Potential of ‘future workshop’ method for educating adolescents about climate change mitigation and adaptation: a case from Freistadt, Upper Austria

Abstract

Using the ‘future workshop’ (FW) method, adolescents can be prepared for responding to climate-related risks at the local level. The ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ presents a case study combining climate change information, FW and place-attachment theories. Its development and application with 41 learners in one upper-secondary school in Austria are demonstrated. Statistically significant findings suggest that students are more aware about mitigation and adaptation behaviors after participating in FW. Qualitative findings demonstrate that students developed higher levels of action knowledge for mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Such teaching approach is not limited to the researched case, but supports environmental education in general.

Introduction

Societies across the globe will be profoundly affected by the manifold impacts of a changing climate, and therefore urgent action is required to build a more resilient and sustainable world (IPCC, 2018). In the era of anthropogenic climate change, particularly today’s young people find themselves in a disadvantageous situation. Governmental inaction, or at least not-progressive-enough climate policies, disadvantage them inasmuch ongoing warming is very likely to decrease their future well-being (Gharabaghi & Anderson-Nathe, 2018). To partly reduce their vulnerability, climate change education (CCE) sets out to inform children and adolescents about the consequences of a global climate crisis and response options (Kagawa & Selby, 2010). Interventions in CCE are supposed to target learners’ awareness for collective climate actions and aim to strengthen their levels of action knowledge for mitigation (i.e. measures that reduce GHG emissions) and adaptation (i.e. measures to adjust to harmful or beneficial climatic impacts) (Anderson, 2012).

Climate action education and why place attachment is critical to teaching

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change both recognize the urgent need to promote community engagement, creativity and knowledge in finding climate change solutions across all ages and walks of life (UNESCO & UNFCCC, 2016). Therefore, recent works in CCE aim at empowering young generations for increased climate action (Reid, 2019) and treat adolescents as a key target group. As compared to adults, adolescents are very flexible as it pertains to adopting climate-friendly lifestyles, which offers the unique opportunity for CCE in teaching them about individual mitigation and adaptation practices (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). Moreover, adolescents are more open in shaping their worldviews and long-term behavior on issues like sustainable consumption or choice of diet (Harker-Schuch, 2019). Even the recent global movement behind youth-led climate protests impressively shows that the momentum for civic participation is high (O’Brien et al., 2018) and often todays’ adolescents are perceived as change makers for achieving climate resilience in the future. Against this background, this paper argues that (i) raising adolescents’ awareness for collective climate response (i.e. knowledge about the importance of mitigation and adaptation strategies for society) and (ii) providing them with innovative education on mitigation and adaptation behaviors could prepare them for better dealing with existing and future climate-related risks in their home regions. Previous literature showed that peoples’ climate change awareness determines their support for climate action (Lee et al., 2015), and Bofferding and Kloser (2015) revealed that adolescent learners developed higher levels of action knowledge for mitigation and adaptation relevant to their communities after participating in CCE. Like previous literature, this paper further recognizes that educational interventions should include place-specific climate change information. This is because place-attachment theories imply that people are more inclined to protect their home region through pro-environmental behavior than other locations (Scannel & Gifford, 2013), and that learning about the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation behaviors appears central for adolescents’ future decision-making (UNJFI, 2013). This contribution therefore studies how place-specific teaching on climate response could influence upper-secondary school students’ levels of climate change awareness as well as their knowledge of mitigation and adaptation behaviors. The intervention applied the ‘future workshop’ (FW) method (Jungk & Muellert, 1987), which is a participatory technique for small to medium-sized groups, and had the objective to educate adolescents about the relevance as well as urgency of realizing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in Muehlviertel region, Upper Austria.

‘Future workshop’ as an active method in CCE

In the 1970s, the FW method was developed as a creative technique for societal groups to address real-life problems by discussing an unfavorable status-quo and by dreaming about a better future (Jungk & Muellert, 1987). By exchange of ideas and shared problem solving, groups can find ways of reaching their envisioned future collectively (Vidal, 2005). FW is a democratic and student-centred method based upon at least three main phases. In the critique phase, problems are first identified and structured. In the fantasy phase, a desirable future situation is envisioned. In the implementation phase, the most promising ideas are chosen and an action plan is made (Jungk & Muellert, 1987). Sometimes, a follow-up phase is added. In this study, FW is hypothesized as an untapped method in recent CCE practice since it could foster adolescents’ support for as well as their action knowledge of mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Through self-determined learning FW allows the exploration of multifaceted consequences of climate change whilst it offers space for deliberative discussions between learners in each FW phase; both elements are critical to effective CCE interventions (Monroe et al., 2019). Furthermore, FW pays attention to constructivist learning inasmuch learners could connect their existing place-specific experiences with new information on climate action that is presented to them (Chinn, 2007).

Research question and hypotheses

The educational programme ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ was designed according to the above-mentioned criteria for FW and was applied to the context of Freistadt, Upper Austria (see Background section). In a first step, it will be examined whether such educational intervention could raise upper-secondary school students’ levels of awareness of mitigation and adaptation. The two research hypotheses are as follows:

H1: The education provided by ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ will increase upper-secondary school students’ awareness of climate change mitigation strategies in the Muehlviertel region.

H2: The education provided by ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ will increase upper-secondary school students’ awareness of climate change adaptation strategies in the Muehlviertel region.

In a second step, the following research question dealing with students’ action knowledge will be investigated qualitatively: What is the effect of ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ on upper-secondary school students’ action knowledge for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors? This includes an overview why students have chosen their topics in FW.

Background

The educational design of ‘KLAR –Zukunftswerkstatt’ (FW) and its implementation in one upper-secondary school in Freistadt, Upper Austria

The Muehlviertel region is in the northern part of the Austrian state Upper Austria, in which temperatures and precipitation patterns are expected to be significantly changed by climate change (OEKS15, 2016). Increased flooding (Kromp-Kolb & Formayer, 2007), and impacts on regional agricultural production due to droughts (Eitzinger et al., 2009) indicate that climate response is needed to prevent further warming and to adapt regional human-environment systems to unavoidable climatic consequences (Anschober, 2018). Against this background, the educational programme ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ was developed by the Energiebezirk Freistadt and the Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck. The programme was implemented in one week in February 2019. Overall, 50 upper-secondary school students (aged between 17 and 18 years, 41% female) from one upper-secondary school in the city of Freistadt (which is a major district of the Muehlviertel region) were invited to participate. The educational intervention’s objectives were: (1) raising students’ awareness for collective climate actions and strengthening their action knowledge for mitigation and adaptation in Muehlviertel region and (2) testing FW as an innovative method in CCE. Guided by the researchers of this study, a student-centred classroom was established in which adolescents worked in small groups and developed their own visions of a livable, climate-resilient future (Moezzi et al., 2017). FW was structured in five phases. In the preparation phase, researchers developed learning content about climate-related risks in Muehlviertel region and established common rules for collaboration between researchers and students. In the critique phase, students were invited to investigate current and projected climate-related risks in regional human and natural systems using material from the Austrian Assessment Report Climate Change 2014 (APCC, 2014) and other sources. In the next step, students developed their own ideas of a climate-resilient region during the fantasy phase, a theorized future in which carbon emissions are reduced and adaptation to climate-related risks is enhanced. As a major outcome of FW, participants identified meaningful climate solutions for their home region and they discussed their personal roles for increased climate action during the implementation phase. The follow-up phase featured a final slam event, in which students presented their outcomes of FW to their school community (see Figs. 1 and 2). It is important to note that the educational intervention emphasized changes in regional climate and their consequences in agriculture, forestry, water management and tourism because Austrian school curricula lack topics related to climate action. Helping students to connect with their regional community is important and in line with the ideas of place-based education (Smith, 2007). Such approach has produced very positive reactions from teachers in other countries (Kretzer et al., 2017).

Figure 1. Overview of ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ with its five FW phases, including content and objectives of each FW phase (the time specification is valid for two consecutive learning groups).

Figure 2. Upper-secondary school students and researchers collaborating in ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ (Source: Energiebezirk Freistadt).

Methodology

Survey development and data collection

The study employed a pretest–post-test design to examine potential learning outcomes of upper-secondary school students participating in ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ and written informed consent was obtained from all participants (Frey, 2018). A paper-based questionnaire surveyed students about their awareness of mitigation and adaptation strategies in their home region before and after FW (Rattray & Jones, 2007). Forty-one students responded to both questionnaires and missing data is explained by students’ absences on the days of either pretest or post-test. In specific, two items with a 6-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important and 6 = very important) addressed adolescents’ awareness for climate actions and were pretested in a previous project by Schrot et al. (2019): Think about your personal future. How important is it that the people in your region contribute to climate protection? and Think about your personal future. How important is it that the people in your region contribute to adaptation? Like Bofferding and Kloser (2015, p. 282), the survey also examined students’ levels of action knowledge for mitigation and adaptation behaviors before and after FW using two open-ended questions. They are: Name a realistic measure that the people in your region can implement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. How can this measure lead to a reduction of greenhouse gases? (Please explain briefly) and Name a realistic measure that the people in your region can implement to adapt to the current and expected consequences of climate change. Explain how this measure could work. (Please explain briefly). To collect more qualitative statements about participants’ visions and their justifications for a climate-resilient Muehlviertel region, additional worksheets were distributed among each of the thirteen students’ groups in each FW phase.

