ArticlePDF Available

Education for sustainability: Fostering a more conscious society and transformation towards sustainability

Emerald Publishing
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
Authors:

Abstract

Purpose Current approaches to sustainability science and education focus on (assessing and addressing) the external world of ecosystems, wider socio-economic structures, technology and governance dynamics. A major shortcoming of such approaches is the neglect of inner dimensions and capacities (which constrains education for sustainability as an end), and a limited capacity to facilitate reflection on the cognitive and socio-emotional processes underpinning people’s learning, everyday life choices and decision-taking (which constrains education for sustainability as a means). More integral approaches and pedagogies are urgently needed. The purpose of this paper is to advance related knowledge. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a reflexive case study of the development of an innovative course on “Sustainability and Inner Transformation” and associated interventions in the form of a practice lab and weekly councils. Findings The paper elaborates on the connections between sustainability and inner transformation in education, offers insights into the process of adapting contemplative interventions to sustainability education and concludes with some reflections on challenges, lessons learnt and future work needed to support more integral approaches. The findings show that inner dimensions and transformation can be a vehicle for critical, improved education for sustainability and how this can be achieved in practice. Originality/value It is only recently that the concept of the inner or personal (sphere of) transformation has received growing attention in sustainability science and education. Despite this interest, such new conceptualizations and heuristics have, to date, not been systematically connected to education for sustainability (neither as an end nor means). The paper presents a critical, reflexive case, which advances related knowledge. It sets a precedent, which other universities/training institutions could follow or learn from.
Education for sustainability
Fostering a more conscious society and
transformation towards sustainability
Christine Wamsler
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS),
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose Current approaches to sustainability science and education focus on (assessing and addressing)
the external world of ecosystems, wider socio-economic structures, technology and governance dynamics. A
major shortcoming of such approaches is the neglect of inner dimensions and capacities (which constrains
education for sustainability as an end), and a limited capacity to facilitate reection on the cognitive and socio-
emotional processes underpinning peoples learning, everyday life choices and decision-taking (which
constrains education for sustainability as a means). More integral approaches and pedagogies are urgently
needed. The purpose of this paper is to advance related knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a reexive case study of the development of an
innovative course on Sustainability and Inner Transformationand associated interventions in the form of a
practice lab and weekly councils.
Findings The paper elaborates on the connections between sustainability and inner transformation in
education, offers insights into the process of adapting contemplative interventions to sustainability education
and concludes with some reections on challenges, lessons learnt and future work needed to support more
integral approaches. The ndings show that inner dimensions and transformation can be a vehicle for critical,
improved education for sustainability and how this can be achieved in practice.
Originality/value It is only recently that the concept of the inner or personal (sphere of) transformation
has received growing attention in sustainability science and education. Despite this interest, such new
conceptualizations and heuristics have, to date, not been systematically connected to education for
sustainability (neither as an end nor means). The paper presents a critical, reexive case, which advances
related knowledge. It sets a precedent, which other universities/training institutions could follow or learn
from.
Keywords Sustainability education, Contemplative education, Curriculum development,
Inner transformation, Personal transformation, Inside-out sustainability, Interiority,
Sustainability transformation, Values, Beliefs, Worldviews
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Despite the prominence of sustainability as a concept, societiestrajectories remain deeply
unsustainable (WEF, 2018;WWF, 2016). While sustainability scholarship and education
have led to substantial analytical advancements and new knowledge over the past two
© Christine Wamsler. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to
full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
IJSHE
21,1
112
Received 18 April 2019
Revised 24 June 2019
13 September 2019
30 September 2019
Accepted 2 October2019
International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2020
pp. 112-130
Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0152
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1467-6370.htm
decades, they do not seem to have catalysed the necessary change to address todays
increasingly complex challenges (Wals and Corcoran, 2012;Wamsler et al., 2018).
A critical review shows that the vast majority of sustainability scholarship and
education has, so far, focused on the external world of ecosystems, wider socioeconomic
structures, technology and governance dynamics. At the same time, a critical second aspect
has been neglected: the inner dimensions of individuals (Ives et al.,2019;Leichenko and
ÒBrien, 2019;Parodi and Tamm, 2018;Wamsler et al.,2018).
More holistic pedagogies are urgently needed to address todays challenges, as education
is one of the most powerful and proven vehicles for sustainable development. In this context,
education is both an end and a means, as expressed in the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and, particularly, the new global education goal (SDG4), which
aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all (United Nations, 2015). Achieving the SDGs will require more than
business as usualpedagogies and approaches to catalyse the necessary change.
To address current gaps, the concept of the inner or personal (sphere of) transformation has
only recently received growing attention in both sustainability science and education (Wamsler
et al., 2018;Frank et al., 2019;Leichenko and ÒBrien, 2019). Inner transformation, as used here,
describes changes related to peoples mindsets, which are made up of their values, beliefs,
worldviews and associated cognitive/emotional capacities (such as mindfulness, self-
awareness, compassion and empathy), and thus involves changes in peoples consciousness[1].
They lie at the root of many sustainability challenges; they can be important leverage points for
change, and are thus fundamental to the solutions to the worlds greatest challenges
(Abson et al., 2017;Meadows, 1999).
Accordingly, mindfulness-based, contemplative teaching approaches[2] are also
increasingly promoted as a potential new way to address socio-ecological challenges and
create a more reective, compassionate, just and sustainable society (Frank et al.,2019;
ACMHE, 2016;Gugerli-Dolder and Frischknecht-Tobler, 2011;Gugerli-Dolder et al.,2013;
Schoeberlein, 2009). Mindfulness is here dened as the non-judgmental awareness that
emerges through intentionally and continuously paying attention to subjective momentary
experience with an open, accepting, benevolent and compassionate attitude (Boehme et al.,
2016;Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Mindfulness research has been growing in recent years (AMRA,
2018), originally mainly in the clinical context, before expanding into behavioural research
and multiple societal areas, including education (van Dam et al.,2018). The ndings show
clear benets for both teachersand studentshealth and well-being (Grossman et al.,2004),
emotional regulation (Hill and Updegraff, 2012), memory, attention and cognitive
performance (Eberth and Sedlmeier, 2012;Zenner et al., 2014), interpersonal qualities and
prosocial behaviours (Luberto et al.,2018) and, more recently, ethical values and virtues
(Grossman, 2015). Consequently, mindfulness-based, contemplative teaching approaches are
increasingly gaining mainstream acceptance in education, while their potential for education
for sustainability has received little attention from researchers (Frank et al.,2019;Wamsler
et al.,2018)[3].
While inuential players in the eld, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientic
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), have started to openly advocate for better recognition
of the cognitive and socio-emotional dimension of learning in SDG-related education
(UNESCO, 2017), related knowledge is scarce and fragmented. In fact, despite growing
interest, the inner (or personal) (sphere of) transformation has, to date, not been
systematically connected to sustainability education (Leichenko and ÒBrien, 2019;Fischer
et al.,2017;Frank et al.,2019;Wamsler et al., 2018). Their potential for education for
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
113
sustainability, both as an end and means, remains a scarcely researched area in general, and
even more so when it comes to educational approaches and interventions.
Against this background, this paper provides a reexive case study of the development
of a masters level course on Sustainability and Inner Transformation, and associated
contemplative interventions in the form of a practice lab and weekly councils, which were
designed to critically investigate the role of inner dimensions and transformation for
sustainability. The course is part of a masters program on Environmental Studies and
Sustainability Science. Section 2 provides the broader background and context that enabled
the development of the course; it describes the research and educational activities in the rst
foundational, experimental phase and how it was evaluated. Section 3 expands on how
the ndings of this rst phase were revised and integrated into the creation of the
Sustainability and Inner Transformationcourse. The nal course curriculum, the
contemplative interventions, their implementation and evaluation that have resulted from
this process are then presented. Section 4 concludes the paper by offering some critical
reections of the development process, related lessons learnt in this transdisciplinary
endeavour and ways forward for future work in education for sustainable development
(ESD).
