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, 21:30:07 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 11 D: Eco-democracy and Multispecies Justice
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Exploring Eco-democratic education: teacher turns-in-thought Mid Sweden University Department of Pedagogy, Psychology and Social Work Presenting Author:Contemporary societies are increasingly shaped by escalating crises, environmental destruction, and deepening social injustices (Martusewicz, 2020). This not only threatens ecosystems and human livelihoods but also dismantles democratic institutions and nurtures scepticism towards democratic processes (Peters, 2017; Pickering et al., 2020). Following Orr (2024), who argues that environmental crises are deeply political and that democracy and ecology are interdependent, we focus on eco-democracy in education as a growing area of interest within Environmental Education research and practice. Living in a time of uncertainty and an unknown future, the dominant pedagogy of today still supports the status quo (Jickling et al., 2018). Within this frame, we position education as a vital partner in change (Fettes & Blenkinsop, 2023) and thereby raise critical questions about how to enact eco-democracy educationally. In response to the emerging field, Blenkinsop and Wilhelmsson (2025) show that some forms of environmental education already function as soil for eco‑democratic education, but they also call for a shift from preserving current democratic institutions to fundamentally reimagining them. Hence, democracy rewilded to include the rights, voices, and agency of the more‑than‑human world as educative and political participants. Both everyday democratic life and formal governance need to be considered when learning and practicing democracy and fostering citizenship in education. Eco-democracy, broadly understood, connects ecological concerns with democratic principles and argues that the more‑than‑human world should be acknowledged, thereby proposing four key commitments: voice, consent, self‑determination, and kindness. Previous research has focused on children's participation in climate-related issues mainly within early childhood education and research (e.g., Elkin Postila, 2021; Somerville & Powell, 2018). However, there is still a lack of studies that explicitly address fostering eco-democratic citizens or how eco-democracy can be enacted in teaching practice, particularly in the primary school context. This presentation is part of an ongoing research project concerning the concept and phenomena of eco-democracy in educational practices in a time marked by ecological crises and democratic uncertainty. Enacting eco-democracy in education: activating human and more-than-human encounters in primary school. The project adopts an ecocentric worldview where the more-than-humans have intrinsic value and affect democratic processes. Theoretically, we draw on posthuman theorising (Malone et al., 2017); where human and more-than-human agencies emerge through encounters and relationships (Braidotti, 2019). In outdoor education, sustainability, and nature studies, there has been a move away from a human-centred approach, towards a posthuman approach that embraces a more relational and more-than-human perspective. The project draws on this shift in philosophical thinking, informed by posthumanist, new materialist and relational theoretical perspectives (Braidotti, 2019; Malone et al., 2017; Stengers, 2023) to explore how eco-democracy might be enacted. These perspectives understand knowledge as emerging through relations, making it possible to renegotiate established boundaries between subject and object, and between nature and culture. They emphasise that humans are always entangled with other beings and phenomena. This includes an engagement with place, land, and more-than-human actors, highlighting how humans interact with and bear responsibility for the rights and well-being of ecosystems, animals, and other entities. This paper and presentation will explore how eco-democracy can be enacted as a lived, situated pedagogical practice fostering eco-democratic citizens in education. Specifically, the focus is on the epistemological and pedagogical shifts that become visible through teachers' reflections, and second, on how primary school teachers encounter place-based, posthuman, and ecological pedagogies aligned with curricula frameworks. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The general study has been, and will continue to be, conducted in close collaboration with primary school teachers, where teachers, students, and researchers jointly explore human and more-than-human encounters in teaching and learning. The research design is grounded in posthuman theories and emphasises doing–thinking–exploring as methodological practice (cf. Elkin Postila, 2021; Malone & Crinall, 2023). Our approach draws on practitioner inquiry, in which teaching becomes the concrete site of investigation and a context for professional and cultural development (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). This qualitative, exploratory methodology involves the co-production of empirical data in collaboration with participants. Critically reflexive in nature, it supports educators’ systematic reflection and enables a purposeful study of their teaching practices concerning enacting eco-democracy. The results presented in this paper draw on work conducted with six primary school teachers and their practice in a small rural school with approximately 110 students aged 6-12 years. The empirical data so far include initial conversations on eco-democracy, two workshops, teacher and researcher reflections, and documented conversations between researchers and teachers. Later, teaching activities will be chosen and co-designed by researchers and teachers, and researchers will observe the lessons. The data consists of and will consist of written notes, drawings, photos, audio recordings, and observation notes. The preliminary results presented in this presentation are built on teachers' reflections on eco-democracy, their practice of micro-methods, and their attempts at visual diaries. Four datasets are used: 1) Teacher reflections gathered during the initial introduction of eco-democracy, including discussions about the idea of exploring this theme together, 2) a workshop where teachers participated in outdoor pedagogical activities, so-called micro-methods (Brückner & Paulsen, 2026). Sit-spots and water-workshops, designed to facilitate encounters with the more-than-human world, allowing nature to be an active educative and political co-participant, combined with aesthetic modes of expression, were used. 3) Another workshop was conducted, focused on visual diaries, which were introduced following Lasczik et al. (2024). 4) An online conversation and reflection with two lead-teachers (förstelärare swe.) and the principal, in which forthcoming steps in the project were planned. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Based on the preliminary results, the conclusions highlight epistemological and pedagogical shifts, as well as how primary school teachers seek to legitimise them and find a way forward within the curricula. The findings show turns-in-thought regarding knowledge and learning and appear crucial for understanding how traditional constraints may be challenged and how new and other pathways can be opened for living and learning eco-democracy in education. Following the workshop, teachers shifted their ideas about knowledge from something to be transmitted to something that invites multiple understandings and opportunities for learning to arise from the plurality of encounters with the more‑than‑human world. Valuing what emerges in situ and diverse voices, challenged teachers’ roles along with assumptions about who or what counts as a knowledge‑holding subject. Teachers highlighted understanding things from different perspectives. Such openness, fostering care and curiosity about factual knowledge, attending interconnectedness, and acknowledging situatedness in time and a specific place, might be central to eco-democratic practice. The teachers also surfaced questions about relationalities and the need to remain attentive to power relations when aiming to include multiple voices. Focusing on emergent encounters also revealed the necessity of complex forms of documentation to capture moments, attend to the unexpected, and recognise entanglements. When teachers encounter place-based, posthuman, and ecological pedagogies, the ability to legitimise these approaches within the curricula becomes particularly important. To enable such transformative practices, they anchored this in requirements for objectivity and impartiality stipulated in the curricula, which offered arguments and language that neither position them as naïve nor as activists, but rather as professionals grounded in eco-democratic strivings. These emerging turns-of-thought suggest and open possibilities for further exploration of the concept and phenomena of eco-democracy. References Blenkinsop, S. & Wilhelmsson, L. (2025). In Search of Eco-Democracy: Education for Mutually Beneficial Flourishing. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 41(2), 325–337. Braidotti, R. (2018). Posthuman knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brückner, M., & Paulsen, M. (2026). Tracing care for life: An Experimental Wayfaring Practice. In S. Windsor, O. Franck, & D. Sanders (Eds.), Paradise Lost? Love and Care: Narratives for and in Sustainability Education, Springer. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Teacher Research as Stance. In S.E. Noffke, & Somekh, B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research, SAGE Publications, pp. 39–49. Elkin Postila, T. (2021). (O)ändligt vatten. En studie om hur förskolebarn som kännare engageras i samhälleliga miljöfrågor. [(In)Finite Water. A study of how preschool children as connoisseurs engage in social environmental issues]. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm University, Sweden. Fettes, M. & Blenkinsop, S. (2023). Education as the Practice of Eco-Social-Cultural Change. Palgrave Macmillan Cham. Jickling, B., Blenkinsop, S., Timmerman, N. & De Danann Sitka-Sage, M. (2018). Wild Pedagogies: Touchstones for Re-Negotiating Education and the Environment in the Anthropocene. Springer International Publishing AG. Lasczik, A., Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., Osborn, M., Malone, K., & Knight, L. (2024). Engaging visual diaries in early childhood nature play as pedagogical arousal. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 50(2), 188–210 Malone, K., Truong, S., & Gray, T. (Eds.) (2017). Reimagining Sustainability in Precarious Times. Springer Nature. Malone, K. & Crinall, S. (2023). Children as Worlding, but not Only: holding space for unknowing and undoing, unfolding and ongoing. Children's Geography, 21(6). 