The paradox of the ‘sustainable fieldtrip’? Exploring the links between geography fieldtrips and environmental sustainability

ABSTRACT

The global climate emergency raises important questions for the future of fieldtrips in geographical education. Building on a longer history of these debates in the discipline, geography educators are paying increased attention to the environmental impacts of field-based education, as demonstrated by the Royal Geographical Society-Institute of British Geographers’ (RGS-IBG) recent Principles for Undergraduate Field Courses. However, as important as these steps are, there is relatively little study of student engagement with discussions on the environmental sustainability of geographical fieldtrips. Reporting on a research project involving a survey, learning intervention and semi-structured interviews with undergraduate geographers based at an East Midlands university in the UK, specifically exploring these students’ perspectives on geography fieldtrips and environmental sustainability, we argue that participatory and collaborative dialogue between teachers, students and other geographical stakeholders is crucial as geographers continue to grapple with the ethical, political, and environmental implications of these debates.

KEYWORDS:

• Fieldtrips
• sustainability
• geography
• participation
• climate emergency

Introduction

Fieldtrips have long been recognised as an important component of geographical education (Kent et al., 1997). As Katz (1994) argues, the boundaries of “the field” are subject to shifting political economic, ethical and sociocultural norms. These debates include the exclusionary boundaries (expressed in racialised, gendered, sexualised, classed, ableist terms) constructed around accessibility to fieldtrips, participation in field activities, and regulation of social activities in a field environment (Abbott, 2006; Hall et al., 2004; Nairn, 2003). Greene et al. (2021) state it is imperative that educators facilitate safe and inclusive fieldtrips, taking into account participants’ identities (for example attentiveness to historical exclusions, gender identities, and protected characteristics) and aiming to facilitate a dual-dialogue approach between staff and students.

Fieldtrips can also carry a significant environmental footprint (Elliott, 2015; Spector, 2019). Schott (2017, p. 13) identifies a paradox in that “many of the benefits long associated with international fieldtrips are at odds with the world community’s current as well as future needs in limiting/halting climate change”. Akin to related activities, for example participation in international conferences which promote pro-environmental solutions but also generate high carbon footprints, geography fieldtrips, particularly those grounded in long-distance travel, are beset with this contradiction. This paper focuses on this “poignant dilemma” for geography fieldtrips (Schott, 2017, p. 14). While there have been attempts to calculate the carbon footprints of field classes (Schott, 2017), there is relatively little work on the involvement of students in discussions on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips (for an exception, see Ribchester et al. (2009)). The benefits of employing dual-dialogue pedagogy within fieldtrips include that it creates active collaborative learning (Hanson & DeIuliis, 2015). Shared evaluation of student’ perspectives relating to the social, economic, and environmental dilemmas of fieldtrips could provide a meaningful experiential learning experience by facilitating the collaborative development of actionable, sustainable fieldwork practice. These debates are especially pertinent in the context of a rapidly changing higher education environment, with the global climate emergency, COVID-19 pandemic, and transformation of teaching practices (Bryson & Andres, 2020).

Within UK higher education this debate has been gaining traction and UK institutions delivering undergraduate programmes in geography are being encouraged to sign up to the Principles for Undergraduate Field Courses proposed by the RGS-IBG. Implementation of these principles should “involve the input of students through a critical conversation around the inherent trade-offs and issues” of geography fieldtrips (IBG, 2020). In this paper we reflect on a small research project conducted with geography students at an East Midlands university (in the UK) from April-July 2020. This project engaged with a small sample of undergraduate geography students (48 participants) to discuss the environmental sustainability of geography fieldtrips: first, we distributed a questionnaire to garner undergraduate geographers’ views on this topic; second, we created an online learning intervention to discuss these issues in more detail; and finally, we reflected on the project with in-depth semi-structured interviews. Drawing on the experience of this research, the paper argues that the deliberative participation and engagement of students – through both sustained discussion about the ethical and environmental implications of fieldtrips, and the direct integration of these debates into fieldtrip activities – is key for future decision-making about field-based education in the context of global climate emergency.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide an overview of academic debates on environmental sustainability, education, and the role of fieldtrips more specifically. Secondly, the paper introduces the empirical context of a small research project (on the environmental sustainability of geography fieldtrips) conducted with undergraduate geographers at an East Midlands university. The paper concludes with reflections on what this research suggests for future engagement with debates on environmental sustainability and fieldtrips. Importantly, we do not advance the argument that fieldtrips should simply be stopped or withdrawn from geography curriculums on sustainability grounds. Rather, we emphasise that any future choices about environmental sustainability and fieldtrips on geography courses should be based on a dual-dialogue approach: participatory, deliberative reflection and decision-making which engages staff, students and other stakeholders affected by fieldtrip practices.