2. Phase 1 preparing the ground
This strategic rst phase was set up to:
experiment with new approaches to learning for sustainability and validate them
empirically (Section 2.1);
create a better scientic foundation (Section 2.2); and
build an institutional homeand inter-institutional cooperation for future inner
transformation-related research and education activities (Section 2.3).
2.1 Experimenting and validating new teaching approaches
To experiment and validate new teaching approaches, in 2015 we designedan experimental
learning lab in close cooperation with ve students who wanted to engage in this endeavour
as part of their Knowledge 2 Actionproject. Working in coordination with the Students
Health Centre, the specic aim was to explore contemplative approaches in sustainability
teaching and learning, and assess their value and potential with a view to making them an
integral part of the curriculum. In 2016, the lab ran for three months and included 70
students from two sustainability-focused mastersprograms.
Contemplative teaching and learning approaches were integrated into mandatory course
activities. This included the encouragement of mindful interactions during listening (deep vs
distracted listening), reecting and working together (cf. Trigwell et al.,1999;Nhat Hanh,
2003), and students preparing a written reection on their learning in relation to ve key
aspects of mindfulness (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgement and
reactivity) (Baer et al.,2006). In addition, written assignments on sustainability and inner
transformation were offered as graded tasks, and a total of 16 voluntary sessions for
personally engaging in contemplative practices were conducted outside the usual course
activities. They lasted between 15 and 30 min and included a variety of techniques (body-
scan, breathing and attention exercises, gratitude and compassion meditations, mindful
walking and deep listening).
The assessment of the new teaching approaches took the form of written and oral course
evaluations (response rates: 50/100 per cent), two surveys and a group discussion (response
IJSHE
21,1
114
rates: 71/23/29 per cent). The results showed that a majority of students were open to
including contemplative approaches in sustainability learning and teaching. Around 80 per
cent welcomed the integration of contemplative approaches into the course, and 20 per cent
were neutral. Around 65 per cent stated that the lab added extra value to the course in
general. Only 1 out of 70 students thought that its continuation would not be worthwhile. In
addition, all students who had participated in the voluntary sessions agreed that they had a
positive inuence on their learning[4].
2.2 Creating improved scientic foundations
In parallel to the empirical experimentation with, and validation of, the new teaching
approaches, we assessed the potential of the inner (or personal) sphere of transformation for
sustainability research and education through a range of scientic reviews and studies. The
rst three studies focused on mindfulness as a potential aspect of inner capacity and
transformation towards sustainability, followed by broader studies on inner dimensions and
transformation.
The rst study explored whether there are any linkages between mindfulness,
compassion and sustainability, and how this is reected in current sustainability research,
practice and teaching (Wamsler et al.,2018). It was based on a qualitative literature review
that was complemented by the outcomes from the experimental learning lab (cf. Section 2.1).
The results showed that mindfulness and compassion have so far been vastly neglected in
both sustainability science and teaching. At the same time, it provided scientic support for
the positive effects of mindfulness and associated compassion-building on aspects that are
relevant for sustainability transformation, such as:
well-being;
the activation of (intrinsic/non-materialistic) core values;
consumption and environmental behaviour;
humannature connections;
equity issues;
social activism; and
deliberate, exible and adaptive responses to sustainability challenges, such as
climate change.
The study concluded that mindfulness has the potential to contribute to understanding and
facilitating sustainability, not only at the individual level, but at all scales and should, thus,
become a core element in sustainability science, practice and teaching. To support related
endeavours, the study also provided the rst comprehensive framework for contemplative
scientic inquiry, practice and education in sustainability.
The rst study provided a springboard for further discussions on how we conduct
research and education in sustainability, and how we construct knowledge, highlighting the
importance of including multiple perspectives and entry points. While until now,
reductionist research and materialism has been adopted as the dominant intellectual and
social model, the study opened up a new discourse on the role of individual inner dimensions
and transformation in sustainability.
The second study was built upon the rst by looking deeper into specic sustainability
challenges i.e. climate change and disasters and the associated sustainability elds of
climate change adaptation and risk reduction. Based on a qualitative literature review, it
explored the potential role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate change
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
115
(Wamsler, 2018). The study concluded that mindfulness has the potential to facilitate
adaptation through cognitive, managerial, structural, ontological and epistemological
change processes. In addition, it sketched the conceptual trajectories of the mindfulness
adaptation nexus and presented a comprehensive framework for mindful climate
adaptation.
The third study aimed to ll the gaps identied in the two previous investigations, and
address their limitations (Wamsler and Brink, 2018). As new concepts and approaches
emerged, they required critical construct validation and empirical testing. Accordingly, the
third study was designed as an empirical investigation. It was the rst empirical
exploratory investigation of the potential correlation between individualsintrinsic
mindfulness (as opposed to external interventions) and both pro- and reactive climate
change adaptation. Based on a survey of citizens at risk from severe climate events, it
showed that individual mindfulness can be correlated to climate change adaptation at
different scales. This empirical work supported the two previous studies, as it indicated that
mindfulness might not only relate to how we think about the social and environmental crises
that affect our world, but might also help to take the actions needed to build a more
sustainable society. While this study provided important new insights, it was limited in
breadth (number of participants and context) and depth (four dimensions/items of
mindfulness disposition).
Consequently, the three studies that followed this initial work explored the role of inner
dimensions in climate change adaptation and risk reduction more broadly. Based on a survey
of Swedish citizens at risk from severe climate events, the fourth study showed that citizens
adaptation is mediated by personal values, worldviews and place attachment aspects rarely
considered in sustainability science and teaching. It highlighted that motivation to adapt
goes beyond rational(economic) self-interest, and ended with a call for more value- and
worldview-sensitive approaches to sustainability (Brink and Wamsler, 2019). The fth and
sixth studies present related contemplative approaches, measures and design principles
(Wamsler and Raggers, 2018;Wamsler et al.,2019).
The following studies assessed the potential of inner dimensions for transformation and
associated paradigm shifts more broadly and/or explicitly in relation to the SDGs and/or
ESD[5].
Together, the different studies showed that inner dimensions, inner transformation and
sustainability were more connected than expected, in both research and education,
presenting a potential that is not yet tapped into.
2.3 Buildingan (inter-)institutional foundation
The experimental learning lab (cf. Section 2.1) and subsequent research (cf. Section 2.2)
showed the need to create an institutional platform for tapping into the identied potential.
It was clear that without institutional backing, continued support and work on this topic
would be challenging because of bureaucratic and institutional obstacles, such as budget
lines, allocation of teaching hours and academic resistance regarding new teaching
approaches and foci.
To address these challenges, strategic support was sought from the Social Science
Teaching Academy within the university. A teaching portfolio was presented to the
Academy, which drew upon contemplative perspectives and whole-person approaches, and
provoked many questions about both what and how we teach. However, after two rounds of
interviews and scrutinizing, the jury was convinced. Even better, they were supportive of
making such perspectives more explicit and prevalent in both teaching and research[6].
IJSHE
21,1
116
The Contemplative Sustainable Futures Program was set up to provide a platform for
such endeavours. The aim was (and still is) to critically assess the potential role of inner
dimensions and transformation in societiestransition towards sustainability, and create
space and opportunities for knowledge development, learning and networking on this topic.
Accordingly, it was designed to consist of different building blocks, including research,
networking and teaching activities.
The establishment of the program was supported by the increasing number of
publications in recognized sustainability outlets (journals and publishing houses; cf. Section
2.2), which started to open up new dialogues on the issue within existing structures. In
addition, a knowledge network was established through launching a database of relevant
actors in the eld, and regularly exchanging knowledge with them. The research conducted
under the program quickly spread and helped to expand this network of mutual support and
engagement, without which it would have been impossible to enter Phase 2.
The nancing of program activities continued, however, to be challenging, as they did (and
still do) not fall within the traditional funding frameworks. Consequently, to generate an initial
nancing stream and create momentum for the program, aspects of inner transformation were
rst built into ongoing teaching (cf. Section 3.1) and research activities (cf. Section 2.2).
3. Phase 2 development and implementation
The ndings of Phase 1 were evaluated and integrated into thecreation of the masters level
course Sustainability and Inner Transformationand two associated contemplative
interventions. This section presents the development, implementation and evaluation of
these activities.
3.1 New masters-level course: linking inner and outer sustainability
The successful implementation of Phase I motivated the move from temporary activities to
the more sustainable integration of the topic into existing academic structures. The proposal
to develop and dedicate a whole new course on this topic was, however, initially met with
scepticism. Some colleagues were opposed to the idea that such issues should enter the
academic eld, and certainly not sustainability science. As the separation of church and
state has become deeply embedded, academic institutions have almost completely rejected
any mention of aspects that may be interpreted as inner or spiritual, something that has
been reported in various cultural contexts (cf. Astin et al., 2007;Burchell et al., 2010;Lee,
2012;Goleman and Davidson, 2017). While the separation of church and state has provoked
certain advances, their separation has also been referred to as the disenchantment of the
world(Weber, 1966) or the severing of the lifeworldof personal and social relations from
systems(Habermas, 1981), and is reected in a long-standing tension between subjectivity
and objectivity in sciences (Bourdieu, 1988)[7].
Given the existing structures, the course description was reworked into an acceptable
format, by explicitly highlighting its critical and scientic approach. After two years and
several rounds of discussions at the faculty level, it was accepted in 2018. Its empirical,
scientic and (inter-) institutional grounding established during Phase 1 (cf. Section 2) had
overcome resistance from traditional structures and paradigms.
The overall purpose of the course was (and still is) to critically assess the potential role of
inner dimensions and transformation for sustainability. Its aims are threefold. Firstly, it
allows students to develop a critical understanding of the potential interlinkages between
inner transformation and sustainability (theories and practices). Secondly, it supports
students in assessing inner transformation theories and practices in relation to specic
sustainability elds (such as climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation, risk
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
117
reduction or sustainable consumption). Thirdly, the course allows students to engage and
reect on the nature of inner transformation and its salience in sustainability science and
education[8]. The latter also includes the development of a critical understanding of inner
transformation as a social phenomenon.
Accordingly, the course, which ran for the rst time from November 2018 to January 2019,
included a series of lectures and seminars to explore the role of inner dimensions (e.g. values,
beliefs, worldviews and associated cognitive/emotional capacities) and their transformation
to support sustainability (for instance, regarding environmental leadership, activism, social
justice, humannature connections and integral urban development). In this context,
knowledge coming from sustainability science, social neuroscience, psychology, behavioural
economics, contemplative studies and transformation theories could be systematically
integrated with the help of both the gained experimental, empirical and theoretical ndings
(cf. Sections 2.1-2.2) and the established knowledge network and associated actors (cf. Section
2.3). In addition, contemplative teaching and learning practices could be systematically
integrated into mandatory course activities. This included the encouragement of mindful
interactions during listening (deep vs distracted listening), debating, reecting and working
together, and the integration of weekly councils (cf. Section 3.2) and a voluntary practice lab
(cf. Section 3.3). Finally, written assignments on sustainability and inner transformation, and
related peer teaching were included as graded tasks.
Written and oral course evaluations (response rates: 100/100 per cent) and two surveys
were conducted to assessthe courses innovative approach and to develop it further. Surveys
were completed by a target group of 14 people (participants in the Sustainability and Inner
Transformation course; response rates: 100/79 per cent). The control group consisted of 23
students from another course that was run in parallel (response rates: 100/70 per cent)[9].
All participants from the target group stated that the Sustainability and Inner
Transformation course was very relevant for them, by highlighting its importance for both
personal and professional development and the interconnections between the two for
supporting sustainability transformations:
I am very grateful to have chosen this course. It combined personal development (leadership, self-
knowledge and awareness, my own values and skills) with our academic choice (sustainability).
Another student explained:
Personally, it [the course] oered me hope for the rst time since I started studying environmental
studies and sustainability science. Professionally, it added another perspective to the commonly
very limited, rational understanding of sustainability problems.
The course was perceived as transformative at different levels:
Inner transformation can oer both a straightforward scienticeld within science, but also a
personal practice that has the potential to improve both my personal and professional life, which
for some had immediate outcomes: The course denitely changed me.
Accordingly, all participants in the target group stated in the post-course survey that their
expectations were fullymet, and13 out of 14 students indicated in the course evaluation that
they were very satised. In contrast, the control group reported that the main reason for
selecting their course was to open up future job opportunities, a rationale which vanished
when certain course activities did not fully match studentsprofessional plans.
Another interesting result was related to studentsstress levels. The stress level of the
target group was lower at the beginning and continued to fall during the time the course ran,
while the stress level of the control group increased (Table I). Stress triggers that students in
both groups described related to:
IJSHE
21,1
118
their studies in terms of pressure to succeed;
the topic of their studies (learning about the terrible environmental impacts we
have on the planet and how unaware people are of them is always depressing and
stressful);
their life context (often living for the rst time in a foreign country and being in
transition between education and work with uncertainties regarding ones future
and meaning-making); and
the teaching methods used (traditional methods were said to leave little room for
deep learning and self-reection, which ultimately increased stress levels).
While the percentages identied in Table I do not, as such, say much, the qualitative
comments from students who completed the post-course survey provide important
information about the change in stress levels and how this relates to identied triggers. One
student from the target group, whose stress level had reduced, noted:
The reason why my answer changed so much is not that we have less to do than we had before (I
still think that the amount of work in the masters program overall is too much and this doesnt
add to our learning experience to the contrary I believe that it lowers the possibility to engage
deeply with the topics). It is more that I gained a more healthy perspective on the topic: I do as
much as I can, but not [anymore] at the expense of my health and well-being.
Other reasons relate to an increase in positive emotions (motivation, hope), agency and
meaning:
For the rst time I started studying I am motivated again and dont feel that we are just going to
kill our planet [...]. I learned super much about sustainability, but also about myself, and what I
want to work afterwards.
Given that teaching methods, in themselves, were identied as a source of stress, the
courses non-traditional approach also seems to have contributed to this change. In this
context, not only the weekly councils (cf. Section 3.2) and the practice lab (cf.Section 3.3), but
also the inter- and trans-disciplinary approach (It was amazing to have so many different
perspectives on sustainability [...] truly an interdisciplinary course) and peer teaching
practices were mentioned. One student explained:
One of the parts I enjoyed most in the class was the peer teaching because it narrowed down this
huge and unfamiliar eld to topics I and my classmates could relate to, it integrated the class in
our own thinking process.
Table I.
Changes in perceived
stress levels
Question: Do you consider
the master program and/
or your life situation as
stressful?
Control group (%) Target group (%)
Pre-course
survey Post-course survey
Pre-course
survey Post-course survey
Yes 30.4 37.5 (increase of
7.1%)
21.4 18.2 (3.2% changed to lower
stress levels)
Sometimes 60.9 56.4 (4.5% changed to
higher stress levels)
42.9 18.2 (24.7% changed to lower
stress levels)
No 8.6 6.3 (2.3% changed to
higher stress levels)
35.7 54.6 (increase of 18.9%)
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
119
Reasons why initial stress levels in the target group were lower in the control group might,
among other things, be related to the fact that in the pre-survey, 54 per cent of the target
group stated that contemplative practices played a role in their life, compared to 12.5 per
cent in the control group.[10] The results from the evaluation of the practice lab support this
reasoning (cf. Section 3.3). Practices mentioned by students included for instance
mindfulness and compassion meditation, walking meditations, breathing and attention
exercises, mindful listening and talking and self-enquiry techniques such as journaling.
