Content uploaded by Karla Nunes Penna
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karla Nunes Penna on Feb 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
ABSTRACT: Sustainable development is a pluralist, interdisciplinary topic, encompassing aspects that are
complex to understand, learn, and teach. In this paper, I explore how new educational methodological
approaches to cultural heritage preservation may contribute to education for sustainable development. In
facing the challenges of achieving sustainable development, I feel as a cultural heritage professional and
educator that using cultural heritage education as a base for the three traditional pillars of sustainability can
be a helpful new approach. For me, it is necessary to reconceptualize contemporary education preservation
to go beyond the traditional teaching and learning processes that today permeate the cultural heritage
education process, especially in developing countries such as Brazil. More important than a framework that
may convey technical and managerial skills, a new understanding of sociocultural learning that focuses on
the emotional intelligence of students can help in developing empathy, building relationships, and
reconnecting people with others and with their cultural and natural environment.
1. INTRODUCTION
Working as an educator and facing our rapidly changing world allows me to identify many challenges to
overcome to achieve better education for sustainability. The large scope of the concept of sustainability and
its various dimensions means countless actors mobilized to help build a sustainable tomorrow.
Governments have introduced and promoted mechanisms for negotiating conflicts between stakeholders,
but what I have observed during more than twenty years of working in the field of cultural heritage
preservation is that these actors, mainly in developing countries such as Brazil, are not always prepared to
participate and make decisions regarding their future. On the one hand, in these countries the population in
general was not (and is still not being) educated to critically think of day-to-day problems as holistic issues,
as a part of a “whole” sociocultural sphere where a single move can affect the entire life dynamic. On the
other hand, local people face strong political manipulation, leading to situations where politicians treat
community representatives as puppets to be guided according to their political interests. Those who should
be true representatives of local communities are susceptible to bribery or can be “bought” by political
favors. These representatives are summoned by politicians to convince the local population that certain
political decisions are better for them, decisions that often bring more benefits to the politicians in charge
rather than to the population in general. This lack of local population power can be attributed to the lack of
proper education. In Brazil, as in other countries in Latin America where I have worked, education seems
to be shaped to keep the population under disguised political control. Thus, governments can keep poorly
educated people under a traditional paternalism regime and dependent on social benefits (Freire, 2013;
Shor, 1992).
Cultural heritage as an educational base for the traditional pillars
of sustainable development
K.N. Penna
Murdoch University, Australia
2
Within this context, I believe that sustainable development initiatives would be helped greatly if they were
based on cultural heritage education. For me, the lower the level of cultural education of a society, the
harder it will be for it to achieve sustainability. Focused on preparing aware citizens who can understand
that cultural and environmental preservation is a way to transform their territories into healthy, sustainable
places, these new actors would become cultural agents ready to deal with the issues and dilemmas present
in their countries.
Figure 1 – Cultural heritage education as a base for the three traditional pillars of sustainable development (Source:
Penna, 2018)
Given this backdrop, I intend to address three questions in this paper: How can cultural heritage education
be a base for social, economic, and environmental sustainability? What is the role of cultural educators?
What educational methodologies can be helpful in the development of useful skills such as critical thinking,
creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship?
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In my perception, the connection between cultural heritage and sustainability is based on the fact that
societies define their social values throughout their historic journey and consequently establish cultural
practices accepted by their members. This is what defines a society – its social and cultural characteristics,
limited to a specific territory during a certain period of time (Niglio, 2014). By producing culture, men
modify and adapt their surrounding environment. To satisfy their needs, people create economic and social
dynamics for their living conditions using locally available resources. Thus, the print that men leave on
nature defines the cultural landscape. This cultural landscape is a specific portion of a territory significant
for the interactive process between men and their environment, on which life and human science has left
prints and attributed values (National Institute for Historic and Artistic Heritage – IPHAN, 2009). The
preservation of cultural landscapes is a matter of extreme importance because it is with this cultural
landscape that local people identify themselves, and it is within which men develop their sense of belonging.
Today, we understand that men need to use local resources in an exploratory way, while not depredating or
destroying the environment to obtain those resources. Thus, people can guarantee that these resources are
available to them in the present and to their coming generations. This defines sustainability – the set of
3
actions and human activities that aim at meeting the needs of a society without compromising the future
use of local resources (United Nations, 1987).