Sustainability and higher education

Sustainability has emerged as an important concern in higher education (Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021). Sustainable development can be defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development WCED, 1987). Sneddon et al. (2006, p. 256) contend that sustainable development is underpinned by three principles: to improve human wellbeing, to promote a more equitable distribution of resources across societies, and to enable development that protects natural environments over intergenerational timescales. The concept of sustainable development has been critiqued for its conceptual vagueness, an inadequate conceptualisation of poverty, and for its continued promotion of unlimited capitalist economic growth as a driver for environmental amelioration (Luke, 2005; Redclift, 1987; Spaiser et al., 2017). Within this broader context, a discourse of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has also emerged in the last two decades (Glavič, 2020; Sjögren, 2019). ESD advocates that sustainable development is pursued at all levels of education, from kindergarten to universities, in terms of curriculum design, and in relation to the management of education institutions (Sprenger & Nienaber, 2018). Drawing on this agenda, sustainability has been mainstreamed into educational policy through the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 4 of the SDGs aims to ensure that everybody has access to quality education. Goal 13, which aims to “to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”, is also highly resonant for debates about sustainability in education (United Nations, 2021).

As Hopkins et al. (2016, p. 378) note, “there is a growing interest among academic institutions towards environmental awareness, sustainability and measurement of carbon footprints”. This is reflected in the proliferation of university strategies and offices devoted to sustainability, international collaborations such as the Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development portal (Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development HESD, 2021), and the People & Planet “Green League” in the UK (People and Planet, 2021). However, assessments of environmental sustainability (particularly climate change) tend to be campus-specific in nature (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008), despite the fact that a broad range of work-related activities contributes to staff and student carbon footprints. Additionally, assessments of the carbon footprint of universities tend to focus on emissions which are incurred directly from assets owned or managed by the institution, for example company-owned vehicles, or on emissions from the electricity consumed by the institution, rather than associated academic activities, such as conferences and fieldwork (Hopkins et al., 2016).

In particular, academic travel (and its associated emissions) is key for understanding the global climate emergency in the context of higher education (Parncutt et al., 2019). As Whitmarsh et al. (2020) note, there is a paradox between the hypermobility of elite academic travel, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of these activities, and the values and research of sustainability-focused academics. This paradox can have important effects on the credibility of scientific expertise; as Attari et al. (2016, 2019) find in public surveys, statements about a researcher’s carbon footprint (particularly home energy use) can affect their credibility in terms of trust in their expertise and their advocacy of pro-environmental behavioural and policy changes. As Nevins (2014, p. 306) notes, the opportunity to fly long-distance (to exercise “ecological privilege”) is not available to all academic researchers; (gendered) family responsibilities, seniority of position, availability of funding, the ability to conduct independent research, and geographical location all play a role in the unequal politics of academic mobility. Le Quéré et al. (2015) suggest that a more diverse working culture (with use of more open and online platforms for social gatherings) would promote a more environmentally friendly and inclusive research environment. For example, Quinton (2020) notes that improvements to university travel booking systems could be achieved through promotion of low carbon alternatives as opposed to a sole focus on cost-based purchasing criteria. These recommendations are supported in a Nature Editorial (2015) which argues that universities are important actors for promoting a less carbon-intensive working culture (particularly in terms of food consumption and travel) in education. In this paper, we argue that these debates are also key for field-based education in geography. We argue that higher education institutions should promote dual-dialogue between key stakeholders in debates about sustainability and geographical fieldwork. This dialogue is not only critical for reflecting on the “poignant dilemma” of geography fieldtrips in the context of global climate emergency (Schott, 2017, p. 14), but also promoting systemic change across higher education in the UK and internationally.

Geography fieldtrips and environmental sustainability

Fieldwork is broadly recognised to be a fundamental aspect of geographical education (Cook et al., 2006; Wall & Speake, 2012). The Quality Assurance Agency’s Subject Benchmark Statement for Geography (2019) states that: “Field experience is an essential part of geographical learning and all geographers require the opportunity to plan, undertake and report significant fieldwork during their course.” Marvell and Simm (2018) argue that in-person fieldtrips provide students with the opportunity to explore emotional geographies in situ: exposure to novel experiences evokes individualised emotional responses which can lead to experimental, critical and transformative learning experiences. Additionally, fieldtrips can help with development of problem-solving skills, acting as a bridge between theory and “real-world” practice (Hovorka & Wolf, 2009). As Boyle et al. (2007) report from their survey of UK geography students involved in fieldwork, these experiences have tended to generate a very positive affective response; overall, respondents enjoyed fieldtrips and valued the development of cohort identity engendered by field-based learning.

