Environmental and Sustainable Education: November 2011

‘We stand at a crucial moment in Earth’s history. A time when humanity must choose its future’ (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.). These are the opening words of the Earth Charter, a document of values and principles for a sustainable future developed after the 1992 Earth Summit (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.). Yet, almost a decade on, a question stands; ‘has humanity chosen its future?’, with the current debate about Climate Change and the increasing concern for the environment (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010), it would seem that the answer is ‘not as yet’. It appears the decision for humanity’s future does not lie in the hands of industries or politicians but with the general public and ‘their willingness to take care of the environment’ (Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys 2000, p.13). If Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) are correct in this statement, then it is imperative to understand not only what makes us care about the environment but how this care can be fostered. According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), the answers to this question are diverse, complex and poorly understood. This paper attempts to unravel the complexities of caring about the environment and show how this care can be fostered by educators through reviewing the current literature.

In attempting to answer ‘What makes us care about the environment and how, as educators, can we foster this care?’ this literature review will first look at the question ‘What makes us care about the environment?’, in doing so it will examine the role of formative experiences and the current concern for the ‘Bubble-wrap generation’ (Malone 2007) as well as the role of knowledge and emotions. It will then attempt to answer ‘how can we foster this care?’ by looking at the use of Love not Loss messages Love not Loss (video recording) 2010, immersion in nature, the Earth Charter, behaviour change theories and the principles of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

What makes us care about the environment?

Formative experiences and the concern for the ‘Bubble- Wrap Generation’ (Malone 2007)

Formative experiences

It is agreed upon in the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) that it is an individuals childhood experiences in the natural environment that contribute to a feeling of care for the environment. This notion is best described by Futerra (2010) in their statement ‘research on adults who care about biodiversity reveals the single most important factor behind taking action is an emotionally-powerful childhood experience of nature.’ (p.12).

Similarly, Mulder et al (2009) state that ‘life-long attitudes and behaviours towards all animals are based in large part on childhood experiences’ (p.879). Although Mulder et al (2009) suggest that children who own pets are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes towards wildlife, they do not provide hard evidence that shows this positive attitude carries on to adulthood. Better evidence of the importance of formative experiences are given by Chawla (1999) and Palmer et al (1999).

In a study of fifty-six environmentalists from different countries, Chawla (1999) found that most participants stated reasons for caring about the environment stem from childhood experiences. Of the fifty-six, seventy percent stated their reason for this care came from direct experiences outdoors followed by sixty-four percent stating an influence from their family. Similarly, Palmer et al (1999) in their study of one hundred and thirty environmental educators in Australia and Canada, found that seventy-two percent of participants stated their experience in nature and the outdoors as a child influenced their feelings of care towards the environment.

Although Chawla and Cushing (2007) note that these two studies have been criticised as they look back on childhood experiences of adults and not of experiences for children today, there is suggestions that these experiences are still of importance to the development of care for the environment. According to Thomas and Thompson (2004) most children gain their understanding of the natural environment through direct experience in nature and the outdoors. Although Thomas and Thompson (2004) state, through their study of children living in London, that children gain a richer learning experience through direct contact with the outside environment, their evidence is through self-reported behaviour and according to Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell(2004) self-reports are not reliable pieces of evidence.

Two studies that better support Chawla (1999) and Palmer et al (1999) are Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) and Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009). Both these studies show that the current generation of children are benefiting from experiences in natural, outdoor environments.

Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004), in comparing one outdoor environmental education program and one classroom based program, found that the cognitive learning gained by those students who participated in the outdoor program was higher than those learning in the classroom. Although Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) acknowledge that attitudes to the environment did not alter within both groups of learners, their research shows that outdoor learning experiences are more beneficial to learners than environmental education in the classroom.

In a similar situation, Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) studied two groups of school children, each group were learning about wetlands. One group’s learning environment was in direct contact with a wetland area while the other group remained within the classroom. Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009), unlike Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) found that those who were learning in the wetland environment showed higher attitudes of care towards the wetland then those who were learning within the classroom. In fact, it was found that those who conducted their learning within the classroom environment showed negative attitudes towards wetlands.

Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard’s (2009) study presents a problem for the level of care felt for the environment for modern day children. If the literature is correct (Nagel 2005, Thomson & Thompson 2004) and today’s generation of children are not experiencing their outdoor environment, the level of care that will be felt for the environment may not be high.

