What makes us care about the environment and how, as educators do we foster this care?
25/8/11
Some thoughts on what makes an individual care about the environment.
Observation
Previous to conducting reading on this topic I was of the impression that the level of care felt towards the environment is dictated by an individual’s values. However, since reading Futerra’s (2010) Branding Biodiversity, Thomas and Thompson’s (2004) A child’s place: why environment matters to children and Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard’s (2009) Using significant life experience framework to inform program evaluation: The Nature Conservancy’s Wings and Water Weltlands education program, it appears that one influencing factor is our childhood experiences. This was first revealed to me in the statement made by Futerra (2010) ‘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) I found this notion to be further supported by learning in GSE 847 Environmental Education programs. We were discussing why the individuals in the class felt the urge to take action for the environment. It was found it came down to our childhood experiences. For myself I had many, from rescuing a turtle on our home driveway, picking up the snails in the backyard before my grandfather could squash them and a vivid memory of watching a hermit crab change shells on a beach in Wales.
This idea of childhood experiences is certainly true for me.
Futtera’s (2010) statement was backed up by Thomas and Thompson (2004) and Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009).
Thomas and Thompson (2004) voice their concern for the future of children growing up without having contact with the outside environment. They suggest there is a link with children's direct experience with nature and the outdoors and environmental awareness as adulthood.
According to Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) outdoor experiences in childhood are important for developing environmental awareness and a love for nature. This correlates with the IUCN’s ‘love, not loss’ campaign. That it is love that drives us to protect nature. Cacheling, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) state ‘an emotional bond with nature fosters environmental sensitivity.’ (p3). Perhaps it is our childhood experiences that foster this love.
Implications
This idea that it is a feeling of love for nature and our childhood experiences that foster this love that influences the level of care we have for the environment has many implications.
First: As an educator how do you foster this love?
Second: As an educator how do you have an influence over childhood experiences, particularly if those you are ‘educating’ are adults?
Third: As mentioned by Thomas and Thompson (2004), what does the future hold for those growing up in today’s context where the outside environment isn’t viewed as being safe? Or from my own observations and discussion in GSE 847, what does the future hold for those growing up in today’s context where the lure of technology is stronger than outside?
Third: As mentioned by Thomas and Thompson (2004), what does the future hold for those growing up in today’s context where the outside environment isn’t viewed as being safe? Or from my own observations and discussion in GSE 847, what does the future hold for those growing up in today’s context where the lure of technology is stronger than outside?
Action
These are questions that my further reading will need to seek to answer. I will also need to question my own assumptions about childhood in today’s context in relation to children not having opportunities to experience nature.
Futerra 2010 Branding Biodiversity Futerra Sustainability Communications http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf, 16 July 2011
Cachelin A, Paisley K and Blanchard A 2009 Using 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.
Thomas G and Thompson G 2004 A Child’s Place: Why Environment Matters to Children Green Alliance/Demos, London.
1/9/11
Does knowledge equal concern for the environment?
Observation
After reading the article Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action (Chawla 1999), Effects of Educational Background on Studnets’ Attitudes, Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment (Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys 2000) and Multi-Country Examination of the Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes (DeChano 2006) it appears that there is a division between whether or not knowledge of the environment equals concern for the environment.
In examining Chawla (1999) there is emphasis put on formative experiences in childhood, whether this be experiences in nature as a child, influence from a family member or being a part of an environmental organisation. However, although Chawla (1999) does not note this bias in her research, she has only focused on groups of people who are working within the environmental field. Although this research involves two separate countries, this research only looks at the experiences of those who are concerned about the environment, what about those who do not work in environmental fields? What are their formative experiences?
Although Chawla’s (1999) study is lacking in a wide representation, it was found that education ranked fifth as an influence on concern for the environment. Formal education was not viewed as being highly influential in regards to concern for the environment, however outdoor learning experiences were considered to be more of an influence.
Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) believe the role of education is significant in developing concern for the environment. After researching the knowledge and attitudes of students at different Universities in Finland, it was found that those studying biology and forestry had stronger knowledge and attitudes towards the environment whilst those studying engineering and economics had weaker knowledge and attitudes towards the environment.
Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) also found that gender played a role in attitudes. They suggest that while men displayed higher knowledge in environmental issues compared to women, they displayed less positive attitudes towards the environment than women. Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) concluded that as well as knowledge of the environment, values and personal feelings played a role in attitudes towards the environment. However, this leads to the question of whether it is the knowledge students gain in their learning of their current study that influences their attitudes or, is it their prior learning and experiences before commencement of their study that influences their behaviour?
DeChano (2006) looks at schools in England, Chile, Switzerland and United States to asses whether knowledge leads to positive attitudes towards the environment. According to DeChano (2006) the current literature suggests that there is no agreement as to whether knowledge of the environment leads to a positive relationship with the environment. In DeChano’s (2006) study, while it was found that students in all countries in the study achieved a lower score on knowledge than what is considered to be average in understanding, pro-environmental behaviour was exhibited. She suggests from her finding that there is no relationship between knowledge and attitudes towards the environment. However, she does suggest further research is needed as the majority of literature state there is a positive relationship between knowledge and attitude.
Implication
These three studies lead me to feel a little confused. Does knowledge of the environment equal concern for the environment?
While it appears that the answer to this question is ‘no’, the validity of the research must also be questioned, as already noted, the research appears to be of a narrow group of people. This suggests bias.
This answer, ‘no’, raises another question; to be concerned about the environment, do we not need to have knowledge about the environment? I suggest that we cannot be concerned about something if we do not know why we are concerned. For example, seeing a plastic bag in a storm water drain may lead to someone being concerned and removing the plastic bag because they know the journey the plastic bag will take once it leaves the storm water drain. However, just because someone is aware of the implications of a plastic bag in a storm water drain does not mean that they will care.
This leads to a dilemma for the educator, particularly when we take into account the traditional view of education; to pass on knowledge. So how does an educator foster care when knowledge is not a precursor to care? Do we need a new view of education?
Action
I need to find out what this ‘New View’ of education might be. Although I am some what aware of it in regards to Tilbury and Wortman’s (2004) Engaging people in sustainability, there still needs to be an emphasis on knowledge, or rather understanding, as well.
Tilbury T and Wortman D 2004 Engaging People in Sustainability IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, The World Conservation Union, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK.
Chawla L 1999 Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action The Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 15-26.
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
Tikka P M, Kuitunen M T and Tynys S M 2000 Effects of Educational Background on Students’ Attitudes, Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment The Journal of Environmental Education 31(3):12-19.
04/10/11
‘Learned Hopelessness’- Another reason to ditch the loss message
Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) refer to a term called ‘action paralysis’ when talking about people's reaction to cholera in Zimbabwe. They found, during a workshop on Cholera, that many people were afraid of Cholera. According to Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) when people are fearful, they often feel they are unable to act against that which they are afraid of. Nagel (2005) refers to the same ‘action paralysis’ in children towards environmental problems. According to Nagel (2005) learners in Environmental Education have developed ‘learned hopelessness’ when it comes to dealing with environmental degradation. Nagel describes ‘learned hopelessness’ as the conditioning of students ‘to think that the natural environment is deteriorating to the point of no return and there is little that can be done about it.’ (p.74) It is this ‘learned hopelessness’ that has led to ‘action paralysis’.
So what in Environmental Education, causes this ‘learned hopelessness’ and ‘action paralysis’? According to Nagel (2005) the answer lies in moving away from ‘impos(ing) a particular set of values’ (p.77) He suggests Environmental Education should foster autonomous thinking.
I find Nagel’s (2005) reason for this ‘learned hopelessness’ and ‘action paralysis’ to be lacking. How has values education created this apathy? For isn’t this what is being suggested in the above quote? How does Environmental Education foster autonomous thinking without values education?
I am sure Nagel (2005) would not suggest that the provision of information is enough to get away from this ‘learned hopelessness’ and ‘action paralysis’. As we have seen from previous reflection, knowledge does not lead to care for the environment.
Perhaps the answer lies in the IUCN’s Love not Loss message. We need to stop informing learners of the doom and gloom messages that can be associated with the environment. We need to create positive feelings towards the environment. We need to create care for the environment.
The question still remains though, How do we do this?
Mandikonza C, Musindo B and Taylor J 2011 Cholera in Zimbabwe: Developing an Education Response to a Health Crisis Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(1): 17-25.
Nagel 2005 Constructing Apathy: How Environmentalism and Environmental Education May Be Fostering “Learned Hopelessness” in Children Australian Journal of Environmental Education 21: 71-40.
9/10/11
What can theories on behaviour change reveal about fostering care for the environment?