Peacock et al. (2018) provide a useful summary of the different types of fieldtrips and their effectiveness as a pedagogic strategy. Residential fieldtrips typically last between two to ten days, local fieldtrips are commonly a full day and campus based fieldwork may last from an hour to a full day. Residential fieldwork is widely perceived as offering pedagogic and social benefits for students and in building staff-student relationships that encourage students to approach staff later in their studies. Set against this is evidence that some students can be overwhelmed by new environments and others find it difficult to attend residential fieldtrips because of external time commitments such as caring responsibilities or the need for part-time work. Institutions can find fieldtrips costly, intensive in staff time and hard to timetable. Local and campus-based fieldwork offer more familiar surroundings for students allowing them to focus on their learning and can help students put theory into practice quickly. Peacock et al. (2018) demonstrate that regular carefully planned and timetabled campus-based fieldwork can make it more accessible for students, scaffold their learning and build their confidence in field skills and working in groups; positive impacts on group cohesion were found in relatively short sessions.

Geography fieldtrips of all types face challenges imposed by structural constraints. Growing student numbers in the UK have increased staff-student ratios and fieldtrip costs (for institutions and students), alongside concerns about the threat of litigation, safety, and the workload burden on teaching staff (Dunphy & Spellman, 2009; Friess et al., 2016). Building on earlier work on the mental health impacts of fieldtrips for students (Birnie & Grant, 2001), Tucker and Horton (2019) explore the mental health challenges of fieldwork for staff, documenting painful experiences of anxiety, isolation, lack of support from institutions, long working hours and exhaustion. In a study of geography field courses offered in 37 Canadian universities, Wilson et al. (2017) found that only one-third of departments required completion of field activities for successful completion of their courses. In a similar survey of US geography departments, Mullens et al. (2012) found that although the number of field options had increased in the previous decade, only a minority of respondents stipulated fieldwork as a prerequisite for completion of their courses. As such, whilst fieldtrips in geography can be beneficial, they are also subject to a range of challenges.

As Maxey and Gillmore (2013) argue, GEES (Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences) scholars have been at the forefront of ESD debates, including the specific role of fieldtrips for environmental sustainability. Decisions involved in fieldtrip planning negotiate dilemmas of “what is practically, politically, economically, and ethically possible” (McGuiness & Simm, 2005, p. 245, original emphasis). Fundamental trade-offs related to the social and environmental dimensions of fieldtrips include student expectations of what fieldwork should be, the usage of long-haul fieldtrips as a “product” for consumption by increasingly well-travelled students, and the race for increasingly “exotic” fieldtrip destinations between competing institutions (McGuiness & Simm, 2005, p. 246). Geography fieldtrips can bring important environmental benefits, building knowledge of environmental management and of threats to natural environments. The potential environmental impact of fieldtrips has also long been recognised, for example in decisions about which modes of transport to use in field locations (Binns, 1992). The global climate emergency creates additional challenges for fieldtrips; it transgresses physical boundaries (geological space) and the implicit boundaries of society, culture, ethics, and political economy (Hoppe et al., 2013). In a study comparing the carbon footprints of a virtual fieldtrip and a physical fieldtrip from New Zealand to Fiji (with 91 students and 5 staff), Schott (2017) found that the physical fieldtrip would generate about 123 tonnes of CO₂-e, whilst the virtual fieldtrip would generate about 2.6 tonnes. The main source of emissions for the virtual fieldtrip was generated by two staff members travelling to Fiji to gather information needed to create the virtual field environment and assessment, whilst for the physical fieldtrip the largest source of emissions was the return flight (Schott, 2017). In a similar study, Ribchester et al. (2009), as part of a project piloted at the Department of Geography and Development Studies at the University of Chester, developed a carbon calculator for field courses. The calculator measures emissions from transport, energy, food, and consumption/waste. The calculator was used as part of two geography fieldtrips during the 2007–8 academic year, one to Slapton (Devon) and the other to Fabergstølsbreen (Norway) (Ribchester et al., 2009). The Devon fieldtrip generated 3.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide, whilst the Norway fieldtrip generated 2.90 tonnes. Although transport emissions were higher for the Norway fieldtrip (with a flight to the field destination), the Devon fieldtrip registered a higher overall total due to energy consumption (with students staying in a field centre as opposed to camping) (Ribchester et al., 2009). Ribchester et al. (2009) provide an important early example in that the carbon footprint calculator they develop is itself primarily a learning tool: the emissions data generated from the Norway and Devon fieldtrips was inputted and calculated by the students on these fieldtrips. The calculator provided a useful means for students (and teachers) to reflect on their day-to-day actions in the field and how these relate to broader sustainability efforts (Ribchester et al., 2009). Students kept reflective diaries to take account of these experiences, and the field courses and measurements encouraged constant reflection on the usefulness of a carbon calculator as a methodology (Ribchester et al., 2009). Williams and Love (2022), reporting on a study of the major emissions from the Department of Geography at Durham University, found that the highest contributions come from air travel for staff research and student fieldtrips, They also found that there is strong support among surveyed students for further decarbonization in the academy (Williams and Love, 2022). Building on these studies, we argue that in debates about the sustainability of geography fieldtrips, such engagement between staff, students, communities in field destinations, and other affected stakeholders is crucial, particularly in light of the implications of the global climate emergency for field-based education.

