Qualitative Revision of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale for children.

ABSTRACT: One of the most popular measures of ecological worldview, predicting environmental attitudes and behaviors is the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale developed by Dunlap and Van Liere has been applied to measure children's environmental attitudes across cultures. There is however some controversy about the cross-cultural applicability and the relevance of the NEP scale items. This article reflects on the case study of 59 Dutch school children between the ages 10 and 12, probing their comprehension of the NEP scale through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. It appears that some items in the NEP scale appeared ambiguous revealing differences in cognitive beliefs (knowledge) and affective states. On the basis of this study, the author calls for a deeper ethnographic analysis of the socio-cultural context in which the children form their worldviews to complement and deepen the largely quantitative studies. In conclusion, it is suggested that qualitative approach adds contextual complexity to the otherwise sound system of measurement, allowing probing of theories about the influence of social, political and institutional influence in shaping environmental attitudes

(Im)possibilities of “circular” production: Learning from corporate case studies of (un)sustainability

This article discusses Cradle to Cradle (C2C) and circular economy designs including three key principles of C2C production as well as the so-called 9-R hierarchy of priorities in circular economy production. This article examines student assignments that apply these circular and C2C principles to the detergent brand Method, the refillable drinking bottle Dopper, and the packaging of Burger King. Product improvements identified by students include expanding transparency of the “invisible” aspects of production, such as the types of materials and energy used for packaging and transport, or the potential for take-back and repair. In the student analysis, it appears that the supposedly circular or C2C products have their shortcomings, especially when it comes to the first R of the 9-R hierarchy – Refuse or avoid making or buying new products. The larger lesson from these case studies is that the buzzword circularity might not be delivering on its promise of absolute decoupling of resource consumption from economic activity. Students are recommended to engage with tools, concepts, and approaches, such as critical thinking and degrowth strategies to provide insight into sustainable transformations for society

Education for sustainable development (ESD): the turn away from ‘environment’ in environmental education?

This article explores the implications of the shift of environmental education (EE) towards education for sustainable development (ESD) in the context of environmental ethics. While plural perspectives on ESD are encouraged both by practitioners and researchers of EE, there is also a danger that such pluralism may sustain dominant political ideologies and consolidated corporate power that obscure environmental concerns. Encouraging plural interpretations of ESD may in fact lead ecologically ill-informed teachers and students acculturated by the dominant neo-liberal ideology to underprivilege ecocentric perspective. It is argued that ESD, with its focus on human welfare, equality, rights and fair distribution of resources is a radical departure from the aim of EE set out by the Belgrade Charter as well as a distinct turn towards anthropocentrically biased education. This article has two aims: to demonstrate the importance of environmental ethics for EE in general and ESD in particular and to argue in favour of a return to instrumentalism, based on the twinned assumptions that the environmental problems are severe and that education of ecologically minded students could help their resolution

The inclusion of biodiversity into Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework: A strategic integration of ecocentric extinction accounting

Traditional Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics have primarily focused on promoting sustainable finance, positive screening, and sustainability reporting. However, recent research highlights the urgency for greater accountability and action to counter species extinction. This article explores the potential of ESG frameworks in guiding corporate and managerial decision-making to address biodiversity loss. As the current ESG indicators exhibit an anthropocentric bias, limiting their effectiveness for protecting biodiversity, this article aims to strategically integrate pragmatic extinction accounting with an ecocentric (deep ecology) perspective. This perspective addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss and offers support to species that are perceived as economically, socially, or culturally unimportant. We present our findings as a call to all stakeholders—business and policy decision-makers, conservationists, and environmental organizations—to formulate robust, inclusive, and ecologically sensitive strategies incorporating deep ecological perspectives. The findings of this study include recommendations for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). This study provides an important contribution to stakeholder theory that supports non-human stakeholders. Besides, this paper showcases how the improved ESG framework could empower companies to confront extinction risks in a more proactive and accelerated manner

Protecting Half the Planet and Transforming Human Systems Are Complementary Goals

The unfolding crises of mass extinction and climate change call for urgent action in response. To limit biodiversity losses and avert the worst effects of climate disruption, we must greatly expand nature protection while simultaneously downsizing and transforming human systems. The conservation initiative Nature Needs Half (or Half Earth), calling for the conservation of half the Earth's land and seas, is commensurate with the enormous challenges we face. Critics have objected to this initiative as harboring hardship for people near protected areas and for failing to confront the growth economy as the main engine of global ecological destruction. In response to the first criticism, we affirm that conservation policies must be designed and implemented in collaboration with Indigenous and local communities. In response to the second criticism, we argue that protecting half the Earth needs to be complemented by downscaling and reforming economic life, humanely and gradually reducing the global population, and changing food production and consumption. By protecting nature generously, and simultaneously contracting and transforming the human enterprise, we can create the conditions for achieving justice and well-being for both people and other species. If we fail to do so, we instead accept a chaotic and impoverished world that will be dangerous for us all

Political Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship

Conceptions of Environmental Citizenship are core to models of sustainability. Such contested conceptions raise historically significant questions associated with the rights of the individual and the responsibility of the community to the environment. Attitudes towards sustainability beg questions of models of citizenship ranging from compliance through democratic deliberation to active dissent. Philosophical problems also intersect with Environmental Citizenship. Ecocentrism prioritises a systemic holistic view of Nature in which the human species has no privileged role. Anthropocentrism in its more liberal aspect has an instrumental view of Nature underpinned by beneficence. These divergent ideologies also presuppose metaphysical and ontological questions about the relationship between Mind and Nature, hence fundamental implications for education and citizenship more broadly. There are, of course, intermediate positions. This raises three driving questions: 1. What are the main philosophical and political positions associated with Environmental Citizenship? 2. What are the justifications underpinning particular approaches to Environmental Citizenship? 3. Can we map the main components of Environmental Citizenship to create a coherent European and Global approach to inquiry