of projects that focus on transformative education towards sustainability in three school projects that claim to focus on EfS? How can we evaluate and monitor them?

• What policies and practices have been adopted by the educational community? How have the different actors across the educational community interpreted the schools’ policies and practices?

• What is the relationship between the context in which the project is immersed and its EfS proposal?

Education and raising awareness should be one of the primary roles of the institutions that work in biodiversity conservation. Fundació MONA (MONA) is a primate sanctuary that provides housing for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus), two primate species that are in at risk of extinction. Primates rescued by MONA sanctuary were victims of illegal wildlife trade and they were used as TV and circus stars, advertising models or pets. The main objective of Fundació MONA is to give a second chance to this primates, in a place where they can live in the best possible natural conditions, surrounded by others of their kind and looked after by professional care-givers who provide them with food and other basic needs.

Linked to this work with primates, MONA counts with a conservation education program, as one of its statutory objectives. The main goal of this program is to provide participants with knowledge, which is the first step to promote attitudes and behaviours towards the conservation of primates’ wildlife and their welfare. The program includes different educational activities addressed and adapted to general public and students. These are based in a visit to the sanctuary facilities, during which the educator develops different topics using the life stories of the animals.

General public visits are carried out during weekends and holidays and comprises participants with a wide range of ages, from adults to children and teenagers who come with their families. This group called “general public” was the subject of this study, themain goal wasto evaluate the impact generated by the educational activities in which they participated during their time at the MONA sanctuary. The final purpose was to understand if the activities fulfil their function. In order to achieve this goal, an evaluation and a measure of the impact on their knowledge and attitudes toward primate conservation and welfare, was carried out.

Conservation education programs have been implemented by different organizations as a tool to increase the knowledge and attitudes toward biodiversity conservation (Ardoin et al., 2020; Borchers et al., 2013; Burnett et al., 2016; Chalmin-Pui & Perkins, 2017; Clayton, 2017; Hacker & Miller, 2016). However, since the conceptualization of Environmental Education (Stapp, 1969), there has been an intense debate among the experts about which is the best method to evaluated this kind of programs (Fien et al., 2001). One of the most used method to evaluate and measure the impact of conservation education programs is focused on the knowledge, the attitudes , the pro-conservation behaviours, and the relationship between them (Marcinkowski & Reid, 2019).

Many authors have theorized about the definitions of these words. One of the most accepted definition for Attitudes is the one proposed by Allport (1935), who defined them as: “a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related.”(p. 810). Regarding to pro-conservation behaviours, we can consider the theory proposed by Stern (2000), defined as: “from the actor’s standpoint as behaviour that is undertaken with the intention to change (normally, to benefit) the environment” (p.408). The relationship between this two concepts is based in the Theory of Planned Behaviour proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1991; 1975). This theory defends that people act in accordance with their intentions and perceptions of control over behaviour, while intentions are in turn influenced by attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control.

Considering those definitions, the model Knowledge – Attitudes – Behaviour has been used to evaluate and measure the impact of conservation education programs.

It is not novel to say we need a new paradigm or new approaches in Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE). Writing in 2010, halfway through the UN Decade for Sustainable Development, Pace looks back at what had been achieved in terms of Environment Education tracing it back to its roots in the Tbilisi IGC; He dares suggest we have been ‘preoccupied with what version is currently in fashion’ rather than action. Pace positively concludes this is ‘part of an educational process that is contextually relevant, participatory, emancipatory and leading towards sustainable development’ (2010, p.322). Since then, there was what Gough (2016) describes as ‘a materialist turn’ (p.55), with contributions like McPhie and Clarke’s (2015, 2020) amongst others.

I am looking at ESE outside of formal schooling. Ardoin and Heimlich (2021) suggest that learning ‘happens across a variety of biophysical and sociocultural settings, experiences, and contexts and is recognised as being life wide; … … [is] ‘life-deep, or influenced by one’s culture, values, beliefs and ideologies’ (p.1682). The survival of humanity and all creatures on Earth is an issue that according to Deane-Drummond (2008) touches deeply on our sense of meaning and purpose: ‘it is hard to talk meaningfully about ecology … … without also speaking about religion and theology’ (p.11).

In ESE (and EE) literature there has been little focus on Christian ESE. Cholil and Parker (2021) suggest that it is important for the broader EE research community to consider religious EE because just as like some New Materialist approaches, it is interested in ‘exploring the more-than-human world [and] how we can get away from anthropocentrism’ (2021, p.1778). Integral ecology is one of the elements of Christian EE, also identified as one of the intellectual responses to climate change, and the Anthropocene (Ivakhiv, 2014; Clarke, 2017). Integral ecology is described by Pope Francis in his letter to all humanity: Laudato Si, On care of our common home as call ‘to openness to categories which transcend the language of Mathematics and Biology and takes us to the heart of what it is to be human’ (LS11).

There is considerable action on the Christian ESE front (Howles, et al 2018; Kureethadam, 2019), spurred by Laudato Si, where a whole chapter (6) deals with ‘Ecological Education and Spirituality’ highlighting the importance placed on education (LS15). It is interesting that there has been little articulation or focus on links between Christian EE and ESE. This can prove to be an avenue for possibility, and an alternative way of looking past dualisms, as suggested by New Materialists.

There is no better time for ESE to ‘explore and apply various forms of post-humanist and new materialist theory in rigorous but creative ways’ (Mannion 2020, p.1353). Similarly, I suggest focusing on emerging New Materialist themes in the Christian EE/ESE context, building on them, and exploring new connections: adding to work by Clarke and Mcphie (2020) in their introduction to the special issue of Environment Education Research: New Materialisms and Environmental Education.

In a climate emergency, in any emergency, we need all hands on deck. ‘If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out’ (LS63). Hungerford and Volk in their 1990 paper differentiate between information giving, and the more challenging task of behaviour change. Building on Latour’s lectures, amongst others, in their paper on an Ecological citizenship, Howles et al suggest a ‘potential overlap’ between New Materialist concepts and Laudato Si: it is that which I explore in my research.