Observation
To reflect so far on what is known about fostering care for the environment, I know that the development of knowledge does not always lead to caring for the environment. However, I want to pursue the notion that it is the development of emotional feelings towards the environment that leads us to care for the environment. To find out more I read articles by Agyeman and Kollmuss (2002) Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004), Darner (2009) and Corbett (2005). These articles look at the many theories about behaviour change.
These articles review the many different theories on behaviour change. Although my research question does not constitute behaviour change, it could be assumed that through caring about the environment pro-environmental behaviour would be the result. As such, it is necessary to find out whether this assumption is correct.
To investigate this notion, I will first summarise each article’s view on the notion of caring and its affect on pro-environmental behaviour.
Agyeman and Kollmuss (2002)- In reviewing Chawla, Allen and Ferrand and Stern, Agyeman and Kollmuss (2002) came to the conclusion that emotional reactions to the environment do not necessarily lead to pro-environmental behaviour. Unfortunately, they do not take into account the notion of caring, but they appear to regard ‘emotional reactions’ as those towards degraded environments. This is revealed when they discuss the defense mechanisms at play when confronted by the extent of environmental degradation. This, as I have previously found out, does not lead to notions of caring and action for the environment. While Agyeman and Kollmuss (2002) support the idea that educating about degraded environments does not lead to pro-environmental behaviour, they do not discuss whether the positive feelings we develop for the environment lead to pro-environmental behaviour.
Darner (2009)- Looks at Self-determined motivation theory (SDT). SDT looks at the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation on pro- environmental behaviour. According to Darner (2009) many pro-environmental behaviour is performed for extrinsic reasons. Darner (2009) suggests that pro-environmental attitudes does not lead to pro-environmental behaviour. She refers to this as ‘symbolic environmentalism’. What does this mean for the notion of caring? Does it mean just because someone cares about the environment does not mean they will act in a way that is beneficial for the environment?
Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) – Found that there is conflicting results as to whether pro-environmental attitudes lead to pro-environmental behaviour. According to Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) greater research is needed in this area. This article was written in 2004, has the research been conducted into this since?
Corbett (2005)- Reviews the literature on Alturism, Self-Interest and the Reasonable Person Model. Corbett (2005) discovered that researchers have found little relationship between concern and behaviour. It appears self-interest overthrows altruism when it comes to acting pro-environmental. This finding of Corbett (2005) throws a spanner in the works in regards to my research question. It shows that it is not caring for the environment that causes us to take action for the environment, but it is our care for ourselves and what environmental degradation may do to our well being that makes us take action.
I find this finding a bit hard to swallow. I do not believe this is correct for all individuals.
Implications
It appears that caring for the environment does not necessarily result in taking action for the environment. Other factors may be in the way when wanting to put positive feelings into action. Similarly, pro-environmental behaviour is not the result of positive feelings towards the environment, notions of self-interest may be at play.
Through these findings from the literature, a large question looms over my research topic. Am I researching the wrong question? As educators should we not be trying to foster care for the environment?
Action
I find it hard to believe that one does not need to have positive feelings towards the environment to take action for the environment. In my experience, when I take action to look after something or someone it is because I care about them. Should this not be the same for the environment? Perhaps, looking at pro-environmental behaviour is beyond the scope of my research topic. This could be something to research for GSE 880, whether or not caring for the environment leads to pro-environmental behaviour.
I think the next step for me to take is to look more closely at the place of values clarification in environmental education. I really feel there needs to be a sense of caring for the environment if one is to take action.
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.
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.
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.
16/10/2011
Biospheric, Alturistic or Egoistic: Does it matter which a person is as long as they are acting for the environment?
Observation
Schultz (2000) in his paper Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues, examines the notions of what makes people concerned about the environment. According to Schultz (2000) people will be concerned for three reasons, the effect an environmental problem is having on them personally (egoistic), the effect an environmental problem may be having on people (altruistic) and the effect environmental problems may have on other living things and the environment itself (biospheric). Unfortunately, Schultz (2000) does not discuss which one is most preferred when developing a concern for the environment. It appears to be implied that it is altruistic and biospheric but there is no explanation as to why.
Through reading this article I believe biospheric is the most preferred when developing concern for the environment as egoistic reasons for protecting the environment can revert to a lack of concern for the environment if an environmental problem does not impact on them personally. It is only when an environmental problem affects them personally will they care. Although altruistic may be viewed as an appropriate reason to develop concern for the environment as it is beyond the realms of caring for oneself, if an environmental problem is not causing people any harm then they may not care to the degree if the problem was harming people. However, one may suggest that as we are interconnected with nature, any environmental problem is the problem for the people (Tilbury and Fein 2002). Yet, I do not believe this is a view every person holds.
To me, biospheric is the preferred reason when considering concern for the environment as when there is an environmental problem it will be directly harming the environment and the living things that inhabit that environment.
Implication
Establishing a biospheric concern for the environment may be seen as being too radical (Jickling and Sporck 1998 ). I personally have a concern that this may also be the case and may create individuals who only view a problem from an environmental dimension not each dimension. Holistic thinking is important, otherwise the whole view of a problem is not seen therefore the concern for the problem is not valid (Bennet 2006 ).
Action
While I still think there is a need to develop this biospheric concern as I feel it means we are caring about the environment and other living things, I believe it needs to be done with the creation of holistic thinkers. To see a problem from every perspective before jumping to an action that may not be valid. The question is then, how do we create individuals who have biospheric concerns while at the same time creating holistic thinkers?
Jickling B and Spork 1998 Education for the Environment: a critique Environmental Education Research 4 (3): 309-327
Bennet C I 2006 Strengthening Multicultural Perspective in Curriculum and Instruction in Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice eds C I Bennet, Pearson, Boston pp319-461.
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.
Tilbury D and Fein J 2002 Chapter One: The global Challenge of Sustainability eds D Tilbury, R B Stevenson, J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge IUCN Commission on Education and Communication.
10/11/11
Reflection on findings from literature review
Observation
Through my literature review the following conclusions were made:
What makes us care about the environment?
· The emotional connection we feel with the environment developed through experiences in the natural environment as a child.
· Out ability to feel empathy and compassion with other living things including the natural environment.
Implications of this finding:
- Increasingly the current generation of children are becoming more and more alienated from their natural environment through fear of the outside world.
- Environmental messages tend to be more about the loss and degradation of the natural environment rather than the ‘wonder and awe’ (Fein 2003), causing ‘learned hopelessness’ (Nagel 2005) and ‘action paralysis’ (Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011).
How can we foster this care?
- Through Love not Loss messages, as suggested by the IUCN Love not Loss (video recording) 2010, and Futerra (2010).
- Immersing children in nature by conducting environmental education in the outdoor environment.
- Using the Earth Charter as a resource in using our ability to feel empathy and compassion.
- Develop learning environments that are socially supportive and allow for values clarification.
- Follow the principles of Education for Sustainable Development as suggested by Tilbury and Wortman (2004).
The literature review concludes that as educators we need to help learners develop an emotional connection with their natural environment in order for them to care about it. However, I had an interesting conversation with a professional who works in the nature conservation industry and they made the statement that the ‘love not loss’ message is a little ‘wishy washy’. I had a think about this comment after this conversation as I thought it was an interesting comment to make by someone working in the industry. I came to the conclusion that as a no-nonsense thinker myself, teaching about ‘love’ instead of information about nature can seem a little unintelligible and idealistic. Yet, when I consider what I have learnt about the way humans think from GSE 847, humans are not rational thinkers. This means just because they know that species numbers are declining, does not mean they are going to care about it. However, humans appear to be emotional creatures and as such we need to target this unique ability and use it to our advantage in creating a feeling of care for the environment.
Implication
I think, sometimes, we tend to brush ideas like the Love not Loss message aside and think of them as being too idealistic. I have come to believe through reflections in GSE 827 and through the readings for this literature review, that a huge barrier in educating people about the environment or trying to change environmental problems is ‘idealism’. I have often been told that trying to get people to care about the environment is too idealistic. When this is said to me I tend to feel that someone has put a huge wall in between myself and my goal. However, I have come to believe just because someone has said that your idea or goal is too idealistic does not mean you should stop trying to achieve it. There are many in history whose ideas may have been seen to be too idealistic, for example Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jnr, yet they achieved great things.
Action
I think that while the ‘love not loss’ message may seem too idealistic or ‘wishy washy’ our current messages about environmental degradation are not working, as such developing an emotional connection with nature should be tried.
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
Love not Loss (video recording) 20th October 2010, IUCN.
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.
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.
Tilbury D and Wortman D 2004 Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.