To reach sustainable development, it is first necessary to reach sustainable cultural thinking, new thinking
that relies on how social groups understand the limits of the territory. Local communities need to learn how
to use their locally available resources in a sound way – which can mean adjusting certain cultural practices
– and to attribute new meanings to local assets – which can mean revisiting social values ingrained in their
societies for centuries. This is much more complicated than it sounds, as cultural practices and social values
are the sociocultural base of societies. It is not just about political and environmentalist discourses or about
implementing isolated sustainable projects – those in my mind are not helpful because they do not always
encompass all dimensions of the context that must be considered. The transformation of thinking must be
profound, shaking the basis of our beliefs, making us project future scenarios and develop a sense of respect
for future others who we do not yet know. In this moment, cultural heritage education comes to our aid –
we can educate men and women to turn their minds to the common goal of preserving and understanding
the limitations of their cultural landscapes
3. CULTURAL HERITAGE EDUCATION
I am an Amazonian, architect, educator, and cultural manager. I was born and grew up surrounded by the
exuberant rainforest and flowing rivers. I work developing projects for sustainable cultural preservation
and poverty mitigation for poor communities in north and northeastern Brazil. However, looking around
me, I still have difficulty understanding that the nature I see in Amazonia possesses vast but not infinite
resources. As an educator, it is difficult for me to explain to the local population that the local resources are
about to disappear. “It is impossible!” they say, “we have plenty!” – meanwhile, national and international
TV shows commonly highlight how rich in resources Amazonia is, despite this being not entirely true.
Amazonia is heading for a collapse if the locals do not start not just reducing but also reversing deforestation
and predatory exploitation:
The Amazonia has a natural limit that, if crossed, it will be impossible to reverse. Some
scientists are afraid that, if the deforestation increases to 40% of its territory, the Amazon
rainforest will start an irreversible process of transformation into savannahs. (Verissimo,
2014)
It seems an improbable scenario, but deforestation is currently at nearly 20% of the total area of the Amazon,
and if the situation continues as it is now, we will reach the 40% mark in only thirty years (Instituto Nacional
de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2015).
The Amazonian case is an example of how our culture of thinking needs to be changed. We do not seem
aware that each act really has consequences. The poor use of our resources reduces our capacity to subsist,
and with no cultural landscape we lose our cultural identity. Cultural heritage education is, in this case, the
tool that can promote the transformation of a predatory society into a sustainable society. The goal of this
education is to change people’s minds and convince them that guaranteeing cultural landscape sustainability
is essential to contribute to the maintenance of environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The more
educated men are about preserving their nature and culture, the more they can develop sustainable initiatives
for the preservation of their cultural landscapes.
Cultural heritage education is also based on the ability of people to understand their cultural and spiritual
diversity. By spiritual, I mean understanding the spirit of the place, which is “made up of tangible (sites,
buildings, landscapes, routes, objects) as well as intangible elements (memories, narratives, written
documents, festivals, commemorations, rituals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors, etc.),
4
which all significantly contribute to making a place and to giving it spirit” (ICOMOS, 2018, p. 1).
Understanding the cultural and spiritual “whole” leads people to perceive that local sustainability depends
on their direct actions as citizens and authors of their history. Local people need to be prepared to be the
ones who define what is important to be passed down to their children. In this scenario, cultural heritage
education can provide the information necessary for them to be able to read their own reality and have a
sound judgement about what is to be preserved. Thus, people can read the present and consciously write
their future.
In the current context, where we witness increased pressure from contemporary human activities and
consequently the reduction of all kinds of resources, sustainable development can be restricted to the
implementation of projects that address social, economic, and environmental elements separately.
Sustainable development projects would be preceded by educational projects addressing context-related
issues. In developing countries, these issues encompass poor basic education, the lack of political
participation, and food and health deprivation, amongst others.
3. CHALLENGES IN PROVIDING CULTURAL EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY
In the case of cultural preservation, the issues involved in the management of cultural assets are increasingly
larger and more comprehensive than they were in the not-too-distant past. Contemporary heritage
management, and consequently cultural heritage education, involves aspects drawn from various
dimensions, as seen in Figure 2. Educating people and professionals to manage their cultural heritage
requires approaches that must respect a variety of factors, such as the characteristics of the local context,
the social values of the society in question, the limitations of available resources, political and economic
interests, and the fragilities and potentials of the cultural system. In addition, it is important to understand
the significance and relevance that locals attribute to their heritage, as well as the importance of making
current heritage useful to their future societies. This often requires flexibility in adapting cultural and natural
assets to the needs of contemporary societies, which ensures these assets can survive for longer.