Data analysis

Data analysis included statistical hypothesis testing and qualitative content analysis. First, quantitative data was tested for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Then, pre–post differences in upper-secondary students’ responses were investigated using a one-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (p < 0.01, and p < 0.001) (McCrum-Gardner, 2008). In a final step, the effect size r was calculated (r = 0.10 small effect, r = 0.30 medium effect and r = 0.50 large effect) (Cohen, 1992). In qualitatively examining upper-secondary school students’ action knowledge before and after FW and their ideas about alternative futures during FW, conventional content analysis was applied. Content analysis allows researchers to draw meaning from text since they first familiarize themselves with the original dataset before grouping meaning units into several categories (Bengtsson, 2016). For example, if students named mitigation behaviors like taking a train or a bus both responses were grouped into the single category using public transportation. Coding was performed by two researchers independently to increase reliability of the coding procedure.

Results

Upper-secondary school students’ awareness levels of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies before and after FW

A one-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant increase in upper-secondary school students’ (N = 41) levels of awareness of climate change mitigation strategies in their home region after FW, z = −3.346, p < 0.001, with large effect size (r = 0.523). The mean score on upper-secondary school students’ level of awareness of mitigation strategies in Muehlviertel region increased from before FW (Mean = 4.78) to after FW (Mean = 5.24). There is no major change in the median score before FW (Md = 5.00) and after FW (Md = 5.00). Findings suggest that H1 is not rejected. Furthermore, a one-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant increase in upper secondary school students’ (N = 41) levels of awareness of climate change adaptation strategies in their home region after FW, z = −2.953, p < 0.01, with medium effect size (r = 0.458). The mean score on students’ awareness of realizing adaptation strategies in Muehlviertel region increased from before FW (Mean = 4.61) to after FW (Mean = 5.12). There is no major change in the median score before FW (Md = 5.00) and after FW (Md = 5.00). Findings suggest that H2 is not rejected.

Levels of upper-secondary school students’ action knowledge for climate change mitigation and adaptation relevant to their home region before and after FW

Before participating in FW, upper-secondary school students named 12 out of 13 different mitigation behaviors that could be relevant for their home region. Most prominent mitigation strategies referred to the use of public transport, switching to vegetarian diets, using bicycles more often and car sharing. After FW, buying regional products was identified as an additional low-emission activity. Interestingly, mitigation behaviors like using renewable energies or paying a carbon tax for products and services occurred more often in students’ responses after their participation in FW (see Table 1).

Table 1. Mitigation behaviors that could be realized by communities in the Muehlviertel region named by upper-secondary school students prior and after ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ (N = number of responses).

Types of mitigation behavior	Absolute frequency of responses prior to FW (N = 75)	Absolute frequency of responses after FW (N = 96)	Differences in responses
Avoiding plastic	7	7	None
Using bicycle	7	12	+5
Using electric cars	8	4	–4
Car sharing	7	12	+5
Using public transportation	21	21	None
Buying regional products	5	10	+5
Vegetarian diet	10	15	+5
Afforestation	1	2	+1
Awareness raising about climate change	2	2	None
Saving electricity	4	3	–1
Using renewable energies	2	7	+5
Paying a carbon tax	0	1	+1
Reducing air travel	1	0	–1

Comparing students’ action knowledge on mitigation behaviors to adaptation behaviors, qualitative findings suggest that adolescents were less aware of adaptation behaviors relevant for communities in their home region and themselves before and after FW. Before FW, students named 6 out of 10 adaptation strategies that could be of major relevance, like reducing personal water consumption, rainwater harvesting and improving housing insulation. After FW, they could name more adaptation practices. For example, adolescents showed action knowledge about optimized irrigation in farming, urban agriculture, sustainable forest management and simply raising awareness about climate change risks (see Table 2).

Table 2. Adaptation behaviors that could be realized by communities in the Muehlviertel region named by upper-secondary school students prior and after 'KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt' (N = number of responses).

Types of adaptation behavior	Absolute frequency of responses prior to FW (N = 13)	Absolute frequency of responses after FW (N = 44)	Differences in responses
Reducing water consumption	7	10	+3
Optimizing irrigation in farming	0	5	+5
Crop specialization in farming	1	9	+8
Urban agriculture	0	3	+3
Rainwater harvesting	2	6	+4
Natural hazard management	1	2	+1
Sustainable forest management	0	4	+4
Improving housing insulation	1	1	None
Heat protection plan	1	1	None
Awareness raising about climate change	0	3	+3

Overview of upper-secondary school students’ mini-projects in FW

The qualitative analysis further showed that through creative and participatory teaching methods like FW, adolescent learners can discover a large spectrum of local and global climate-related risks. Eleven out of 13 groups focused on climate impacts that already manifest in their home region, for example heatwaves, precipitation changes or impacts on agricultural production. Their justifications for choosing to work on their topics revealed students’ documented thoughts in critique phase (see Table 3), whereas in fantasy phase, they focused on alternative regional futures and in the implementation phase, they identified mitigation and adaptation options that support their visions and discussed their realization in Muehlviertel region.

Table 3. Overview of upper-secondary school students’ mini-projects in FW on mitigation and adaptation and their justifications for choosing their topic.

Group(s)	Topics addressed by students in mini-projects	Students’ justifications for choosing to work on their topic
1 & 3	Water use & irrigation	Water use and irrigation play a major role in the region, and drought periods negatively affect agricultural production and household consumption
2 & 10	Ice melt at the Poles	Global warming leads to melting ice and Arctic environmental changes, which are likely to have global consequences
4	Meat consumption and its impacts on the climate	Eating meat is non-ethical and unhealthy, as cattle farms emit CH4, which amplifies climate change, which again is leading to manifold impacts across the globe
5 & 7	Droughts and their consequences for forest and agricultural production	Climate change affects local precipitation patterns, leading to more frequent and more severe drought periods in the region, causing crop failures as well as forest pests
6	Skiing and climate change	Skiing plays a major role for economy in Austria, and climate change reduces snow safety
8	Economy, climate change and the environment	Climate-friendly businesses avoid environmental degradation
9	Climate change and biodiversity	Man-made climate change affects animals and their habitats
11	Climate change and precipitation changes	Global warming changes precipitation patterns and leads to extreme weather events like heavy rainfall and flooding
12	Heat waves	Climate change leads to heat waves in the region and young people are affected
13	Plastic consumption	Plastic products contribute to GHG emissions and micro-plastics pollute Earth’s oceans

Discussion

This case study set out to explore FW as a new method in CCE to educate adolescents about climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Statistical results indicate the effectiveness of FW in increasing upper-secondary school students’ awareness of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in Muehlviertel region since H1 and H2 were not rejected. In contrast to H2, the higher significance and the stronger statistical power in testing H1 is explained by adolescents’ better understanding of mitigation than adaptation strategies. Adaptation appears to be a more complex term to learn about in CCE, which is in line with previous findings of Schrot et al. (2019), and the lack of awareness for adaptation strategies before FW might be explained by the novelty of the adaptation concept in Upper Austrian communities. Furthermore, qualitative results indicate that students already held higher levels of action knowledge for climate change mitigation than adaptation, which confirms findings from Bofferding and Kloser (2015). After FW, students could report four new adaptation practices (i.e. optimizing irrigation in farming, urban agriculture, sustainable forest management and raising awareness about CC) and it was shown that FW can be used as finely nuanced learning environment on climate action that does not overemphasizes adaptation behaviors on the cost of mitigation strategies nor vice versa (Carrico et al., 2015). Consequently, it is believed that this study provides useful hints for researchers and practitioners alike in linking two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN 2030 Agenda, namely SDG4 ‘Quality Education’ and SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’. Teaching methods like FW support learners to collaborate with others on diverse sustainability issues (which is evident in students’ justifications in Table 3) and participants explore mitigation and adaptation strategies at different levels (UNESCO, 2017). It should be noted however that a small convenience sample was used in this research, meaning that these upper-secondary school students are not representative of the general adolescent population in Austria. Furthermore, to better understand the influence of CCE on adolescents’ action knowledge for climate response, further research should ideally utilize in-depth interview techniques rather than survey approaches, since they allow a more nuanced investigation of students’ understanding of mitigation and adaptation options (Powney & Watts, 2018). Notwithstanding these limitations, the use of FW method is encouraged in recent CCE practice with adolescents. Educators are specifically encouraged to frame climate change as a cultural challenge instead of a purely scientific or technocratic one. Cultural factors like place-attachment determine how people interpret climate-related risks and therefore influence individual mitigation and adaptation decisions (Adger et al., 2013). The ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’ however showed that FW depends on facilitators with good knowledge of regional human-environment systems and strong interdisciplinary skills, which may help them to attribute climate impacts to regional realities (Moser, 2014). Users of FW are thus recommended to employ a diverse team of researchers, teachers or other facilitators. Like Skoglind-Öhman and Shahnavaz (2004), researchers also observed high motivation and activity of adolescents’ during ‘KLAR! – Zukunftswerkstatt’. It is therefore concluded that the FW method is not limited to the researched case but could be tested in environmental education elsewhere to better connect public climate change awareness, scientific information about climate actions and students’ daily life experiences, including their visions for the future.

Acknowledgements

Upper-secondary school students’ and teachers’ from BHAK (Bundeshandelsakademie) & HTL (Höhere Technische Lehranstalt) Freistadt participation in FW and the funding from Energiebezirk Freistadt are very much appreciated. Furthermore, the financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards the publication of this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF.

Disclosure statement

Nothing to declare.