Using a Delphi study to clarify the landscape and core outcomes in environmental education

Abstract

When leaders in a field agree upon core outcomes for the field, connection, reinforcement, and a shared vision of change are synergistically strengthened. Even when the field is dynamic, theoretically wide-ranging, and dispersed, consensus around core outcomes can help develop strategic research agendas and priorities. Environmental education (EE) is an inherently interdisciplinary field drawing on diverse theoretical foundations and epistemological orientations, resulting in a broad conceptual and empirical landscape. To better understand and situate this within EE, we pursued a modified Delphi study, with participation from 44 professionals and leaders active in North America. Over three Delphi rounds, the panel came to agreement on five core outcomes that focus the EE field: (1) environmentally related action and behavior change, (2) connecting people to nature, (3) improving environmental outcomes, (4) improving social/cultural outcomes, and (5) learning environmentally relevant skills and competencies. Reflecting those commonalities, we propose the following encapsulating statement to describe the field’s core outcomes: Environmental education works to move people to action for the tangible benefit of the environment and humanity. To realize these benefits, people must connect experientially with the environment, learn needed skills, and understand the complicated social and cultural connections between humanity and the natural environment.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords:

• Behavior change
• nature connection
• environmental improvement
• social/cultural outcomes
• skills and competencies

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge all the time and consideration given by all members of the Delphi panel, as well as those who provided perspectives at conferences and working group sessions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Many scholars push back against this more instrumental perspective on education, noting its intrinsic value (Macintyre et al. 2018; Wals and Jickling 2002).

2 Verbatim excerpts were provided from the Belgrade Charter (EE goal, EE objectives, audiences, and guiding principles of EE programs) and the Tbilisi Declaration (goals of EE and categories of EE objectives).

3 See ‘Conclusion’ section for final wording.

Additional information

Funding

We are appreciative for foundational funding from the Pisces Foundation.

Notes on contributors

C. R. Clark

Charlotte Clark, PhD. is Assistant Professor of the Practice in Sustainablity Education at Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment. Her research focuses on the intersection of collective learning and collective action.

J. E. Heimlich

Joe E. Heimlich, Ph.D. is Senior Director of Research for COSI, and an Academy Professor Emeritus with The Ohio State University. His research focuses on lifelong learning in non-school settings, with primary interest in environmental learning.

N. M. Ardoin

Nicole M. Ardoin, Ph.D. is Associate Professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University. Her research focuses on environmental behavior as influenced by enviromental learning and motivated by place-based connections.

J. Braus

Judy Braus is Executive Director of the North American Association of Environmental Education, a professional association serving the field of environmental education in North America and throughout the world. She leads the efforts of NAAEE to use the power of education to help create healthier communities that empower local communities, stakeholders, and individuals to help restore and protect the environment.