The ‘Bubble wrap’ generation

The term ‘Bubble wrap generation’ has been coined by Martin (2007) and refers to the current generation of children in Australia who are growing up spending most of their time indoors playing on the computer or watching television (Martin 2007). According to Martin (2007) children of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ are growing up in built environments and with parents who increasingly are viewing the outside environment as a dangerous place for their children. Although there is evidence to suggest that the local neighbourhood is safer now than for previous generations, increasingly children today are not experiencing the outside environment (Martin 2007).

Martin’s (2007) observation of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ is supported by the study conducted by Thomas and Thompson (2004) in the United Kingdom. Thomas and Thompson (2004) found that ‘children are losing their connection with the natural environment’ (p.3) as the outside environment is being viewed as a dangerous place for children.

Thomas and Thompson (2004) studied ten and eleven year olds in four different locations in the United Kingdom. Within this study it was found that while there was a want to play in the outdoor environments great fear was associated with these places many to do with traffic, stranger danger, being lost and bullying as well as terrorism.

This fear of the outside environment and the declining ability for children to play in their outdoor spaces is concerning when we take into account the affect being in the outside environment can have on children’s feelings of care for the environment and this translating to the care felt as an adult. If Thomas and Thompson (2004) are correct when they suggest that ‘a sense of care for the environment is conditioned in childhood through prolonged, repeated interaction with the natural world’ (p.11) then there is concern for the future of the current generation and the care that they will feel for the environment.

Knowledge and emotions

Knowledge

The question of whether environmental knowledge creates a feeling of care for the environment is both disputed by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Tsevreni 2011, Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011, Darner 2009, Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, DeChano 2006) and acknowledged (Hopkins & McKeown 2002, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000).

This notion of disagreement between the literature is supported by DeChano (2006) and Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000). While DeChano’s (2006) research shows that knowledge about the environment does not necessarily result in concern for the environment, Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) in their study suggest otherwise.

DeChano (2006), in her research of final year, secondary school students in Chile, England, Switzerland and the United States, used questionnaires to find out whether or not knowledge of the environment a student had correlated with the attitudes one had for the environment. She found that although all students gained a below average score for environmental knowledge, they held positive attitudes towards the environment (DeChano 2006), According to DeChano (2006) the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between environmental knowledge and positive environmental attitudes was not supported by the data collected.

Juxtaposed to DeChano’s (2006) research is the study of Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000). Through conducting a survey on the environmental knowledge and attitudes of University students at ten universities in Finland, Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) found that those studying biology and forestry had stronger knowledge and attitudes towards the environment while those who were studying engineering and economics had the lowest. They suggest that these findings show that there is a connection between the level of environmental knowledge and attitudes towards the environment. However, they also suggest that there have been previous studies that dispute their conclusions and a small deviation within their data of students studying to be kindergarten teachers showing little environmental knowledge but positive environmental attitudes (Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000) would suggest their conclusions are not totally supported by the data.

Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) go on to state that although environmental knowledge does correlate with positive environmental attitudes, ‘attitudes seems to be dependent on personal feelings and values in addition to factual knowledge’ (p.17).

Although these two studies show opposing findings, they bring about the issue that the development of environmental knowledge alone will not achieve a feeling of care for the environment. While it is acknowledged by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) that people need to have a basic knowledge of the environment to show concern for the environment, and that therefore there is a place for knowledge (Tsevereni 2011),it is suggested by Mandionza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) and Chawla and Cushing (2007) that knowledge alone will not cause people to care about the environment.

Emotions

As suggested by Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) it is the way we feel about the environment in addition to knowledge that will cause us to care about the environment. This notion is supported by Martin (2007) when he states ‘the capacity to think with the heart as well as the head is vital [to caring]’ (p.57). According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) it is the emotional connection that we feel towards the environment that makes us care about the environment. The importance of an emotional connection with the environment is best summed up by Cachelin, Paisly and Blanchard (2009) in quoting Gould ‘We cannot win the battle to save species and environment without forging an emotional bond between ourselves and nature’ ( p.3).

This emotional connection with the environment is developed through our human capacity to feel empathy and compassion (Fein 2003, Futtera 2010). As is suggested by Futerra (2010), it is not the knowledge of mass species loss that will cause people to care about the environment, but the way nature makes us feel. It is through empathy that we feel ‘love’ for the natural environment (Futtera 2010).

This ability of our capacity as humans to feel empathy and compassion is suggested by Reis and Roth (2010) and Schultz (2000).

Reis and Roth (2010) look at the use of ‘emotion talk’ by an educator in developing learners’ emotional connections with the environment. According to Reis and Roth (2010) it is the ability of the educator to use emotions when talking with learners which can have a fundamental effect on their emotions and how they come to perceive their natural environment. In their study of one environmental educator it was found that her belief was to have children fall in love with the natural environment. As stated by the environmental educator ‘if you fall in love with something, you’ll try your best not to harm it’ (Reis and Roth 2010 p.80). Reis and Roth (2010) found the environmental educator used talk that conveyed how she felt about her surroundings and the animals within the surroundings, for example ‘Oh it’s beautiful! Isn’t that lovely?’ (p.80). The children whom the environmental educator was interacting with was found to have given names to some of the species of animals they were finding. Reis and Roth (2010) suggest this naming of animals shows affection and empathy towards the species they were coming across.

In a study of perspective taking of individuals, Schultz (2000) looked at the role of empathising with the environment in developing biospheric, altruistic or egoistic concerns. According to Schultz (2000) a person who holds biospheric concerns is someone who values all living things. While altruistic is someone who values the welfare of other people and those who are egoistic value their own welfare about others and other living things. Schultz’s (2000) study found that when individuals were asked to look at an animal being harmed by nature from the perspective of the animal were more inclined to show ‘biospheric environmental concerns’ (Schultz 2000 p.402) than those who were asked to remain impartial. Although Schultz (2000) does not suggest whether or not ‘biospheric environmental concern’ is the most preferred view when caring about the environment as opposed to egoistic and alturitic concerns, he does suggest that humans’ ability to empathise with others and nature has the ability to produce concerns for the environment. Thus it is the emotional connection that we develop through our ability to feel empathy and compassion for the natural world that develops our care for the environment.

How do we foster this care?

Love not Loss messages

In a recent video developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Love not Loss (video recording) 2010 it is stated that it is not the overwhelming knowledge of species loss and environmental destruction that will cause people to care about the environment but it is the love we feel for the environment. They suggest that to create the feeling of care for the environment we must move away from loss messages and start to embrace love messages. This notion of ‘Love not Loss’ Love not Loss (video recording) 2010 is supported by the literature (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, Fein 2003, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Martin 2007, Chawla & Cushing 2007, Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010) and shows the affect both love and loss messages can have on the level of care felt by individuals.

It appears that as educators it is very easy to talk about the ruin of the environmental world (Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010), yet this focus on the negatives appears to be having no affect on the care felt by individuals. As is suggested by Futtera (2010) people may feel guilty or shake their heads at the mention of extinction rates, but this does not translate into a feeling of care or action. In fact, it seems that the ‘loss’ message is doing more harm than good.

According to Nagel (2005) creating fear within individuals on the state of the environment can cause ‘learned hopelessness’ (Nagel 2005). ‘Learned hopelessness’ shares a similar meaning to the term ‘learned helplessness’ in which an individual cannot escape from a painful situation causing them to no longer register the pain and make no attempt to escape it (Nagel 2005). However, the difference in ‘learned hopelessness’ is the individual feels that the state of the environment is so dire that there is nothing anyone can do to fix it therefore they make no attempt to care about the environment (Nagel 2005). Nagel (2005) suggests that when educators present information on the global problems of the world, particularly to young children, fear can result and the feeling that nothing can be done.

The term ‘learned hopelessness’ can be also be described as ‘action paralysis’ (Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011). ‘Action paralysis’ means where fear is so paralysing an individual feels unable to act (Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011). Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) in their study of an educational response to cholera in Zimbabwe found that when fear of cholera rises ‘action paralysis’ results. Although Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor’s (2011) study was not related to environmental destruction, it shows that scaring people into action does not work.

This feeling of inability to change the overwhelming global environmental problems can create apathy (Agyeman and Kollmuss 2002, Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010, Tilbury and Wortman 2004), a feeling that can only be described as the antonym to ‘care’ (Fein 2003). Thus it is imperative that educators try to not use ‘loss’ messages as a way to inform about the environment.

Furthermore, looking at the evidence that it is childhood experiences of the natural environment that create care for the environment shows that it is not loss that drives people to want to protect the natural world, but the emotional connection we feel with it (Futerra 2010). According to Futerra (2010) ‘love messages work by reconnecting us with these experiences’ (p.13).

As can be seen by the ‘emotion talk’ used by educators in Reis and Roth’s (2010) study, educators did not tell learners about the plight of the natural environment, instead they talked about how beautiful and lovely the natural environment is. Reis and Roth (2010) note educators observed students in excitement as they connected with the natural world with some continuously smiling during the conversations about the natural environment. This is a far cry from Nagel’s (2005) ‘learned hopelessness’.

Immersion in nature

The agreement by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) that childhood experiences in the natural environment leads to care for the environment and as the recent phenomenon of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ (Malone 2007) reveals the importance of educators allowing children to learn in the outside environment. According to Martin (2007) to care about the environment we need to feel connected to the natural environment. Learning experiences that allow children to be immersed in nature is one way in which educators can ensure children experience the natural environment (Martin 2007). Through doing this, educators can ensure children understand that humans are connected with the natural environment, not separate (Tilbury & Fein 2002, Clugston 2010), thus building what Fein (2003) refers to as a ‘relationship’ with nature.

Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) show the importance of educators immersing children in nature. As previously mentioned, Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) observed two groups of children learning about wetlands within a classroom and learning about wetlands in the wetlands. It was found that students who were not involved in learning in the natural environment held negative attitudes to wetlands and did not show any desire to visit the wetlands. Therefore children did not feel connected to nor did they build a relationship with the natural environment, which means the feeling of care for the environment is not developed or fostered.

If educators are to foster care of the environment, particularly in children, then they need to get them out of the classroom and learning in the natural environment.

Use of the Earth Charter

The Earth Charter is a document that can be used by educators as a resource to help foster care for the environment. The Earth Charter sets out four key ethical principles (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.) that educators can follow in developing learning experiences that aim to foster care for the environment. These four principles are labeled as; Respect and Care for the Community of life, Ecological Integrity, Social and Economic Justice and Democracy, nonviolence and peace (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.).

Clugston (2010, 2011), Fein (2003) and Tilbury and Fein (2002) show why using the Earth Charter can foster care for the environment.

According to Clugston (2011) there is a push to have the spiritual element of humanity considered when referring to sustainability. This spiritual element consists of our values and our ability to feel compassion and can be achieved through the Earth Charter (Clugston 2010). Clugston (2010) states that through the Earth Charter educators can ‘awaken a sense of wonder and awe’ (p.162) by showing learners how we are connected with the natural world and how we have come to be on the earth. Thus learners are able to see how humans are apart of the environment and start to build Fein’s (2003)‘relationship’ with nature.

Similarly, Fein (2003) suggests that the Earth Charter can be used to show that we are not independent from nature but are connected with nature and as such through our actions we can impact the environment. Although it may be suggested that this could possibly have the affect of Nagel’s (2005) ‘learned hopelessness’, the Earth Charter can be used to show how we can positively impact on our environment (Fein 2003). This is too, suggested by Tilbury and Fein (2002). Although they do not directly refer to the Earth Charter, they suggest that to care about the environment we need to realise that we are connected to the environment. They refer to this notion as ‘Ecological sustainability’. This is similar to the Earth Charter’s principle (Earth Charter Initiative n.d.) ‘Ecological integrity’.

Thus through the Earth Charter, educators can show learners how we are connected with the natural environment and as such we need to care about it.

Behaviour Change

Looking at how educators can change the behaviour of their learners to take action for the environment is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is suggested by Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004), a positive attitude towards the environment can be defined as the feeling to be concerned about and to act positively towards the environment. Thus, the connection between concern and action shows that behaviour change theories can shed some light on possible ways educators can foster care for the environment.

According to Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000), the current perception of environmental problems is not only based on people’s action but the way they think about the environment. For this reason, as is suggested by Reis and Roth (2010), environmental education activities must consider the emotion’s of people.

The behaviour change theories suggested by Stern (2000), Corbett (2005) and Darner (2009) show the importance of educators considering emotions when developing educational activities with an objective to foster the feeling of caring about the environment.

Stern (2000), in developing his Value- Belief- Norm Theory (VBN) suggests that it is a person’s values, their beliefs about the environment and personal norms that will cause a person to act positively or negatively towards the environment. According to Stern (2000) the VBN acts like a chain with one variable affecting the next, for example if a person holds altruistic values, they may believe that environmental degradation is a concern as it will negatively affect people (Stern 2000). What is revealed in Stern’s (2000) VBN theory is that the values a person holds, whether they are egoistic, alturistic or biospheric, will affect their perception of the environment. For this reason, educators must be aware of the values their learners hold and help learners to clarify these values (Tilbury & Wortman 2004).

Unlike Stern (2000) who appears to provide a formula for how a person will behave, Corbett (2005) reviews the literature on altruism, self-interest and the Reasonable Person model. Corbett (2005) presents an unflattering side of humanity by suggesting that more often than not, humans will choose an option that will be in their best interest rather than make a sacrifice for the environment. While this suggestion is based on the Reasonable Person Model of Kaplan (2000), it does not appear to be based on hard evidence. However, although Corbett (2000) suggests we act pro-environmentally if it is beneficial for us, she also states that a range of social factors will also influence pro-environmental behaviour. This reveals that educators must be aware of the affect social structures within the learning environment are having on their learners’ attitudes and the ability to empower or disempower individuals (Corbett 2000).

Through Darner’s (2009) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) the need to empower learners in order to foster care for the environment is shown. Like Corbett (2000), Darner (2009) views a social supportive learning environment as having the ability to empower learners as their ideas and views are valued by each member of the learning community. According to Darner (2009) individuals will become self-determined to act pro-environmentally when their psychological needs are supported, when they understand why it is important to act positively towards the environment and how to act in this way. This means for educators who are wanting to foster care for the environment within their learners they need a socially supportive learning environment which supports the views and emotional needs of their learners.

The role of Education for Sustainable Development

As can be seen through reviewing Stern (2000), Corbett (2005) and Darner (2009), in order for educators to foster a feeling of care for the environment learners need to be within learning environments that enable learners to clarify their values and feel socially supported.

The principles of ESD can be used by educators to allow learners to clarify their values and feel socially supported. These principles are described by Tilbury and Wortman (2004) as being Envisioning, Critical Thinking and Reflection, Participation in decision making, Partnerships and Systemic Thinking. Each of these principles has the ability to enable learners to clarify their values and engage in meaningful collaboration. For example, envisioning and critical thinking and reflection requires learners to question their biases and assumptions thus enabling them to understand their values and how these values are created (Tilbury & Wortman 2004). In a similar way systemic thinking looks at how things are connected and brings about the assumptions that we hold about the way the world operates (Tilbury & Wortman 2004). Participation in decision making allows the educator to act as a facilitator to the learning enabling learners to work collaboratively and are encouraged to share their values and beliefs (Tilbury & Wortman 2004).

If environmental educators follow these principles they will enable learners to clarify the values they hold for the environment within a supportive learning environment (Tilbury & Wortman 2004, Hopkins & McKeown 2002).

The use of the principles developed by Tilbury and Wortman (2004) also has the ability to foster care for the environment without overwhelming learners with environmental global problems (Hopkins & McKeown 2002).

Although it is suggested by Jickling (1994) that there is opposition to ESD as there is a belief the there should not be education for anything as values should not be involved in education, there are those like Fein (2003) who suggest that education is value laden. Thus, an educational activity that a learner participates in could be classified as indoctrination. Our choice, according to Fein (2003), as educators is to make sure that we handle values in an ethical and professional manner.

This shows that while using educational activities to foster care for the environment may seem to be ‘indoctrination’ if using an appropriate framework, like ESD, educators will be able to create autonomous and empowered individuals who clarify their values in a supportive environment.

In summary, it appears that what makes us care about the environment is not the insurmountable knowledge that we can gain on the problems affecting the globe but the emotional connection we feel to the natural environment. This feeling of love for the environment has been found by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) to be built from childhood experiences outdoors in the natural environment. It is suggested by Martin (2007) that these findings are concerning when we take into account the current generation’s pre-disposition to remain indoors. A question remains about the future of this generation and how they will feel connected and show concern for the natural environment when they reach adulthood.

For the educators of this generation, the answer as to how we can foster this care lie in using Love not Los messages Love not Loss (video recording) 2010, conducting environmental education in the outdoor environment, using the Earth Charter, clarifying values, having a socially supportive learning environment and following the principles of ESD. Through these ways educators can foster care for the environment without creating ‘learned hopelessness’ (Nagel 2005) or have the fear of unethical indoctrination.

References

Cachelin A, Paisley K and Blanchard A 2009 Using the Significant Life Experience Framework to Inform Program Evaluation: The Nature Conservancy’s Wings and Water Wetlands Education Program The Journal of Environmental Education 40(2):2-14.

Chawla L 1999 Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action The Journal of Environmental Education 31(1):15-26.

Chawla L and Cushing D F 2007 Education for Strategic Environmental Behavior Environmental Education Research 13(4):437-452.

Clugston R 2010 Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):157-166.

Clugston R 2011 Ethical Framework for a Sustainable World: Earth Charter Plus 10 Conference and Follow Up Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(2):173-176.

Corbett J B 2005 Alturism, Self-Interest and the Reasonable Person Model of Environmentally Responsible Behavior Science Communication 26(4):368-389.

Darner R 2009 Self-Determination Theory as a Guide to Fostering Environmental Motivation The Journal of Environmental Education 40(2):39-49.

DeChano L M 2006 A Multi-Country Examination of the Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 15(1):15-28.

Fein J 2003 Learning to Care: Education and Compassion Australian Journal of Environmental Education 19: 1- 13

Futerra 2010 Branding Biodiversity Futerra Sustainability Communications http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf, 16 July 2011

Gralton A, Sinclair M and Purnell K 2004 Changes in Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviour: A Critical Review of Research into the Impacts of Environmental Education Initiatives Australian Journal of Environmental Education 20(2):41-52.

Hopkins C and McKeown R 2002 Education for Sustainable Development in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Jickling B 1994 Why I Don’t Want My Children To Be Educated For Sustainable Development: Sustainable Belief Trumpeter 11(3):2-8.

Kollmuss A and Agyeman J 2002 Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are The Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3):239-260.

Love not Loss (video recording) 20^th October 2010, IUCN.

Malone K 2007 The Bubble-Wrap Generation: Children Growing Up In Walled Gardens Environmental Education Research 13(4): 513-527.

Mandikonza C, Musindo B and Taylor J 2011 Cholera in Zimbabwe: Developing an Educational Response to a Health Crisis Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(1):17-25.

Martin P 2007 Caring for the Environment: Challenges from Notions of Caring Australian Journal of Environmental Education 23:57-64.

Mulder M B, Schacht R, Caro T, Schacht J and Caro B 2009 Knowledge and Attitudes of Children of the Rupununui: Implications for Conservation in Guyana Biological Conservation 142:879-887.

Nagel M 2005 Constructing Apathy: How Environmentalism and Environmental Education May Be Fostering ‘Learned Hopelessness’ in Children Australian Journal of Environmental Education 21:71-80.

New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010 Who Cares About the Environment in 2009?: A Survey of NSW People’s Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW.

Palmer J, Suggate J, Robottom I and Hart P 1999 Significant Life Experiences and Formative Influences on the Development of Adults’ Environmental Awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada Environmental Education Research 5(2):181-200.

Reis G and Roth W 2009 A Feeling for the Environment: Emotion Talk in/for Pedagogy of Public Environmental Education The Journal of Environmental Education 41(2):71-87.

Schultz P W 2000 Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues Journal of Social Issues 56(3):391-406.

Stern P C 2000 Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424.

The Earth Charter Initiative: Values and Principles for a Sustainable Future n.d http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html 21 Sep 2011.

Thomas G and Thompson G 2004 A Child’s Place: Why Environment Matters to Children Green Alliance/Demos, UK.

Tikka P M, Kuitunen M T and Tynys S M 2000 Effects of Education Backgrounds on Students’ Attitudes, Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment The Journal of Environmental Education 31(3):12-19.

Tilbury D and Fein J 2002 The Global Challenge of Sustainability in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Tilbury D and Wortman D 2004 Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

Tsevreni I 2011 Towards an Environmental Education without Scientific Knowledge: An Attempt to Create an Action Model Based on Children’s Experiences, Emotions and Perceptions About Their Environment Environmental Education Research 17(1):53-67.

Environmental and Sustainable Education

Pages

Thursday, 17 November 2011

The new environmental movement- moving away from fear

Helpless, helpless, helpless (Neil Young, 'Helpless')

Does the Loss message work?

What makes us care about the environment and how, as educators, can we foster this care? - Literature Review, Rhiannon Harris