The greater the complexity of the sociocultural system in which cultural and natural assets are inserted, the
greater the multidisciplinary character of the approach used to manage them.
The increase in aspects to be considered and in the number of stakeholders involved in the process of
cultural heritage protection is a consequence of the expansion of the concept of cultural heritage, as we can
see in Figure 3. Two centuries ago, heritage constituted only material goods passed from father to son,
called inheritance. Over the past two hundred years, we have modified our understanding of the concept of
heritage by associating it with the “historical,” and have consequently come to understand new aspects and
dimensions of cultural heritage: monuments and historical and archaeological sites representative of nations
around the world, material and immaterial assets, cultural expressions, and practices linked to the social
values of peoples. Considering both the change from “historical” to “cultural” and the recently formed
concept of cultural landscape, cultural heritage today encompasses everything that is meaningful to
humanity, tangible and intangible cultural goods, natural and spiritual, all of which refer to the sense of
cultural identity and to what makes man develop a sense of belonging to a particular territory or to a certain
society.
5
Figure 2: Some examples of old and new issues in heritage management
(Source: UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN, 2013, p. 15)
This conceptual evolution has influenced cultural heritage education. It has resulted in a sharp increase in
the number of actors involved in preservation, and consequently the establishment of forums to mediate
conflicts between stakeholders. This multidimensional expansion also demands the development of
strategies for comprehensive policies and highlights the need for social awareness and participation.
Furthermore, the increasing understanding of the holistic aspect of preservation has resulted in the
recognition that citizenship, identity, memory, and interactions between people and their territories provide
the best basis for contemporary methodological approaches to cultural heritage education that can foster
sociocultural inclusion and help in preserving cultural and natural assets.
As if the enormous variety of cultural assets to be preserved and managed was not enough, contemporary
life brings the need for the constant modernization and rapid adaptation of the tangible and intangible
heritage collections to be preserved. Historical sites and cultural practices must be adjusted to survive the
aggressive urbanism of cities and the new social values disseminated by the media, as promoted by
globalization. This demands from cultural preservation educators a more pragmatic stance in the face of a
constantly changing world. The scope of an educational program that understands all forms of the
management and conservation of the cultural landscape is impossible to conceive for the short- and
medium-term courses on preserving cultural heritage that exist today. Hence, we need to focus on educating
students to ensure they have sound judgement in terms of what needs to be done.
6
Figure 3: Evolution of the cultural heritage concept (Source: Penna, 2015)
As an educator, I feel the constant need to adapt the curricula and teaching methodologies of cultural
heritage education so that they can become increasingly suitable for providing new, different, and more
comprehensive skills than those taught so far. More important than conveying technical and managerial
skills, I believe a new understanding of sociocultural learning is needed, including working on the students’
emotional intelligence by helping them to manage emotions, develop empathy, build relationships, and
repair the broken relationship between people and their cultural environments. Thus, local people may be
able to obtain a more general education on the sustainability of their territory and their heritage, not to
become a conservation or restoration expert but rather to be knowledgeable enough to make sound decisions
about the preservation of their environment.
4. THE ROLE OF CULTURAL EDUCATORS
Who are (or who should be) the educators in cultural heritage? Delors, Al Mufti, Amagi, Carneiro, Chung,
Geremek, Gorham, Kornhauser, Manley, Quero, Savané, Singh, Stavenhagen, Suhr & Nanzhao (1996)
explained in the report ‘Learning: The Treasure Within’ that education should, in fact, convey – in a solid
and effective way – more and more knowledge and evolutionary know-how adapted to cognitively
developed societies, as these are the foundation of future skills. At the same time, educators should find
and mark references that prevent people from being submerged by largely ephemeral information waves
that invade public and private spaces, and should orientate people in developing individual and collective
projects.
Educators are responsible for providing maps of a complex, constantly agitated world and, at the same time,
for enabling the compass needed to navigate through it. Therefore, educators are responsible not only for
efficiently facilitating knowledge construction, but also for teaching students to use this knowledge
appropriately in their field. Successful learning relies on successful teaching. For educators, it is their
technical and methodological capacity, and thus the ability to take a flexible yet pragmatic approach based
on cultural consciousness and respect for cultural diversity and its meanings, that ideally penetrates all their
7
practical work (ICOMOS, 2011). Educators’ creative and critical-analytical capacities should be based on
proper education and training, sound judgment, and a sense of understanding the community’s needs
(ICOMOS, 1993).
5. NEW METHODOLOGIES FOR TEACHING CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
An important point that I would like to take into consideration is that the traditional education applied in
developing countries might not be the best way of teaching cultural awareness. The reality of contemporary
societies is that they comprehend a large number of elements of different natures that are co-dependent and
connected. In my view, traditional education imparts information on cultural, natural, socioeconomic, and
spiritual elements as isolated features that do not interact with one another. This type of approach reinforces
the rupture between men and their cultural reality. Thus, I believe that the need to integrate people with
their places and their history is the first aspect that any new educational approach has to address.
Due to successive disruptions with his territory, with his history, and with his own identity, contemporary
man is losing his spiritual connection with his essence (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2014). Therefore, I believe that
cultural heritage education must be centered on the safeguarding and cultural internalization of new values
that can promote the reconnection between past and present.
Involving people in transformative learning that can aid their critical and holistic understanding – letting
go of the old paradigm of individualism and changing their mindset to focus on reaching collective goals –
is the focus of this new approach. This is a systemic inversion, a new way of basing education on awareness,
dialogue, and action. I would like to share some educational approaches that I am working on today that
could prove helpful for achieving this collective vision. They are critical pedagogy, transformative learning,
meaning-centered education, and active learning for realistic situations.
Critical pedagogy. The critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education and social movement that combines
education with critical theory (Freire, 2003). First described by Paulo Freire in his book ‘Pedagogy of the
Oppressed’ (1973), it aims to help people develop consciousness of their role in their societies, being aware
of authoritarian tendencies, and develop the ability to take constructive action. It includes relationships
between teaching and learning, proposing a continuous process of learning, reflecting, evaluating traditional
schooling, and if necessary unlearning, relearning, reconceptualising educational methodologies and their
impact on the students’ lives. Within the critical pedagogy framework, awareness is a required first step for
the student to develop the ability to take action against authoritatively shaped education that perpetuates
the oppression of those who do not belong to the ruling class.
The critical pedagogy aims to help people develop awareness of freedom, recognize authoritarian
tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and develop the ability to take constructive action (Giroux,
2010). Kincheloe (2008) stated that critical pedagogy may help students
“…reshape their lives, become better scholars and social activists, realise their cognitive potential,
re-create democratic spaces in an electronically mediated global world, and build and become
members of communities of solidarity that work to create better modes of education and a more
peaceful, equitable, and ecologically sustainable world.” (p. 64)
Transformative learning. Jack Mezirows’ (1991) theory of transformative learning has been implemented
over the last 20 years to a variety of adult education contexts such as workplaces, communities, and in
higher education. This theory may help create a more just, peaceful, diverse and sustainable world (Taylor,
2013). According to Elias (1997), transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness through the
basic transformation of worldview and specific capabilities of ‘being’. Transformative learning is facilitated
8
through processes consciously directed by the individual learner as to how to access and enjoy the symbolic
contents of the unconscious underlying assumptions and critical analysis.
Taylor (2013) describes five qualities of transformative learning. To more fully understand students’
worldview, especially values, ideals, emotions, premises, and frames of reference residing in the
subconscious, cultural‐self knowing can be cultivated in the classrooms aiming at connecting students to
the collective unconscious, where habits of mind, cultural/individual identity, and social inter/actions are.
Relational knowing is the second quality outlined by Taylor, which can help students to understand and
appreciate the value of reconnecting with the natural world and with culturally different learners' and
teachers’ ways of knowing, being, and valuing in the world. Moreover, the critical knowing is a valuable
approach to understand how economic and organizational power has historically structured sociocultural
reality - especially, class, race, gender, and the conventional scientific worldview - and thus governs (i.e.,
controls, restricts, limits, and distorts) identities and relationships with the natural world and with culturally
different others. Fostering visionary and ethical knowing is important to allow students to envision through
idealization, imagination, and dialogue with culturally different others what a better world this could/should
be. Finally, agency knowing quality is indispensable to help students to realize that contributing to making
the world a better place is feasible, desirable, and necessary and that anyone has the capacity and
commitment to do so.
Transformation is dependent on the individuals’ construction of knowledge. This knowledge has to be
viable i.e. it has to fit within the pre-existing knowledge, values, and lifeworld of an individual for it to
make a difference. Learning from a constructivist point of view is always an active process that fully
involves the individual unlike the passive knowledge transfer envisioned by behaviourist’s approaches.
Transformative education is by definition firmly grounded in the critical constructivist paradigm which puts
the onus of learning – in this case, transformation - into the hands of the learner.
“If Mezirow was right and changes of our attitudes and values are the result of transformative
learning then this means that transformative learning is dependent on our ability for critical self-
reflection” (Taylor, 2009, p. 358).
Consequently, the transformative educator is a facilitator of learning, who offers a wide range of learning
opportunities that allow individuals to transform themselves.
Meaning-centered education. In contemporary era, learning can no longer be dichotomized into a place
and time to acquire knowledge (school) and a place and time to apply knowledge (the workplace) (Taylor,
2013). The large amount of knowledge demanded by preservation education goes beyond what students
can handle, I am aware. Lifelong learning is recommendable in preparing conservationists but this is not
feasible nowadays given the strong pressure from the construction market for skilled workers prepared in
short term courses. Preparing our students through short courses it is a necessity rather than a possibility.
In that sense, I believe that meaning-centred education may be a helpful approach for preservation education
as it places meaning-making at the centre of the teaching-learning process (Kovbasyuk, & Blessinger, 2012;
Fischer, 2000). This constructive process organises our experiences as individuals and the relationship
between our inner world and the external world. This approach seems suitable for cultural heritage studies
under the integral holistic approach, as sustainability in preservation relates directly to the meanings that
people attribute to cultural assets (Gilmour, 2006).
Active learning for realistic situations. The challenge for heritage education is to develop high quality
cultural professionals through key competencies, such as social and civic conscientiousness, cultural
awareness and appropriation. In that sense, we suggest that preservation education curricula may follow
active learning for realistic situations, as recommended by Lakerveld & Gussen (2009, pp 18-19). These
authors outline seven standards helpful to contextualise new curricula.
9
By being aware of meaningful contexts, students can learn to respect local values and practices, as educators
look for meaningful contexts in which students can experience the relevance and meaning of competencies
acquired in a natural way. By adopting multidisciplinary approaches, competencies can become holistic
and, consequently, the pedagogical approach turns to be more holistic and integrative. By promoting
constructive learning, learning may be conceived as a process of constructing students’ knowledge in
interaction with students’ environments, rather than as a process of absorbing pre-arranged knowledge. By
fostering co-operative, interactive learning, educators can help learners to develop and construct their own
knowledge and seek ways to make optimal use of other peoples’ competencies in their learning itinerary.
Cooperation and interaction are both domains of learning, as well as vehicles of learning in other domains.
This requires an open approach in which education includes dialogues between learners and educators about
needs, goals, choices, and expectations. By encouraging discovery learning, educators can open learning
process to become an active discovery, as opposed to receptive learning. This means not only that course
content should be made available and accessible but also that the way of acquiring this knowledge or these
competences is more than a process of being provided information. Furthermore, competency-based
learning requires an emphasis on learning processes. By cultivating reflective learning on students’ own
needs, approach, progress, results, and motivations, students can develop learning competencies/strategies
in a process of ‘learning to learn.’ Finally, by nurturing personal learning, learning can be conceived as a
process of constructing students’ own personal knowledge and competencies.
Knowledge, strategies, and information only become meaningful if they become an integral part of ones’
body of knowledge and competencies. In education, this implies that students need to be able to identify
with contexts, people, interests, and situations that are part of the learning domains in question. Active
learning in realistic situations, in which students have a distinct and valuable role, may make the learning
process a worthwhile event with outcomes that may prove useful in many contexts.
6. CONCLUSION
Local communities are natural social actors, and as such can be educated to take responsibility for protecting
the future of their territories. I included in this paper a discussion about the importance of this local cultural
education for sustainability that can explore themes such as cultural consciousness, sense of belonging,
importance of the context, ecological systemic awareness, and mindfulness as key matters. This new
education may provide humans with the conscious belief that they are part of the world, and part of a
sociocultural dynamic whole (Cather, 2000). I believe the main role of educators, whatever the area of
human knowledge, is to show students various ways to be, to see, to look at, and to know about observable
and knowable “objects” and concepts. Education has the potential to lead individuals to awaken, to feel
empowered, and to develop what educators refer to as resilience – the ability to bounce back from adverse
conditions, which is essential when adapting to changes.
REFERENCES
Cather, S 2000, The dilemma of education conservation. Comité International de la Formation (CIF), The Getty
Conservation Institute (GCI). Newsletter 15.1, 9-12, Retrieved 12 February 2010 from
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/15_1/ feature1_3.html.
Delors, J, Al Mufti, I, Amagi, I. Carneiro, R, Chung, F, Geremek, B, Gorham, W, Kornhauser, A, Manley, M,
Quero, M, Savane, M, Singh, K, Stavenhagen, R, Suhr, M & Nanzhao, A 1998, Learning: The theasure within,
Paris, UNESCO.
10
Elias, D 1997, It is time to change our minds: an introduction to transformative learning, In: ReVision, 20 (1), pp 2-
6.
Freire, P (36.ª ed. 2003; 1.ª ed. 1970) 2003, Pedagogy of the oppressed, Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra.
Gilmour, T 2006, Sustaining heritage: giving the past a future, Sydney, Sydney University Press.
Giroux, H 2010 Lessons from Paulo Freire, Chronicle of Higher Education, 27, October 2010, Retrieved on 5
March 2017 from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Lessons-From-Paulo-Freire/124910
International Council on Monuments and Sites – ICOMOS 1993, Guidelines for education and training in
conservation of monuments, ensembles and sites, Retrieved 5 March 2013.
http://cif.icomos.org/pdf_docs/Documents%20on%20line/GUIDELINES%20FOR%20EDUCATION%20AND%20
TRAINING%20IN%20THE%20CONSERVATION.pdf.
International Council on Monuments and Sites – ICOMOS 2008, Quebec declaration on the preservation of the
spirit of the place, Retrieved from: http://www.international.icomos.org/quebec 2008.
International Council on Monuments and Sites – ICOMOS 2011, The Paris declaration on heritage as a driver of
development, Retrieved from http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts.
Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional – IPHAN 2009, Cultura Brasileira, Retrieved from
http://sigep.cprm.gov.br/destaques/Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional – IPHAN
_portaria127_2009PaisagemCultural.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais – INPE 2015, PRODES estima 5.831 km2 de desmatamento na
Amazônia em 2015, Retrieved from http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=4058
Kincheloe, J 2008, Critical pedagogy primer, 2nd edition. English, New York, Peter Lang.
Lakerved, J & Gussen, I (Eds) 2009, Acquedut: acquiring key competencies through heritage education, Bilzen,
Germany, Lies Kerkhofs.
Mezirow, J 1991, Transformative dimensions of adult learning, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Niglio, O 2014, Inheritance and Identity of Cultural Heritage, Advances in Literary Study, 2-1, pp 1-4, Retrieved
from http://www.scirp.org/journal/als, on 20 January 2014.
Scharmer, O & Kaufer, K 2014, Leading from the emerging future: from ego-system to eco-system economies, San
Francisco, Berrett-Koehler
Shor, I. 1992, Empowering education: critical teaching for social change, Chicago, US, University of Chicago
Press.
Taylor, E 2009, ‘Adding zest’ to science education: transforming the culture of science classrooms through ethical
dilemma story pedagogy, Saarbrücken, Germany, VDM.
Taylor, P 2013, Transformative research for meaning-centered professional development, Routledge Publishing. In
Kovbasyuk, O. And Blessinger, P. (Eds), Meaning-centred education: international perspectives and explorations in
higher education, New York, Routledge.
United Nations 1987, UN General Assembly Resolution 42/187. Report of the World Commission on Environment,
New York (NY), United Nations.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO 2002, Education for sustainability,
from Rio to Johannesburg: lessons learnt from a decade of commitment, Paris, UNESCO.
11
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO, International Centre for the Study of
the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property - ICCROM, International Council on Monuments and Sites –
ICOMOS & International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN 2013, Managing cultural world heritage, Paris,
UNESCO.
Verissimo, T & Pereira, J 2014, A floresta habitada: historia da ocupação humana na Amazônia, Belém,
Brazil, Imazon – Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia
