Abstract
Sustainability as a concept, though well understood in general terms, is often politically captured by interest groups and as such expressed through issues like concern for global climate change or the need to develop more efficient energy sources, to address regional, national or international priorities. Education for sustainability as a concept similarly is generally becoming well understood; however, it is expressed in different ways by different educational communities.
This research investigates a conceptual framework for the nature of sustainability to describe the way students and teachers from five European countries express their ideas of sustainability.
The results indicate that despite the diversity of education systems and the range of nationally important issues of sustainability identified by the participants from five significantly different European countries (from Eastern and Western, Northern, Central and Southern Europe), there exists a common understanding of the nature of sustainability that can be expressed through a conceptual framework. The framework, based on a matrix of sustainability aspects (ecological, social, cultural and economic) and concepts (equity, interdependence and personal responsibility for action), allowed dialogue to occur to such a large extent that the nearly 200 participants agreed to a common resolution for future action on living more sustainably, applicable across the five countries.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability as a general concept, though not always readily understood by the general public (Research New Zealand, 2007), is gaining greater understanding, particularly in Europe where its understanding has risen markedly over the last decade (Umweltbundesamt und Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit 2010, p. 40) and more and more finds its way into formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts in the educational systems throughout the continent (UNESC, 2011). Sustainability is generally perceived as the interactions between the natural environment and the social and economic world of people, and often defined through notions of sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987, p. 43). The fundamental idea of sustainability has not changed greatly in the last forty years; however, in specific situations, within communities, cultures and nations, sustainability tends to be further defined through national and community contexts (Marien, 1996), and as priorities have changed over time, it has been expressed through different contextual issues.
These issues can be local, regionally or globally significant such as global climate change, the effects of drought causing famine or the European financial crisis. These contextual views reflect the political agendas and priorities of those communities. In New Zealand for example, sustainability has been described in these terms:
“Sustainability is achieved when organisations, businesses, communities and individuals all take responsibility for the amount of resources they use and the energy they consume, the waste they produce and the impacts they may have on biodiversity within a supportive and responsive policy framework” (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2002, p. 17).
Such definitions, which can be seen as adaptations addressing a particular perspective, are not always consistent with other definitions or completely reflect the nature of sustainability itself. They can provide a narrow focus to sustainability such as in this case where only the ecological aspects of sustainability are addressed. The tendency to define sustainability around perceived issues and problems can be useful in a local context, but has the disadvantage of masking other characteristics of sustainability that are not perceived as important in that setting.
Some attempts have been made to widen the fundamental definition of sustainability. One approach has been to convey more clearly the idea that there are biophysical limits within which society must operate, such as: ‘Sustainable development is a dynamic process which enables all people to realize their potential and to improve their quality of life in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the earth’s life support systems’ (Porritt, 2005, p. 22). Definitions such as these widen the sphere of sustainability beyond considering sustainable development as the only approach to achieving sustainability and acknowledge it as a dynamic process emphasizing the importance of social justice and equity along with personal responsibility for acting sustainably.
Education for sustainability likewise is becoming well understood as a concept (Tilbury, 1995) but is expressed in different ways with differing priorities in different countries (UNESC, 2011). In this study, education for sustainability is represented through six different national and regional curricula. This study adds to the literature in this area by further defining the nature of sustainability with relevance for education for sustainability.
THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH
This study reports on a research study conducted when students and teachers from five European countries gathered for a four-day conference to discuss common and locally relevant issues in sustainability. A conceptual framework for the nature of sustainability was used to analyse the discussion and create a basis for developing a common resolution of action to live more sustainably.
The conference was the final gathering in a two-year, European Union-sponsored multilateral so-called ‘Comenius Project’, aimed at creating a social ‘we’ among the participants and thus strengthening the European identity and cooperation among the young people of the continent (European Commission, 2011). The focus of this specific project was investigating global warming and education for sustainable development with the negotiated objective being for the participants to develop a better understanding of what it means to live sustainably in each others’ communities.
This study was embedded in the context of this four-day conference of 170 upper secondary school students and their teachers, with each country represented by at least 25 students and four teachers. Germany, the host country, had two delegations, one from Kiel and the other from the host city, Trier. The conference was held in Trier because of its geographical location, being central for all of the participants, and because of the organizational ability of the participants there. The conference was conducted in the English language as this was the only common language spoken by all of the participants and it is acknowledged that English is a second language to all of them (Table 1).
Participating schools
The conference was structured around 15 concurrent workshops on topics of sustainability, which had been decided upon by the participants six months earlier in an organizational meeting held in Poland. The participants at the conference signed up to attend two of the conference workshops prior to the conference by submitting their choices in rank order of importance. Most people were allocated to their top two choices with a small number getting their third choice as numbers were balanced to ensure no workshop had either too many or too few participants (Table 2).
Sustainability discussion workshops
A common conceptual framework for understanding and discussing the nature of sustainability was developed for this research and presented to the participants through a keynote address. The framework is grounded in the early description of sustainability by Brundtland (1987), as the interactions between ecological, social and economic factors, and acknowledges the general development of the concept over the last 40 years through a number of international conferences. It also acknowledges the way the dialogue about sustainability has been structured through these international meetings and the development of common agreements (Table 3).
A history of sustainability discussions
Building from this historical perspective, the conceptual framework was further informed by a contemporary description of sustainability where it is defined as being about ‘individuals, groups, and societies adopting ways of thinking and behaving that allows them to meet their needs and aspirations without preventing future generations from meeting theirs’, which is presented in the New Zealand education system (Ministry of Education, 2007; Te Kete Ipurangi, 2010). Here the nature of sustainability is expanded from the Brundtland definition and expressed through four interconnected aspects: environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability.
The first of these, environmental sustainability, is concerned with maintaining the integrity of the life support systems of Earth. This aspect incorporates the notions of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Social sustainability is concerned with equity within and between generations and within and between ethnic and social groups. It is inclusive of people’s mental and physical well-being and the cohesion of their communities based on a fair distribution of natural resources. Cultural sustainability refers to the nourishment and sharing of attitudes and values that represent diverse ways of viewing the world, and includes notions of corporate decision-making through political systems where all citizens have the opportunity to express their views freely and participate in decision-making. Economic sustainability in this context is concerned with the use of resources to provide necessary and desirable products and services for the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same.
Sustainability is further defined within these aspects by considering three additional concepts that inform sustainability: equity, interdependence and responsibility for action. The conceptual framework developed and presented in this research presents the nature of sustainability as a matrix of interactions between these four aspects of sustainability and these three concepts of human action (Table 4).
Conceptual framework for the nature of sustainability
THE RESEARCH APPROACH
A participatory action research approach (Cardno, 2003; Elliott, 1991; Sandretto, 2008) was adopted in this study with the participants involved in organizing and running the four-day conference as well as helping set the research agenda. Within the study, the researchers assumed the role of facilitators and coordinators, co-labouring with the participants (Lather, 1991).
The research investigated the understandings of students and teachers regarding the nature of sustainability through a number of structured data-collection strategies. The first was through analysis of the content of the workshops the participants had elected to discuss as examples of sustainability issues relevant to their own communities. The second was the participants’ responses to two research questions posed for the conference, ‘What is the nature of sustainability?’ and ‘What does it mean to live sustainably?’ These questions were posed during the keynote address and participants were invited to record their responses to these questions each day during the morning, lunch and afternoon coffee breaks. Different coloured papers were available for participants from different countries to use. The third strategy was through the development of an agreed common resolution for action and the analysis of the characteristics of sustainability apparent within this statement.
The data collected from each of these sources were analyzed against the conceptual framework of the nature of sustainability described above.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The 15 workshops that were developed and presented by the participants indicated the range of sustainability issues the participants considered important.
The theme of the conference was Global Warming and Food; hence, it is not surprising that a number of the workshops presented material in these contexts. Notwithstanding this however, nine of the 15 workshops showed significant other themes. The workshop titles were analysed against the conceptual framework of the nature of sustainability and the characteristics coded accordingly. For example, the workshop ‘Building solar cells’ presented by the Swedish participants was seen to represent the part of the matrix intersecting responsibility for action and economic sustainability being expressed in the development of more sustainable technologies. This is presented in the data summary by the symbols indicating that characteristic of sustainability was identified as important by the Swedish participants. Likewise, the workshop titled ‘Make them see and hear’ is represented in the data summary by the symbol P in the quadrant intersecting cultural sustainability and the concept of responsibility for action.
The second data source, the participants’ comments about the two research questions, was analysed similarly. The 40 written statements included various characteristics of the nature of sustainability. For example, a Swedish participant stated that for them, the nature of sustainability was ‘when each time you make a decision, thinking how it affects others worldwide, both in the future and the present’. This statement was interpreted as representing the intersection of social sustainability and equity both contemporary and intergenerational. It is shown in the data summary by the symbol S occurring against each of these concepts. Similarly, a German participant described living sustainably as ‘saving energy and saving resources by turning off the lights most of the time and turning off computers; also, not consuming products is a good thing’. This was coded as representing ecological interdependence, particularly ecosystem function, specifically energy flow and materials recycling as well as representing cultural responsibility for action through identifying consumerism and the imperative to consume less. The comment is represented in the data summary by the symbol G occurring in each of these places in the matrix.
The third source of data was the text of the final resolution from the conference. This resolution was drafted at an open session of the conference with all participants invited, and attended by interested participants. The draft from this session was presented to the full conference for discussion and editing in the last session of the conference. Here the final resolution was intensely discussed and changes were made during that session, at the close of which the resolution was adopted unanimously by the conference delegates.
THE TEXT OF THE FINAL RESOLUTION
We, the participants of the Comenius conference “Climate change and modern lifestyle in the European region—developing ways towards sustainability with a special focus on food” held in Trier 8–11 April 2011, decide together to live sustainably, which can be fun, and act individually and collectively for that purpose, respecting all kinds of diversities. We will take action on the social, environmental and economic issues most related to our local realities and in particular;
Being well informed about sustainable issues, Acting eco-friendly every day (e.g. reduce our water, energy and material consumption) and promoting more sustainable technologies, Informing and raising awareness of others to together find solutions (e.g. creating school councils, collaborating with the teachers on education for sustainable development projects), Participating in collective community action (e.g. planting trees or cleaning beaches, supporting local and international solidarity).
To accomplish this we need my help, your help, help from everyone. If not now, then when? If not us, then who?
The text of the final resolution was analysed in the same manner as the other two data sources with for example the statement, ‘Being well informed about sustainability issues’ being coded as representing social responsibility for action, particularly citizenship, and is coded in the data summary as R to indicate the concept was identified in the final resolution and accepted by all delegates regardless of nationality. The text of the resolution was seen to include concepts of individual and collective action, acceptance of cultural diversity, being informed and reducing material consumption (Table 5).
The nature of sustainability as expressed by the participants
When all three data sets are considered, a range of views of sustainability is displayed by the participants. Some showed they have an ecological view of sustainability. For example, one German student commented, “To live sustainably means that you think about nature and try to protect the environment from pollution. If everybody tries to prevent unnecessary rubbish and use the car only for long ways, you can help nature.” Others showed a more holistic view of sustainability, acknowledging the social and cultural dynamics as well; “If we want sustainability we have to work together, if we want for example to stop acidification all countries have to agree on the stop of acidification” (a Danish student).
Some participants identified their own role in sustainability and that a personal response is necessary: ‘To think through your choices and make sure they don’t affect the future in a bad way; to consume less and think through your decisions, in terms of heating, travelling, recycling, eating, voting, etc.’ (Swedish student) whereas others showed they had an understanding of the economic and development implications ‘The nature of sustainability is to have as many steps as possible between production and destroying the product’ (a Swedish student).
Not all of the comments were easily identified as belonging only to one category. The meanings of some of the comments were difficult to interpret against the conceptual framework, as the interpretation of the intended meaning was quite subjective. For example, the statement, ‘it is to consume less and think through your decisions in terms of heating, travelling, recycling, eating, voting etc.’ (a Swedish student), could be coded as being about ecosystem function reflecting concerns about energy flows and material cycling, or it may be seen as indicating more about consumerism and the desire to consume less and also contain ideas about corporate decision making. In the research, the decision was made to code it as being more about consumerism.
The uncertainty about which category to code particular comments within was interpreted as being caused more by the complexity of the participants’ comments, owing to the sampling methods, than by any inconsistencies within the model of the nature of sustainability itself. Moreover, irrespective of the way these more complex comments were considered, they could be assigned to a category within the model. All of the comments made by the participants about the way they considered sustainability could be accommodated within the model. Furthermore, some of the participants’ comments provided examples and further definition of the characteristics of sustainability that had been suggested by the model. The characteristic of ‘generational debt’ is an example.
CONCLUSIONS
The theoretical framework developed for this research to represent the nature of sustainability through the interactions between four aspects of sustainability—ecological, social, cultural and economic—and three concepts that underpin sustainability—equity, interdependence and responsibility for action—successfully captured the characteristics of sustainability expressed by the participants. For example, all of the 12 major characteristics of sustainability identified in the framework were expressed in the participants’ discussions about sustainability.
If this framework for the nature of sustainability is accepted as valid, then it can be used to describe the manner in which people view sustainability, identifying strengths and weaknesses in their understanding. In this study for example, the majority of participants’ comments were directed around issues of ecological sustainability and responsibility for action, indicating that they had good understandings of these aspects of sustainability. The least commented on characteristics of sustainability were economic sustainability and equity. Furthermore, within economic sustainability the characteristic that was spoken about least was trade. Human rights, cultural diversity and respect for all life were the characteristics of sustainability least reported in the research. This may indicate that these characteristics are least associated with the concept of sustainability by the participants. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these issues are important to young people but how they are presented as being associated with sustainability may differ across the education systems in this study.
The application of the conceptual framework for the nature of sustainability was not unproblematic however. Uncertainty was experienced when interpreting some of the participants’ comments and coding them within the model trying to interpret the meaning behind the statements about sustainability. Some of the comments about sustainability made by participants also added further refinement within the model. These observations indicate the model itself may require further refinement to adequately represent the nature of sustainability and also may reflect that the nature of sustainability itself is complex and interconnected, often represented in contextual situations that need interpreting.
It is acknowledged that this research is exploratory and descriptive in nature; however, there are indications that the framework representing the nature of sustainability has the potential to identify the way people view sustainability and facilitate meaningful dialogue between people from different cultures, backgrounds and with different national sustainability priorities; in this case, it was the development and adoption of a final conference resolution for action.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The researchers acknowledge the time, effort and goodwill extended by the principal, teachers and students of Humboldt-Gymnasium, Trier, in hosting the conference at which this research was conducted, as well as the teachers and students from the participating schools. The researchers also acknowledge the support of the European Union for this multilateral Comenius project as well as the support of the Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand.