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

Sustainability: Key Issues

bookFSW – Publicaties zonder aanstelling Universiteit Leide

Rejoinder: Discussing Dichotomies with Colleagues

Global Challenges (FSW

Implications for forest management planning in the Northeast: a systematic map

Private forest owners influence future forest cover, health, and connectivity in the landscape. A forest management plan can promote effective stewardship by clearly specifying goals, objectives, and strategies; however, nationally, few forest owners have a written plan for their land, suggesting barriers to participation in management planning processes. We constructed a systematic map of research conducted within the Northeast US between 1990 and 2020 to identify topical themes, explorations into planning barriers, and potential leverage points to planning. We document an emphasis on identifying characteristics of private forest owners, management intensity, and landowner decision influences. Subsequent content analysis revealed a tenuous understanding of planning influences and motivations, and qualitative coding identified funding, current forest conditions, and carbon markets as potential leverage points to influence planning participation. Our findings emphasize the need for focused investigation surrounding forest owner perspectives of management planning and policy tools to remedy knowledge gaps.</p

Nobody Likes Dichotomies (But Sometimes You Need Them)

Environmental anthropologists attempt to accommodate social justice while seeking to reconcile more-than-human relations and responsibilities towards their habitats. This article acknowledges areas of tension between local livelihoods and international conservation efforts, between indigenous peoples and wildlife, between traditional lifeways and development, and finally between different types of ethical assumptions that underlie anthropological advocacy. A number of dichotomies that are inherent in these tensions are discussed. With regard to the ecocentric/anthropocentric dichotomy, I argue that while human and environmental interests are sometimes intertwined, ecocentrism is necessary if non-humans are to be protected outside of utilitarian interests. With regard to the ‘neoliberal conservation/local communities’ dichotomy, I argue that blaming conservation for the violation of social justice depoliticises the issue of ecological injustice. Through a critical discussion of these dichotomies, this article examines the role of environmental anthropology in addressing today’s pressing environmental issues, particularly the loss of biodiversity, with respect to the ‘conservation’ of communities and that of protected areas.Global Challenges (FSW

The Non-human Borderlands: Engaging with ecological justice and indigenous rights in Amazonia

Indigenous rights’ relationship to ecological justice in Amazonia has not been explicitly explored in the literature. As social scientists rarely talk about violence against non-humans, this case study of conservation in Amazonia will explore this new area of concern. Ethical inquiries in conservation also engage with the manifold ways through which human and nonhuman lives are entangled and emplaced within wider ecological relationships, converging in the notion of environmental justice, which often fails to account for overt violence or exploitation of non-humans. Reflecting on this omission, this chapter discusses the applicability of engaged social science and conservation to habitat destruction in Amazonia, and broader contexts involving violence against non-humans. The questions addressed in this chapter are: is the idea of ecological justice sufficiently supported in conservation debate, and more practical Amazonian contexts? Can advocacy of inherent rights be applied to the case of non-humans? Can indigenous communities still be considered 'traditional' considering population growth and increased consumptive practices? Concluding that the existing forms of justice are inadequate in dealing with the massive scale of non-human abuse, this chapter provides directions for conservation that engage with deep ecology and ecological justice in the Amazonian context. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29153-2 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina

Anthropocentrism: Problem of Human-centred ethics in Sustainable Development Goals

Anthropocentrism is the belief that value is human-centered and that all other beings are means to human ends. The Oxford English Dictionary defines anthropocentrism as “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence”. Anthropocentrism focuses on humanistic values as opposed to values found in non-human beings or ecosystems. With the popularization of the concept of ecosystem services, the idea of protecting the environment for the sake of human welfare is reflected in the SDGs. Within the SDGs, the instrumental use of the environment for the sake of alleviating poverty, combatting climate change, and addressing a range of other social and economic issues is promoted. Since the conception of the SDGs, there has been a discussion about anthropocentrism in ‘sustainable development’ (e.g., Kopnina 2016a and 2017, Strang 2017, Adelman 2018; Kotzé and French 2018) and how the SDGs can be antithetical to effective responses to sustainability challenges. The SDGs’ accent on economic growth and social equality as well as environmental protection actually result in ethical as well as practical paradoxes. While central to the SDG’s is ‘sustained and inclusive economic growth’ (UN 2015), the prioritization is on the economy, NOT the planet that nurtures both social and economic systems. Anthropocentrism, in this case, refers to the exclusive focus on short-term human benefits, whereas biodiversity loss is not considered a great moral wrong (Cafaro and Primack 2014). The three overarching anthropocentric SDG goals, economic growth, resilience, and inclusion, will be critically examined below and ways forward will be proposed. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319959801 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina