Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 06 D: ESE in Times of Crisis and Disaster
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Learning from Crisis: An Analysis of Post-Disaster Education Policy Implementation in Indonesia 1: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States of America; 2: Department of Asian Studies, Lund University, Sweden; 3: Department of Learning and Leadersip, University of College London, United Kingdom Presenting Author:As of 2019, Indonesia retained approximately 90–94 million hectares of tropical forest underscoring its global ecological significance (GFW, 2025; IRI, 2019). However, the expansion of extractive industries has contributed to substantial ecological degradation, intensifying environmental vulnerability. The consequences of this crisis were evident in a series of major disasters in Aceh, West Sumatra, and North Sumatra in late 2025, which resulted in more than one thousand deaths, displaced nearly 400,000 people, and triggered a large-scale humanitarian emergency (Ramdhani, 2025; WALHI & Greenpeace, 2025). In these post-disaster contexts, the education sector emerges as one of severely affected due to damage to school infrastructure, prolonged disruptions to learning, the displacement of students and teachers, and children’s trauma. This paper examines post-disaster education policy in Indonesia over the last two decades. It addresses two primary research questions: (1) How has post-disaster education policy been implemented in Indonesia since the early 2000s? and (2) How can insights from past experiences inform policy responses to emerging and future disasters? To answer these questions, the paper adopts a qualitative policy analysis framework that integrates three analytical perspectives: social and political, educational, and children’s rights. The first results of this paper are drawn in three central perspectives, social and political, educational, and children’s rights. The social and political perspective examines aspects of disaster management in Indonesia: policy reform, decentralization, and negotiations among actors and institutions. It focuses on the social and political dimensions of disaster management over the last two decades, with particular attention to implications for the education sector. The discussion begins by tracing the chronology of disaster management policy reforms since the early 2000s, encompassing both natural and non-natural disasters. It highlights the legal framework for disaster management, particularly Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management. The educational perspective examines the implementation of post-disaster school infrastructure reconstruction, including the schools’ physical building, curriculum and learning pedagogy, and human resources –as school infrastructure is not merely about physical buildings alone (Santika et al., 2021). The cases incorporated in this part include the 2018 Central Sulawesi earthquake, tsunami, and liquefaction, which resulted in damage to approximately 1,200 school infrastructures (Opabola et al., 2023), representing natural disasters, and the severe Jakarta flood in 2013 which was reported to have disrupted learning activities in 324 schools as a representation of a non-natural disaster (Jakarta Education Department, 2013, as cited in (Lassa et al., 2022). For the children’s rights part, this paper examines how educational policy is embedded within the emergency curriculum implemented in disaster-affected contexts. Specifically, it will analyze Circular Letter No. 1/2026 concerning the Provision of Education in Disaster-Affected Educational Institutions as a policy response to the large-scale floods in Sumatra by December 2025. The analysis is grounded in a child-rights-based framework, drawing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), with particular attention to Article 28 (the right to education), Article 3 (the best interests of the child) and Article 39 (recovery and reintegration) (United Nations, 1989) in emergency contexts. In the second section, the paper by synthesizing findings from these three perspectives to offer policy recommendations for post-disaster education in Indonesia. First, it emphasizes the need to strengthen decentralization through enhanced local government capacity-building and clearer coordination mechanisms. Second, it highlights the importance of integrating disaster risk reduction education into pre-disaster curricula and ensuring curriculum flexibility, teacher preparedness, and emergency schooling systems in post-disaster contexts, drawing lessons from Japan’s experience. Third, it underscores that post-disaster education policies must explicitly prioritize children’s psychosocial recovery and mental well-being, ensuring that educational stakeholders are adequately prepared to implement child-centered emergency curricula. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used As this paper broadly concerns the policy analysis and implementation of post-disaster education in Indonesia through three central perspectives –social and political, educational, and children’s rights– it adopts Sabatier and Weible’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the Theory of the Policy Process as its primary analytical framework (Sabatier, 2018). Moreover, this study also incorporates a Child Rights-Based framework grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to specifically examine the third lens with particular attention to Article 28 (the right to education), Article 3 (the best interests of the child), and Article 39 (recovery and reintegration) (United Nations, 1989) within emergency contexts. This latter framework is intended to ensure that post-disaster education policies in Indonesia are assessed in terms of their alignment with the needs and rights of children as one of the vulnerable groups affected by disasters. Sabatier and Weible conceptualized policy as a long-term process rather than a one-time decision, shaped by multiple factors, including external events which in this case is portrayed by external shock resulting from the disaster. At the similar concern, UNCRC highlighted the necessity of reintegration within education policies operating under emergency conditions. These frameworks help researchers identify advocacy coalitions involved in the implementation of post-disaster education policies in which the findings are intended to function as guiding compass for answering the second research question –policy recommendations that are relevant to emerging disaster risks in Aceh and Sumatera toward the end of 2025. By evaluating past policy imaginaries, the results of the paper might help policy makers to rethink and reconsider what policy practices should be sustained, revised, or avoided in ongoing education recovery processes within major disaster-affected localities. Regarding methodological approach and data sources, this study employs a literature review drawing on: (1) Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management; (2) relevant scholarly articles addressing curriculum recovery, pedagogical adaptation, and human resource reconstruction (given the absence of a single, comprehensive post-disaster education policy document issued by the Indonesian government); and (3) Circular Letter No. 1/2026 concerning the Provision of Education in Disaster-Affected Educational Institutions as primary data sources. In addition, the analysis is supported by secondary sources, including the status quo Indonesian National Curriculum after disaster happened, and emergency education policy briefs published on the Ministry of Education’s official website, in order to strengthen the coherence and robustness of the findings and discussion. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Overall, this paper argues that post-disaster education in Indonesia is not merely a technical exercise in restoring school infrastructure, but a social, political, and ethical process that reflects the state’s responsibility toward education, including infrastructure and children in times of crisis. Drawing on Sabatier and Weible’s Theory, this paper has shown that post-disaster education in Indonesia is best understood as a long-term and contested policy process shaped by external shocks, rather than as a one-off emergency response. Disasters expose how policy choices, institutional arrangements, and power relations influence the state’s capacity to protect some critical aspects of education. From a social and political perspective, decentralization and intergovernmental negotiations continue to produce uneven post-disaster education outcomes due to fragmented authority and unequal local capacity. From an educational perspective, learning recovery involves not only school reconstruction but also curriculum adaptation, pedagogical flexibility, and sustained support for teachers. Moreover, integrating a Child Rights-Based framework grounded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the analysis reveals a persistent gap between policy intentions and practice, particularly in addressing children’s psychosocial recovery and prioritising their best interests. Therefore, this study argues that post-disaster education in Indonesia must be reoriented toward a human-centred, rights-based policy approach that recognises children not only as learners, but as rights-holders requiring care, protection, and recovery in times of crisis. References GFW. (2025). Global Forest Watch Indonesia. Green Forest Watch. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/IDN/ IRI. (2019). Indonesia: A Primer on Deforestation for Religious Leaders and Faith Communities. The Interfaith Rainforest Initiative. Lassa, J., Petal, M., & Surjan, A. (2022). Understanding the impacts of floods on learning quality, school facilities, and educational recovery in Indonesia. Disasters, 47(2), 412–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12543 Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republik of Indonesia. (2026). Circular Letter No. 1/2026 concerning the provision of education in disaster-affected educational institutions. Government of Indonesia. Opabola, E. A., Galasso, C., Rossetto, T., Meilianda, E., Idris, Y., & Nurdin, S. (2023). Investing in disaster preparedness and effective recovery of school physical infrastructure. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 90, 103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103623 Ramdhani, J. (2025, December 30). Update Korban Bencana Sumatera 30 Desember: 1.141 Orang Meninggal, 163 Hilang. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-8284750/update-korban-bencana-sumatera-30-desember-1-141-orang-meninggal-163-hilang. Download Apps Detikcom Sekarang https://apps.detik.com/detik/ Sabatier, P. A. (2018). Theories of the Policy Process (C. M. Weible, Ed.; 4th Edition). Westview Press. Santika, F., Sowiyah, Pangestu, U., & Nurahlaini, M. (2021). School Facilities and Infrastructure Management in Improving Education Quality. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 05(06), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2021.5612 Shaw, R., & Takeuchi, Y. (2012). East Asia’s emergency management and disaster risk reduction. In R. Shaw (Ed.), Community-based disaster risk reduction (pp. 13–36). Emerald Group Publishing. Shiwaku, K., & Shaw, R. (2008). Proactive co-learning: A new paradigm in disaster education. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560810872497 United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations General Assembly. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Feeling Safe in Times of Crisis: Resilience of Adolescence in the Context of Disasters – Results from Participatory Q Workshops 1: Heidelberg University, Germany; 2: Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany Presenting Author:In a time of poly-crisis, disasters increasingly shape everyday life worldwide and, with growing frequency and intensity, also across Europe. Schools are confronted with climate-related hazards (e.g., heatwaves, floods, storms) as well as cascading crisis constellations that interact with social inequalities, pandemics, war and forced migration, and the rapid impact of AI on information environments. Within Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE), this raises the underlaying (research) question for this paper: How can educational practices be shaped so that young people can engage with ecological breakdown and disaster risks without being overwhelmed, excluded, or reduced to individual coping? NW30 calls for ESE research that addresses poly-crisis conditions and takes existential, emotional, ethical and political concerns seriously (e.g., Karaarslan-Semiz, 2022). This aligns with UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 agenda (UNESCO, 2020) and with international disaster risk reduction frameworks such as the Sendai Framework 2015–2030, which also highlights the role of education (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015). Building on a global scoping perspective and local pilot activities in the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the project conceptualizes resilience not as an individual trait but as an interplay of developmental support, participation/self-efficacy, and mental health resources. Empirically, the paper presents Q-methodology results derived from participatory workshop settings with different actor groups in Germany: (1) secondary school students as the educational target group, (2) pre-service teachers as future players, and (3) interdisciplinary experts (e.g., education, psychosocial support, medical doctor, civil protection) with intensive experience of the field. The guiding prompt was: What is important for you (from the perspective of young people) to feel safe in the event of natural disasters? Participants worked with a Q set of 24 theory-informed statements spanning affective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions of safety and resilience. Workshops with ninth-grade students at a German comprehensive school further demonstrated the approach’s feasibility in school-based ESE contexts. The analysis identifies four distinguishable viewpoint patterns that structure what ‘feeling safe’ means in disaster contexts. In the project’s pilot phase, these patterns can be characterized as:
Comparable four-factor structures also emerged in a subsequent workshop study with expert and pre-service teachers indicating cross-group resonance alongside meaningful differences in emphasis. The contribution is both methodological and practical: Q methodology makes plural “safety logics” visible that might otherwise be flattened in survey averages—while the workshop format provides a structured learning space for sensemaking and reflection, as we have previously documented in another learning context (Kling & Buhl, 2025). In line with Vare and Scott (2007), the paper conceptualizes ESE as encompassing both practical competencies for action and critical-reflexive learning that enables learners to deal with complexity and ambiguity. This allows to move beyond generic preparedness checklists and towards educational designs that balance (a) concrete disaster knowledge and preparedness, (b) relational and emotional safety, (c) participation and agency, and (d) justice-sensitive support structures. Although the empirical core is based on German data, the study explicitly addresses European transferability: the underlying dimensions of safety (trust, routines, competence, psychosocial support, collective solidarity) are likely to travel across contexts, while statement wording and hazard scenarios can be locally adapted. This opens a perspective for international comparisons across European education systems. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study uses Q methodology (Brown 1993, Stephenson 1953) to examine subjectivity as a systematic object of inquiry by identifying shared configurations of priorities (viewpoints) rather than variable distributions. Q is well suited to poly-crisis and ESE contexts because it captures nuance, ambivalence and minority perspectives that may be central when learners and educators confront existential risks, uncertainty and contested responsibilities. Data were generated through facilitated workshops in Germany with three different actor groups: secondary school students, pre-service teachers, and educational experts. The workshops combined (a) different steps of an individual Q sorting task (b) joint reflection on the ad hoc Q analyses using Q-Perspectives® (Walker et al. 2018) and (c) discussion and scenario-based sensitization regarding natural hazard events. In this way, the workshops served both as a participatory research setting and as an educational format for structured reflection. The Q set comprised 24 statements derived from theory and prior work on resilience in disaster contexts, explicitly covering affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects of safety and coping (e.g. Buhl 2003, Ries 2024, Search Institute n.d.). Statement content was aligned with a resilience framing that emphasizes developmental support, participation/self-efficacy, and mental health resources, and it addressed school-relevant practices such as routines, problem-solving, social support networks, and psychosocial support. The prompt guiding the Q sort asked: ‘What is important for you (from the perspective of young people) to feel safe in the event of natural disasters?’. Participants first familiarized themselves with all statements and then sorted them on a quasi-normal distribution grid from “most important” to “least important” (relative ranking). They provided brief written rationales for statements placed at the extremes, enabling qualitative enrichment of factor interpretation (Watts & Stenner 2012). Q Sorts were digitally collected using Q-Perspectives® (Walker et al. 2018) and analysed using KEN-Q Analysis (KADE v1.3.1, Banasick 2019). An inverse (by-person) factor analysis was conducted, in which individuals rather than variables were correlated and factorised (Brown 1993). Cross-group comparison examined convergence and divergence between students, (pre-service) educators and experts. Participation was voluntary and anonymous; workshops with minors followed consent and safeguarding procedures appropriate for school-based research. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings suggest that ‘feeling safe’ in disaster contexts is best understood as a plural and patterned phenomenon rather than a single construct. We identify distinct, internally coherent viewpoints (safety logics) that variously foreground (1) relational and collective dimensions (solidarity, mutual support, helping others), (2) practical preparedness and routines (concrete coping scripts, rehearsal, and predictability), (3) self-efficacy and competence beliefs (confidence in one’s ability to act under uncertainty), and (4) more skeptical or distanced positions (doubts, low personal relevance, or conditional trust). The fact that similar viewpoint patterns emerge across participant groups indicates that educational practice can draw on shared ‘safety logics’, while attending to group-specific emphases and potential blind spots. Crucially, Q methodology is particularly well suited to this field of inquiry because it is designed to capture subjectivity in a structured and rigorous way without forcing consensus. As a research approach, Q makes it possible to identify shared configurations of meaning - distinct ‘safety logics’ - while keeping minority perspectives visible, which is essential in poly-crisis contexts marked by uncertainty, inequality, and contested responsibilities. At the same time, Q functions as a reflexive method: the Q-sort invites participants to actively weigh, compare, and justify priorities, thereby creating a facilitated space for sensemaking. In this study, the workshops thus serve a dual purpose: producing robust empirical results and supporting reflective learning among the addressed groups. While grounded in German data, the approach is transferable across Europe with modest adaptations (hazard scenarios, institutional roles, culturally embedded meanings of safety). This enables future comparative European studies that examine how education systems distribute responsibility between individuals, schools, communities and state infrastructures - an issue at the heart of ESE’s aims, knowledges and practices in poly-crisis. References Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3–4), 91–138. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100504 Banasick, Shawn (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 4 (36), 1360. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360 Buhl, M. (2003). Jugend, Familie, Politik: Familiale Bedingungen und politische Orientierungen im Jugendalter (Forschung Erziehungswissenschaft, Band 179). Leske + Budrich. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97584 Buhl, M. (2025). Was ist wichtig, um sich sicher zu fühlen? Resilienz von Kindern und Jugendlichen im Kontext von Katastrophen Forum Marsilius-Kolleg, 25, 95-99. https://doi.org/10.11588/fmk.2025.25.109296 Karaarslan-Semiz, G. (Ed.). (2022). Education for sustainable development in primary and secondary schools: Pedagogical and practical approaches for teachers. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09112-4 Kling, I., & Buhl, M. (2025). Applying Q methodology in higher teacher education for pre-service teachers’ (self-)reflection, learning and professional development. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1555073. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1555073 Ries, M. (2024). Towards better preparedness for future catastrophes: Lessons learned from civil-military pandemic response. heiBOOKS. https://doi.org/10.11588/heibooks.1331 Ries, M. (2025). Resilienz von Kindern und Jugendlichen bei Katastrophen stärken. Forum Marsilius-Kolleg, 25, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.11588/fmk.2025.25.109299 Search Institute. (n.d.). Developmental Assets Framework. https://searchinstitute.org/resources-hub/developmental-assets-framework Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press. UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030(A/RES/69/283). United Nations. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209 Walker, B. B., Lin, Y., & McCline, R. M. (2018). Q methodology and Q-Perspectives® Online: Innovative research methodology and instructional technology. TechTrends, 62(5), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper From Green Hospitality to Eco-Data Citizenship: Sustainability Education with Unaccompanied Foreign Minors in a Time of Poly-Crisis 1: Salesian University Institute of Venice (IUSVE), Italy; 2: Mercatorum University, Italy Presenting Author:In recent years, educational communities hosting unaccompanied foreign minors have emerged as privileged sites for experimenting with inclusive forms of environmental and sustainability education (Salerno, 2025). Yet their epistemic and political contribution to rethinking sustainability in a time of poly-crisis remains under-theorised. This paper brings together empirical insights from work on sustainable intercultural education (Brossard Børhaug, 2026), twin transition practices, and integral ecology in social enterprises (Ribeiro-Navarrete et al., 2024; Bühler et al., 2023) to propose the notion of eco-data citizenship. Eco-data citizenship refers to the ways in which young people in vulnerable positions learn to read, generate and contest data about their socio-environmental conditions, while negotiating recognition and rights. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The paper analyses three strands of practice: (1) community-based activities where unaccompanied minors experiment with ecological citizenship and sustainable coexistence; (2) multilingual digital labs that connect environmental education, civic engagement and technological skills; and (3) agro-ecological work experiences that embed sustainability, responsibility and character formation in productive activity. Using a cross-case analytical framework (Yin, 2018), the study examines how different knowledge forms (experiential, scientific, bureaucratic, spiritual) are mobilised and negotiated in these settings, and how they position minors as either passive recipients of “green inclusion” or as co-authors of sustainability transitions. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper argues that eco-data citizenship offers a way to link environmental and sustainability education to struggles over data justice, migration governance and socio-economic inequality, moving beyond tokenistic “green” projects towards pedagogies that take seriously both planetary limits and contested citizenship. References Brossard Børhaug, F. (2026). Intercultural education in the Anthropocene–international perspectives, challenges, and initiatives. Intercultural Education, 37(1), 1-4. Bühler, M. M., Calzada, I., Cane, I., Jelinek, T., Kapoor, A., Mannan, M., & Zhu, J. (2023). Data cooperatives as catalysts for collaboration, data sharing, and the (trans) formation of the digital commons. Ribeiro-Navarrete, B., Saura, J. R., & Simón-Moya, V. (2024). Setting the development of digitalization: state-of-the-art and potential for future research in cooperatives. Review of Managerial Science, 18(5), 1459-1488. Salerno, V. (2025). Promoting intercultural sustainable education-a case study of unaccompanied foreign minors in Italy. Intercultural Education, 1-15. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. | ||