Fieldtrips, environmental sustainability and the UK HE context

In the UK context, the RGS-IBG Principles for Undergraduate Field Courses make it clear that close collaboration between stakeholders should take place to support the “delivery of high quality and sustainable fieldwork for future generations of undergraduate students” (RGS-IBG, 2020). They received unanimous approval by the Council of Heads of Geography in UK Higher Education Institutions (CHGHEI) in December 2020. A range of issues were considered including sustainability and carbon footprints of travel, accessibility, inclusivity and equality of opportunity, and issues of fieldwork and mental health. The five principles aim to “ensure that departments develop their fieldwork programmes in ways which maximise the benefits of field education whilst minimising the disbenefits” and during implementation the approach to decision making and annual monitoring should be transparent to all those involved, students and staff, and include a commitment to demonstrable improvement over time (IBG, 2020). The principles apply at programme (course) level and state that both travel and destinations should be clearly justified by the relevant module and programme learning outcomes. The principles represent an important opportunity for reflection on the delivery of undergraduate geography fieldwork, including its environmental impact. The 2022 QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for Geography embraces many aspects of the RGS-IBG Principles for Undergraduate Field Courses including sustainability, equity, equality, diversity and inclusion. The Statement (p.13) notes that ‘the environmental impact of fieldwork, its sustainability and its carbon footprint should be considered by conducting a carbon audit prior to all taught fieldwork.’, arguing that decisions related to fieldtrip destination and transport mode need to be justified in the context of geograpical learning, transferable skills development and other learning benefits. The RGS-IBG also offers accreditation for undergraduate programmes in geography which aligns the criteria and process for accreditation with the learning outcomes described in the QAA’s Subject Benchmark Statement for Geography. As programmes apply for accreditation or re-accreditation in the future, the sustainability and inclusiveness of their undergraduate fieldwork would be a part of the processes for such accreditation.

This paper does not attempt to quantify emissions from geography fieldtrips, as important as this work is. We also do not claim to provide a representative survey of student perceptions on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips. Instead, we reflect on a small research project involving first-year geography undergraduates at a UK university in the East Midlands. This project was designed to learn more about what these students’ views are on environmental sustainability and fieldtrips and to engage their detailed reflections on what these debates suggest for fieldtrips as a form of educational practice. In light of this research, and the RGS-IBG Principles, we argue that as these debates continue in the context of the global climate emergency and environmental sustainability, decisions taken about the future direction of geography fieldtrips should be based on collaborative deliberation and participation of staff, students, local communities and other affected stakeholders.

Methods

The project adopted a three-stage research design, carried out with first-year geography undergraduate students undertaking a compulsory module (which provides a broad introduction to contemporary human geography) at a UK university in the East Midlands. 48 students were enrolled on this module in 2019–20, and most had attended a weeklong overseas European residential fieldtrip in the winter of 2019 (as part of a core module) in their first academic year. It is important to note that students had also completed numerous localised daytrips throughout their first academic year, and depending on the modules chosen, students may have gone on to participate in further daytrips (across all terms) and a weeklong UK residential fieldtrip in their second and final academic years. Furthermore, due to the rural nature of the university campus, all students conducted field exercises on campus throughout all years of their courses.

The first stage of the research project consisted of a questionnaire divided into three sections. The first section, after the information sheet and consent form were presented, asked for demographic data. This was followed by a section asking respondents about their perception and awareness of debates on environmental sustainability and fieldtrips; this section was mainly structured as a series of statements about environmental sustainability and fieldtrips to be responded to using a Likert Scale (from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). The survey is not based on an examination of a particular type of fieldtrip, and some of the statements referred to different types of fieldtrips (e.g. “UK-based fieldtrips are more environmentally sustainable than overseas fieldtrips at the investigated university”, and “virtual (online or class-based) fieldtrips are more environmentally sustainable than fieldtrips which involve physical travel”). Most of the statements referred to fieldtrips in general (e.g. “the educational benefits of fieldtrips outweigh any negative environmental impacts”). It could be that although the project did not intend to specify a particular type of fieldtrip as the basis of the survey, there is an embedded bias which, partly reflected in the survey questions and the learning intervention, and partly reflected in the assumption that fieldtrips which involve travel over longer distances have higher carbon footprints, suggests that the fieldtrips we are investigating are residential and not based on local fieldwork. As such, whilst we have tried to not specify a particular type of fieldtrip, it is possible that, and a limitation of the project, that residential fieldtrips which involve travel are the type of fieldtrip assumed by respondents. The final section included a variety of different questions to query students’ views on integrating environmental sustainability into fieldtrip design. These included questions on support for offsetting practices which could be used to mitigate the environmental impacts of fieldtrips, actions participants thought that the university could take the improve the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips, and a question asking whether participants had previously come across debates on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips. The questionnaire was distributed via email and the online VLE (virtual learning environment) to students and was available to complete from April 16-July 9 (2020). The survey received 23 responses, a response rate of 49%.

The second stage of the research design consisted of a one-hour session held on Microsoft Teams. This session took place on July 10 (2020) as a synchronous event but was also recorded for those who could not attend “live”. Three individuals, those who subsequently participated in interviews, engaged with the learning intervention; two engaged with the live session and one watched the recording. It is also possible that other survey respondents watched the recording of the learning intervention but did not volunteer to participate in an interview; however, as these students did not participate in the interviews it is difficult to know exactly how many individuals this may have been. The learning intervention consisted first of a presentation which introduced broad debates concerning environmental sustainability and fieldtrips. The presentation started with a note on the centrality of fieldtrips to geography education (citing the 2019 QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for Geography), highlighting the potential benefits that fieldtrips can bring (e.g. development of key skills), before noting that the field is also a contested space, with a range of environmental, ethical, and political economic challenges. The presentation then introduced a range of issues related to debates on environmental sustainability and fieldtrips, including the notion of the “academic gold rush” in local field environments (Gaillard & Gomez, 2015), the role of higher education in the sustainable development goals, issues directly related to the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips (e.g. travel to and from field destinations, and food and water consumption), and the example of the carbon calculator developed by Richester et al. (2009). The final part of the learning intervention consisted of a discussion of different “ways forward” on these issues, including integrating activities into field activities (e.g. use of a carbon calculator), offsetting strategies, use of alternative forms of fieldtrip (for example virtual fieldtrips), and further democratic deliberation between staff and students. The final stage of the research consisted of semi-structured interviews with respondents who had completed the questionnaire and participated (synchronously or asynchronously) in the online learning intervention. Interviewees were asked a series of open questions about their views on debates in geography concerning environmental sustainability and fieldtrips. Questions included whether participants thought fieldtrips were a valuable part of their degree, whether they thought that fieldtrips increased environmental awareness, and whether the survey and/or learning intervention had affected their views on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips at the investigated university. Participants were also asked if they thought debates on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips should be discussed more in universities, and about ways in which fieldtrips could become more sustainable (including use of “virtual fieldtrips”, integrating debates on environmental sustainability of fieldtrips into design of field activities, and offsetting of fieldtrip emissions). Three interviews were held between July 10 and July 31 (2020) to discuss participants’ reflections on these debates in more depth. Interview discussions were recorded, transcribed and descriptively coded at a later date. All interviewees were accorded a pseudonym for the analysis.

The research design, whilst it remained fundamentally the same in terms of the composition of each stage, was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire, learning intervention and interviews were all carried out online. The online session and interviews were completed after all end-of-year assessments were completed. This decision may have negatively affected the survey response rate and number of interviews. However, in light of the difficult circumstances in mid-2020, and the pressure that this placed on both students and staff, we argued, and received revised ethical approval on the basis of this argument, that the project should be completed at a later point. Whilst the pandemic affected the implementation of the project, it has also raised an important context for discussion of environmental sustainability and geography fieldtrips. Many of the university’s spring geography fieldtrips, including a second-year urban geography fieldtrip, were cancelled as a consequence of public health restrictions. While this did not directly affect students on the first-year module, most of whom had attended an international residential fieldtrip prior to the pandemic, it did create a pertinent broader context to discuss the purpose and future of geography fieldtrips. In the next section, we provide an overview of survey findings before integrating a discussion of interviewees’ thoughts with broader reflections on fieldtrips and sustainability in geography.

Results

Of survey responses, there was a 48–52% split of female to male respondents. All respondents had previously participated in some form of fieldtrip, with 100% of respondents having attended a non-residential UK fieldtrip and 96% having attended an international residential fieldtrip. Slightly more respondents identified as a physical geographer (35%) than a human geographer (22%). 44% of participants identified as an “integrated geographer”, defined in this project as: “a geographer who prefers not to identify explicitly with either human or physical geography, but instead identifies with a different perspective which integrates both human and physical geographical issues (for example human-environment relationships)”. 100% of respondents indicated that they were previously unaware of debates on the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips, and 96% (n = 22) indicated that they were not familiar with carbon offsetting as a means to ameliorate the emissions associated with fieldtrips. Tables 1 and 2 indicate responses to student perceptions about geography fieldtrips in the context of environmental sustainability and strategies for offsetting emissions from fieldwork.

Table 1. Responses to questions about student perceptions of geography fieldtrips and environmental sustainability.

Statement and response	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Fieldtrips should be a core part of the geography curriculum at “x” university	74%	17%	4%	4%	0%
Fieldtrips at “x” university help to increase my awareness of environmental sustainability	39%	39%	22%	0%	0%
Fieldtrips at “x” university have negative environmental impacts	4%	9%	48%	39%	0%
The impact of fieldtrips at “x” university on the environment is small	17%	57%	22%	4%	0%
The educational benefits of fieldtrips outweigh any negative impacts	35%	30%	35%	0%	0%
Virtual fieldtrips are more environmentally sustainable than fieldworks which involve physical travel	13%	61%	13%	13%	0%

Table 2. Student responses to survey questions about which activities they would be willing to undertake to offset emissions from fieldtrips.

Statement and response	Yes	No	Not sure
Reducing consumption of meat	52%	26%	22%
Purchasing offsets as “carbon sinks” (for example schemes to plant trees)	96%	0%	4%
Using more public transport	64%	14%	23%
Walking or cycling more regularly	91%	0%	9%
Using less electricity on campus Recycling more of my waste	96% 100%	0% 0%	4% 0%
Using less water on campus	91%	4%	4%

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that fieldtrips should be a core part of the geography curriculum at the investigated university (91%). Participants also expressed positive views about fieldtrips and sustainability, with 78% of respondents indicating that fieldtrips help to increase their awareness of environmental sustainability, 74% agreeing that the impact of the investigated university’s fieldtrips on the environment is small, and 65% agreeing that the educational benefits of fieldtrips outweigh any negative environmental impacts (Table 2). For the question of whether fieldtrips have a negative environmental impact, the largest number of respondents answered, “neither agree nor disagree” (48%), but the percentage that disagreed with this statement is higher (39%) than those who agreed (13%). When presented with a range of behaviours that could contribute to offsetting fieldwork emissions (Table 2), respondents indicated that they would be most willing to purchase offsets (96%), walk or cycle more regularly (91%), use less electricity on campus (96%), recycle more waste (100%), and use less water on campus (91%). Although lower, majorities also indicated that they would use more public transport (61%) and reduce meat consumption (52%). In general, findings suggest positive views on the environmental value and impacts of geography fieldtrips (at this university), as well as support for a range of different behaviours which could be used to offset emissions generated from fieldtrips. These results are from a very small sample and not generalisable, but they do suggest that participants could be willing to engage in a range of different means through which the environmental impacts of fieldtrips could be mitigated. The next section, elucidating on the interviews, also discusses this point in relation to integrating learning activities about the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips, e.g. use of carbon calculators, into the design of geography fieldtrips.

Discussion

Semi-structured interviews conducted after the learning intervention suggested that this had contributed to, alongside the survey, an increase in awareness among participants of environmental sustainability and field-based education:

Yes, because before I did not think about the impacts that we are having when going on fieldtrips that are further afield … it has led me to contemplate more about the transportation that is used when going on fieldtrips and how we have to consider different factors

(Interview 1, Rebecca)

It’s a cool thing and worthwhile studying … it’s very conflicting to visit the place you’re studying if what you’re studying harms the environment and that’s what your passionate about … with fieldtrips you always talk about the equipment you need to bring but you never really think about the carbon footprint

(Interview 2, Victoria)

I looked through your talk and I found the concept of the academic gold rush and imperial gaze very interesting … intellectual understanding of a place is everybody’s right but we live in a world where that intellectual understanding cannot be done without some sort of carbon footprint

(Interview 3, Anthony)

All interviewees noted that the learning intervention had made them think in more depth about the environmental implications of geography fieldtrips. This includes specific environmental impacts, e.g. the role of transportation (in Rebecca’s comments), or in Victoria’s comments the personal conflicts these issues raise about academic integrity: being “passionate” about geography fieldtrips without necessarily being cognisant of the “carbon footprint” of these activities. This point corroborates the findings of Le Quéré et al. (2015), who identify the personal difficulties climate change researchers have in reconciling their values as environmental scientists and their practice as high carbon-emitters.

Importantly, interviewees suggested that the learning intervention raised important ethical dimensions of fieldtrips related to environmental sustainability. Anthony raised the concept of an “academic gold rush”: the notion that field researchers visit a location for brief periods of time, “extract” data from local communities and environments in a decontextualised manner, and then leave to benefit from this work (Gaillard & Gomez, 2015). Anthony highlights that “intellectual understanding of a place” is not an unqualified right and comes with an associated “carbon footprint”. Later in his interview, Anthony also notes the importance of working with local actors in field destinations with expert knowledges on their environmental, cultural and linguistic contexts. In touching on these issues, all interviewees highlight that fieldwork is not an ethically neutral exercise (McGuiness & Simm, 2005): field activities raise important questions about fidelity to local communities and natural environments. As Dickinson and Telford (2020) argue, ethical reflections on fieldwork not only reflect the field encounter itself, but also representations of this encounter: how do we, for example, respond to the complexities of ethical issues when conducting fieldwork, whilst still advocating for the importance of fieldtrips as an emotional, immersive, experiential form of geographical education (Marvell & Simm, 2018)? As geographers who teach and conduct research on environmental politics and ethics, we regularly engage with students about different types of pro-environmental behaviour. However, we have rarely engaged with students about the environmental implications of field classes. We have taught on subjects such as the ethics of biodiversity conservation and climate justice, but there can be a dissociation between this taught content and our own pedagogic practice.

This learning intervention, and interviewees’ reflections in light of this, underlines the importance of deeper reflection on the ethical questions which underpin the environmental sustainability of geography fieldtrips. These questions include the purpose and pedagogic contribution of particular field activities in light of their environmental impacts, decisions about how fieldtrips are organised and take place, and how we as academic geographers engage with fieldtrips and environmental sustainability: how do our choices reflect on the places we visit and the communities that we work with? As white, privileged academics employed by universities in imperial countries and teaching a discipline with a history of colonial exploitation, how does our position affect our ability to lead fieldtrips to different places and the environmental impacts that these fieldtrips engender? How can these debates take place in the context of ecological privilege and injustice (Nevins, 2014)? These are not simple questions to address, and we do not want to reduce these debates to a dichotomy between either ignoring these questions in our field activities on the one hand, or abandoning fieldtrips as a consequence of these challenges on the other. Nor do we think that these questions have singular, “silver bullet” answers. Rather, we argue that what these challenges require is context-specific critical reflection and discussion between different stakeholders in geography education. Importantly, this should not only be limited to academic staff and Heads of Department, but also recognise the central role of students in these decisions and draw upon staff-student collaboration in practice, with the aim of facilitating a dual-dialogue between educators and students regarding fieldtrips, itinerary planning, and environmental and social concerns associated with these activities.

Interviewees cited a variety of means through which, following the learning intervention, we (as geography teachers) could integrate pro-environmental awareness and staff-student collaboration directly into our fieldtrip pedagogy. This included incorporating carbon-offsetting strategies into our courses (e.g. encouraging students to use public transport, or incentivising less energy-intensive food choices), echoing the survey findings, as well as the need to work more collaboratively with local communities in field locations. Here, we will highlight two approaches: activities (e.g. calculation of carbon footprints) integrated into fieldtrips, and virtual fieldtrips. On integrated field activities, interviewees noted:

I believe if we carried out investigations such as that by Ribchester et al. (2009) it would be a good idea because not only are we learning from the fieldwork but we can also see the differences between the impacts that our movements are having

(Interview 1, Rebecca)

If there’s a consciousness that there’s going to be a carbon footprint there could be a module or assigned piece of work that really takes this into account … My first thought is that you are getting quantifiable data which is extremely valuable … my second thought is that this is going to put pressure on teachers and students in terms of workload … it’s about trade-offs

(Interview 3, Anthony)

Anthony and Rebecca both highlight the potential value of integrating debates about environmental sustainability into field activities. This is not only to gather empirical data and develop skills (as Rebecca notes in the context of fieldtrip movement and Anthony in relation to quantitative data), but also because these activities can help to build “consciousness” of the carbon footprint of field activities (Anthony). Rebecca suggests using existing models of this type of learning activity (Ribchester et al., 2009), whilst Anthony suggests creating a module or assignment which reflects on these specific questions. Both interviewees provide productive suggestions for integrated learning activities and the pedagogical benefits of these. Such benefits could be affective (greater enjoyment and confidence-building through team activities), as well as the educational benefits of active, experiential forms of learning (Holton, 2017). Student respondents also noted examples of the seven modes of fieldtrip teaching strategies identified by France and Haigh (2018, p. 504), including project-orientated learning, field teaching as a form of “research apprenticeship”, and “reflective international fieldwork”. However, as Anthony points out, such labour-intensive activities could add to existing workload pressures on staff and students. This is particularly the case in the context of a neoliberal academy in which staff often work long hours under competitive, precarious conditions (Berg et al., 2016). As Tucker and Horton (2019) emphasise, these stresses are exacerbated with field education too, with long hours of preparation beforehand, intense working conditions during the fieldtrip itself, and often a lack of institutional support for the implications of these activities for staff and students’ mental health. Another alternative discussed in interviews was the possibility of “virtual fieldtrips”:

I do not believe that virtual fieldtrips will be as successful as physically travelling to the field destination … learning online can be very different to the reality and fieldtrips are also more memorable … than completing the trip virtually

(Interview 1, Rebecca)

It could be cool … if there were staff dotted around the world and if we were learning about a place they could talk to us from there … they can be our lecturer for that lesson and show us what’s happening

(Interview 2, Victoria)

I think it’s very important that we are aware that when we use a piece of technology it’s not clean by any means … so I don’t see virtual tours as being necessarily any better or any worse than physically flying to a place

(Interview 3, Anthony)

Whilst Victoria highlights that virtual fieldtrips could be beneficial if teachers maintain a physical presence, there is a risk that lecturers as “reporters” from different destinations could recreate a “Cook’s Tour” model of fieldtrip learning (Fuller & France, 2015). As Cliffe (2017) notes, virtual field options can widen access to a field experience to students who are unable to physically travel to a field destination. Virtual fieldtrips can also allow access to a safe environment for larger groups of students without the expense, litigation or health and safety concerns of physical fieldtrips (Friess et al., 2016). However, virtual field options can also be very time-consuming to create and do not necessarily enable the hands-on, practical learning experience that data collection in a physical environment facilitates (Friess et al., 2016). Rebecca echoes this point, highlighting that virtual fieldtrips may not be as “successful” or “memorable” as in-person alternatives. Furthermore, this approach may inhibit the advantages obtained from an immersive, intensive learning experience in the field (Marvell & Simm, 2018). As Anthony notes, virtual fieldtrips are also not fully “clean” in environmental terms; computer usage (and the materials used to build digital hardware) and the impacts of any physical travel for staff members can incur environmental costs. Notwithstanding these concerns, as Schott (2017) reports, the carbon footprint of their virtual fieldtrip (from New Zealand to Fiji) was considerably lower than that of an equivalent physical fieldtrip. In this sense, if environmental sustainability is interpreted narrowly as carbon footprint, virtual fieldtrips could offer a more sustainable alternative to physical field-based education (Atchison & Kennedy, 2020).

What the interviewees’ testimonies, combined with reflections from academic studies, suggest is that virtual fieldtrips are (and could prove to be) a valuable learning tool in the context of debates about fieldtrips and environmental sustainability. However, these reflections also suggest that a physical, in-person presence is equally as important. This could be through staff being “on location” or staff reconnaissance work in advance of the virtual fieldtrip, but perhaps also through using virtual components (as well as perhaps Virtual Reality tools) to help prepare for or as part of the physical fieldtrip (Bos et al., 2021). Such an approach would be in line with Principle 1 of the RGS-IBG Principles for Undergraduate Field Courses: that virtual fieldwork “has significant value in supplementing and enhancing field-based learning but is not normally a substitute for in-situ field learning” (IBG, 2020). In general, both the suggestions of integrated field activities and virtual fieldtrips provide potentially productive means through which staff and students can collaborate on debates about the environmental sustainability of geography fieldtrips.

Conclusion

This paper has reflected on a small research project conducted with geography students (at an East Midlands UK university) on the environmental sustainability of geography fieldtrips. Consisting of an initial survey, an online class which functioned as a learning intervention, and semi-structured interviews, the paper has argued that current and future debates on the sustainability of geography fieldtrips (in lieu of their environmental impact and the global climate emergency) must be based on deliberative participation and collaboration between staff and students (and stakeholders in affected field environments), a fundamentally dual-dialogue approach. We have argued that this collaboration should take the form of critical discussion and reflection of the ethical implications of fieldtrip decisions, the practice of fieldwork, and the positionality of geography educators in these debates. Practically, this may involve using field activities as case studies for studying environmental sustainability, engaging in further research with students to raise awareness of environmental sustainability and fieldtrip issues, and integrating discussion of these debates into institutional structures, e.g. staff and student meetings, university strategies, and meetings of national organisations (e.g. the RGS-IBG). In addition to this, building on reflections from the survey and interviews, we contend that there are also direct pedagogical ways in which the environmental sustainability of fieldtrips can be integrated as a learning tool into fieldtrips, for example through integrated activities or design of virtual fieldtrips.

Although we have argued that this research project promotes the need for a broader conversation about environmental sustainability and fieldtrips (and the politics and ethics of these debates), the low sample size means that this paper cannot claim to provide results that are representative of geography students more broadly. Nor would we argue that these debates are new to geography; fieldtrip leaders have been engaging for some time with discussions on the sustainability of field-based learning in the discipline (Binns, 1992). However, we do argue that the research design that underpins the project could be productively applied to other contexts in higher education, whether in geography or other field-based disciplines. Further research is needed on geography students’ views on these debates, on the pedagogical possibilities offered through engagement with discussion of environmental sustainability and geography fieldtrips, and on how more staff-student collaboration can be fostered in debates about the future of geography fieldtrips. Most of all, we hope that this project has further opened up a space for critical reflection on fieldtrips and environmental sustainability, a key debate for the future of geographical education.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in the completion of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.