1186–1200 Martusewicz, R.A., Edmundson, J. & Lupinacci, J. (2020). Ecojustice education: toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities. (3rd Edition). London: Routledge. Orr, D. W. (2024). The Missing Politics in Environmental Education, Revisited. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 382–389. Peters, M. A. (2017). Education for ecological democracy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(10), 941–945. Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K. & Schlosberg, D. (2020) Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy environment nexus, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1–15. Somerville, M. & Powell, S. (2018). Researching With Children of the Anthropocene: A New Paradigm? In Reyes, V.J.C., Charteris, J., Nye, A., & Mavropoulou, S. (Eds.). Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene. IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.ch002 Stengers, I. (2023). Making sense in common: a reading of Whitehead in time of collapse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Making Space for Eco-citizens in Social Studies Education University of Oslo, Norway Presenting Author:In the field of environmental and sustainability education (ESE) there has been a longstanding discussion of what role schools should have in the transformation towards more sustainable societies. Schools are institutions that are both constituted by broader societal structures and constitutive for the same structures through their influence on children and young people's life (Straume, 2023; Sæther, 2026). Schools not only offer students the possibility to learn but also enable formative experiences of individual and collective agency. ESE research indicates that sustainability teaching designs tend to conceptualize students’ agency not as a broad social, political and cultural force, but rather as an individualized consumer role (Anciaux et al., 2023; Hayward, 2020; Ideland, 2019; Kranz et al., 2022) This could be understood as a part of an ecological modernization discourse (Knutsson et al., 2024). Individual behaviour change is an important component of transformations towards more sustainable societies, but relying on it as an educational approach for children and young people is insufficient and underestimates the political dimension of children’s citizenship. A reason for this tendency might be that the characteristics of children’s citizenship remain blurry both in theory and educational practices. Hence, it is important to conceptualize and exemplify the different dimensions of children’s citizenship, their rights, membership and participation (Stokke, 2017) and how they differ from adult citizenship to expand the understanding of students’ citizenship in relation to the climate and nature crises (Hayward, 2020). Developing theoretical and practical approaches to children and young people’s citizenship is an important task for interdisciplinary ESE research, but in particular for social studies education. This paper will present results from a didactic research and development circle (Bladh, 2018; Persson, 2008) that brings together lower-secondary teachers and researchers within social studies education to develop new avenues for exploring and teaching agency and citizenship in ESE. The research and development circle will address three distinct issues of ESE related to the problem of individualization: anthropocentrism, resistance and the meaning of place. These are key issues for interdisciplinary ESE and represent particular challenges for the subject didactical field of social studies education. Social studies is an anthropocentric discipline and exploring how nature and animals are represented in teaching and classrooms may open up for new approaches to agency. Here, literature discussing notions of anthropocentric and eco-centric views will be relevant (e.g. Håkansson, 2025 and Kopnina et al., 2023). The second issue investigates how the individualization tendency could lead to young people’s resistance (Urberg, 2025) or disengagement (Hickman et al., 2021) with sustainability issues and sustainability education. The third issue highlights community and scale and how individualized agency masks the manyfold relations in which students are entangled (Kvamme, 2024). Within this context the paper will investigate the following research questions: What characterizes lower secondary teachers’ reflection on anthropocentrism, resistance and the meaning of place in ESE teaching? What ideas and perspectives where articulated in the research and development circle when discussing students’ agency and citizenship? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper is part of an ongoing PhD-project that investigates how the climate and nature crisis demand changes in how we understand citizenship and in social studies education, through theoretical development and qualitative data material. Elin Sæther is my supervisor. The research is based on a didactic research and development circle. A didactic research and development circle is a collaborative method where the participants bring in their different knowledge bases to discuss and develop a deeper understanding of a problem that is formulated in collaboration (Persson, 2008; Bladh et al., 2018). This project involves in-service lower secondary school teachers and researchers from University of Oslo (UiO) in collaboration. The teachers will be recruited through the university school partnership at UiO. University schools are schools that are interested in a systematic approach to research and development and that are also interested in collaboration with teacher education (UiO, 2025). A central feature of research circles is that it investigates a problem that the teachers themselves experience (Persson, 2008). This project will involve teachers who voluntarily sign up and are interested in developing knowledge about ESE. The research and development circle consists of three phases. In first phase the participants read and discuss relevant literature of ESE. The teachers and researchers contribute with their different knowledge, perspectives and experiences to create a common understanding of the literature and its concepts and perspectives on the problem of individualization. The second is a more practical phase where the participants take the issues that has been discussed in the first phase and develop ideas about teaching and plan concrete lessons that are then tried out in the third classroom phase of the circle. This paper will be based on the audio recording of the research and development circles, discussion agendas and protocols and observational notes from the first two phases. The data will be analyzed through a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). In the work with the analysis, the participating teachers will be invited to contribute with their perspectives in discussions about the protocols and findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings To conduct a research and development circle has a dual function as it both aims to strengthen the professional development of the participants but also aims at generating collective knowledge that are “not entirely contextually bound” (Bladh, 2018, p. 407). More concretely the aim of this circle on children and young people’s citizenship is to develop new ideas about environmental and sustainability education that can contribute to broadening theoretical and practical approaches to student’s agency, citizenship and individualization in ESE. References Anciaux, A., Cougnon, L.-A., Ducol, L., & Catellani, A. (2023). Youth, Communication & Climate: A Pluridisciplinary Analysis of Distancing Strategies in Response to Climate Change among Belgian Youth. Youth, 3(4), 1150-1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth3040073 Bladh, G., Stolare, M. and Kristiansson, M. (2018). Curriculum principles, didactic practice and social issues: Thinking through teachers’ knowledge practices in collaborative work. London Review of Education, 16(3), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.3.04 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Håkansson, J. K. (2025). Toward an animal standpoint in school? Critical Animal Pedagogy as Sustainability Education. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg]. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/items/6d6b5d2f-c524-4864-a591-d52eb0cf1db2 Hayward, B. (2020). Children, Citizenship and Environment - #SchoolStrike Edition (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003000396 Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., & van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet. Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3 Ideland, M. (2019). The Eco-Certified Child. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00199-5_6 Knutsson, B., Bylund, L., Hellberg, S., & Lindberg, J. (2024). Education for Sustainable Development in an Unequal World: Biopolitics, Differentiation and Affirmative Alternatives. (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529234107 Kopnina, H., Gray, J., Lynn, W., Heister, A., & Srivastava, R. (2023). Uniting Ecocentric and Animal Ethics: Combining Non-Anthropocentric Approaches in Conservation and the Care of Domestic Animals. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 26(2), 265–286. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1080/21550085.2022.2127295 Kranz, J., Schwichow, M., Breitenmoser, P., & Niebert, K. (2022). The (un)political perspective on climate change in education—a systematic review. Sustainability, 14(7), 4194. Kvamme, O. A. (2024). Situatedness and distantiation: education in a time of ecological and climate crises, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 58(5), 653–673, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae066 Persson, S. (2008). Forskningscirklar: En vägledning. Malmö: Resurscentrum för mångfaldens skola. Stokke, K. (2017). Politics of citizenship: Towards an analytical framework. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 71(4), 193-207. Straume, I. (2023). How does a society change: Reflexivity in politics and education. Rowman & Littlefield. Sæther, E. (2026). Narrative and identity in the formation of environmental citizenship. In S. Windsor, O. Franck, & D. Sanders (Ed.), Paradise Lost? Love and Care - Narratives for and in Sustainability Education. Springer Cham. UiO (2025, 19. August). Universitetsskolesamarbeidet. Universitetet i Oslo. https://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/prosjekter/universitetsskole-samarbeidet/ Urberg, L. (2025). Om elevers motstånd i miljö- och hållbarhetsutbildning. [Doctoral dissertation, Örebro University]. DiVA. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Aoru%3Adiva-121577 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Biodiversity Loss Pedagogies in the Sixth Mass Extinction: Intergenerational multispecies justice in Scottish primary schools University of Stirling Presenting Author:We address ECER 2026’s polycrisis theme by exploring the drivers, impacts, and educational response making to biodiversity loss. Our research comes at an important time for research and practice for, within, and about biodiversity loss in the ‘sixth mass extinction’ (Cowie et al, 2022) of life on Earth. Global species loss is accelerating exponentially, with ever-increasing losses and cascading impacts continuing (WWF, 2024). Meanwhile, environmental justice movements have foregrounded education as a site of communication and action across generations (Mayes t al., 2025) and more-than-human beings (Haraway, 2016). In 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child concluded that climate change and the interrelated impacts of biodiversity loss and ecological degradation have unjustly affected education, driven by children and young people’s global activisms (UNCRC, 2023). Theories and paradigms guiding education for, within, and about biodiversity loss are highly contested and divergent (Jensvoll et al., 2025). Approaches have ranged from science education (van Weelie and Wals, 2002), ecofeminism (Gough, 2002), conservation (Grace, 2006), New Materialist (Mannion, 2020) and queer ecological orientations (Russell, 2019). We draw on these existing lenses and approaches, while showing that empirical research on biodiversity (loss) education more specifically remains sparse (but, see Pacini-Ketchabaw and Nxumalo 2020, Rautio et al. 2022, Hohti and Tammi 2023 and others). We emphasise the differences and injustices of the causes, drivers, and impacts of biodiversity loss, including between humans and more-than-humans who are disappearing at exponentially increasing rates. Alongside these, we focus also on the differences and relations between generations, recalling that children and young people have contributed the least to drivers of polycrisis. Given the scale and complexities, we worked closely with teachers to support new practices of educational response-making to biodiversity loss. In Scotland, biodiversity (loss)education is partly covered through the cross-curricular educational policy framework of Learning for Sustainability (LfS) which affords a triple focus on education for sustainability, global citizenship and outdoor learning. However, teacher confidence and levels of expertise are moderate at best (Mannion et al (2025). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is also enshrined in Scots law ((UNCRC) (Scotland) Act 2024). This mandates that children receive an education on their environment and are protected through full environmental rights (UNCRC, 2023). Despite the legal imperative and policy framework, Mannion et al. (2025) found that in the Scottish context, children are experiencing less outdoor and/or environmental education. Meanwhile,Mayes and Den (2025) reflect on the increasing constraints on children and young people’s exposure and questioning of environmental injustices. In our study, we consider who creates and influences the knowledges shaping education for, within, and about the Sixth Mass Extinction of Species. Saari (2025) identifies a lack of empirical educational research that meaningfully engages children’s perspectives alongside more-than-human relations within multispecies justice frameworks. In our study, we focus on children’s views, building on existing insights from theoretical explorations of biodiversity loss through a multispecies justice lens, advice about fieldwork with children and more-than-human beings, and awareness of the role of educators.This is of critical relevance to the sustainability of interspecies relations, habitat restoration and a wider ‘re-wilding' of the curriculum. This resonates with contemporary research foci internationally (for example, EU Horizon aims around ecological restoration). Methodology Our research aimed to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the lived, everyday, and experientially significant features of children’s multispecies relations at a time of biodiversity loss? 2. What are the educational implications of these features? 3. What opportunities can be identified for intergenerational multispecies justice within educational response-making? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our methodological approach reflects the interdisciplinary, multifaceted nature of biodiversity loss, viewed through an intergenerational multispecies justice lens. Our research was participatory, place-responsive (Lynch and Mannion,2021), exploratory (Allwright, 2003), and multispecies (Lloro-Bidart, 2017). This ensured we captured a wide range of perspectives across some generations and species impacted by biodiversity loss. Data were collected in four case study primary schools across Scotland. We also conducted supportive professional learning sessions for teachers and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Phases involved community mapping (Percy-Smith and Thomas, 2010), participatory, arts-based response-making (Leavy, 2015), multispecies ethnography (Lloro-Bidart, 2017), and mini-deliberations (Seed et al. 1988). We worked with three class groups of 20-30 children, aged seven to twelve years old. Our resulting datasets contain illustrated maps, extensive audio recording of field sessions and semi-structured interview responses, multispecies photographs and children’s written and illustrated storied responses. Here, we focus on how elements of these were co-analysed with children in relation with their chosen ‘multispecies companions' (Haraway, 2016). We supported children to co-author an academic journal publication through this phase. Together, we revealed some key findings in relation to children’s multispecies relations and educational response making at a time of biodiversity loss. These supported us to identify opportunities for next steps towards intergenerational multispecies justice for, within, and about biodiversity (loss) education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our research reveals pedagogical insights into the key features, significance, and opportunities for future research and practice for, within, and about biodiversity (loss) education. Our research shows that an intergenerational, multispecies justice approach to data collection and analysis is possible and revealing in the sixth mass extinction of species. Three discrete empirically-oriented findings arose: 1) Children’s multispecies relations are situated, affective, and temporally entangled, emerging through everyday encounters in school grounds and local places. This is because these relations are already shaped by biodiversity presences, absences and threats within damaged-yet- multispecies ecologies; 2) Misalignment exists between children’s lived multispecies relations and dominant educational framings and practices of biodiversity (loss) education in Scotland; 3) Practices of intergenerational multispecies justice come into view as a pedagogical orientation when educational spaces explicitly foreground participatory approaches in practice and in relation with more-than-humans. In this conference presentation we explore in more substantive depth these entanglements, misalignments and emergent practices through a multimodal manner involving children’s drawings, transcript evidence and a fictional children’s story. Biodiversity (loss) pedagogies are needed amidst the sixth mass extinction of species. Empirical pedagogical examples of best practice in this context and under-researched and under-explored. We signpost future directions for educational provision seeking to address biodiversity (loss) in practices of intergenerational multispecies justice. References Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P., and Fontaine, B. (2022). The Sixth Mass Extinction: Fact, fiction or speculation? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 97(2), 640–663. Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for environmental and science education. Environmental Education Research, 8(4), 437–452. Grace, M. M. (2006). Developing educational concepts for biodiversity. Environmental Education Research, 12(3–4), 355–376. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. Hohti, R., and Tammi, T. (2023). Composting storytelling: An approach for critical (multispecies) ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 30(7), 595–606. Jensvoll, I., Bergan, V., and Killengreen, S. T. (2025). Let it Bee: children as agents of biodiversity through intergenerational learning. Environmental Education Research, 1–20. Lloro-Bidart, T. (2017). A feminist posthumanist political ecology of education for theorizing human-animal relations/relationships. Environmental Education Research, 23(1), 111–130. Lynch, J., and Mannion, G. (2021). Place-responsive pedagogies in the Anthropocene: Attuning with the more-than-human. Environmental Education Research, 27(6), 864–878. Mannion, G., Ramjan, C., McNicol, S., Sowerby, M., and Lambert, P. (2025). Outdoor environmental education: Turning back to the environment at a time of climate and nature emergency. Environmental Education Research, 31(9), 1916–1938. Mayes, E., Villafaña, D., Chiew, S., Maiava, N., Abhayawickrama, N., and Finneran, R. (2025). Climate justice and curriculum justice: Young people’s accounts of schools’ uneven responses to their climate justice activism. The Curriculum Journal, 37(1), 140–163. Mayes, E., and Arya, D. (2024). Just participatory research with young people involved in climate justice activism. Journal of Applied Youth Studies, 7(3), 385–395. Nxumalo, F. and Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2017). ‘Staying with the trouble’ in child-insect-educator common worlds. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1414–1426. Rautio, P., Tammi, T., Aivelo, T., Hohti, R., Kervinen, A., and Saari, M. (2022). ‘For whom? By whom?’: Critical perspectives of participation in ecological citizen science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(3), 765–793. Russell, C. L., Sarick, T., and Kennelly, J. (2019). Queer ecological futures: Critical orientations in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 25(9), 1341–1356. Saari, M. H. (2025). Crafting palettes of potential for a multispecies justice-oriented education. Environmental Education Research, 31(8), 1674–1690. Seed, J., Macy, J., Fleming, P., and Naess, A. (1988). Thinking like a mountain: Towards a council of all beings. New Society Publishers. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2023). General comment No. 26 on children’s rights and the environment. OCHR. WWF. (2024). System in peril: Average wildlife population size declined by 73% in just 50 years. | ||