A related aspect appears when looking into studentsvalueaction gap, i.e. themismatch
between their knowledge and concerns about the environment on the one hand, and the way
they act (e.g. lifestyle or purchasing decisions) on the other hand. In fact, a greater
percentage of the target group seemed to live in accordance with their values (i.e. the value
action gap is lower), with 72.7 per cent stating in the post-survey that they considered their
way of living, to a great extent, to be sustainable. This can be compared to 43.75 per cent in
the control group, where some members explicitly mentioned in this context also their high
stress levels, stating, for instance I cannot picture myself living with this stress level for a
longer time period.Looking into specic sustainability actions, the biggest differences
between the two groups related to consumption; in particular, 72.7 per cent of the target
group saw their consumption, in the form of acquisition, usage and disposal of goods, as
sustainable, compared to 25 per cent of the control group. At the same time, the target group
showed high levels of critical self-reection:
I try to be vegan, I try to only buy second-hand (or fair) goods, I try to avoid plastic, I donty
[...] but I still possess so many things, I travel home by train quite sometimes, I go shopping to a
supermarket, I live in a space that is huge when compared to the world average can I actually
call my consumption sustainable?
Another participant from the target group stated that he/she reduced her/his use of social
media and mobile phone. This aspect was also discussed in the context of the courses
Guidelines for joint class work and interactionsas well as different lectures on stress, well-
being and their linkages to pro-social behaviour and sustainability.
Exploring the potential importance of inner dimensions in addressing the valueaction
gap was also the focus of an assignment conducted within the Sustainability and Inner
Transformation course (Hertog et al.,2019), which provided further insights. It was based on
a survey (n= 97) sent to all current students and staff involved in the masters program, and
a focus group discussion with all participants in the Sustainability and Inner
Transformation course. Interestingly,althoughthe survey participants only included people
who were highly environmentally aware, their level of action varied from quite low
(indicating a high valueaction gap) to quite high (indicating the contrary). In addition, more
than half of the participants identied a valueaction gap by themselves. Various inner
dimensions were identied as potential inuential factors. Positive correlations were, for
instance, found between pro-environmental behaviours, subjective well-being and self-
authoring mindsets [i.e. people able to critically evaluate and choose their own values and
determine their own path (Kegan and Lahey, 2009)]. The survey sparked a lot of interest
among students and staff. Why dont we talk more about this?, was a question that was
commonly asked (Hertog et al., 2019,p.35).
The personal and inner side of sustainability was a topic that many students felt strongly
about and struggled with, but is seldom touched upon in sustainability science and
education. Reactionsto the survey and focus group discussion clearly showed that there was
a strongly felt need to also engage with, and discuss, inner dimensions, the associated
IJSHE
21,1
120
valueaction gap and the inconsistencies and moral discomfort that comes with
environmental awareness (Hertog et al.,2019)[11].
This is in line with the result that 100 per cent of the target group, and 50 per cent of the
control group stated in the post-course survey that they would like to see inner
transformation theory and practices more rmly integrated into the curriculum and future
activities (i.e. as a mainstreaming topic, which should be addressed in all sustainability-
related courses). 50 per cent of the students explicitly stated in the written course evaluation
(and 93 per cent in the oral course evaluation) that the Sustainability and Inner
Transformation course was (one of) the best and most inspiring courses they had ever taken.
It was described as the missing piece in the [sustainability] puzzleas it allowed students to
link personal, practical and political spheres of transformation.
The described, systematic, step-by-step approach taken for integrating inner dimensions
and transforming existing systems and structures from within has recently led over to the
next phase, consisting of:
the further improvement of the Sustainability and Inner Transformation course to
incorporate emerging practices developed for sourcing innate inner capacities for
being, knowing and acting to be able to simultaneously solve problems and shift
systems and cultural norms (Sharma, 2007,2018;Walsh et al., 2020); and
the revision of the master programs overall aims and intended learning outcomes.
The latter now includes the development of awareness and understanding of how
personal spheres and approaches beyond academic and scientic knowledge (e.g.
cultural, traditional or indigenous) contribute to sustainability.
3.2 Weekly councils: conversations that matter
At the end of every week, the course included weekly councils[12]. The aim was to create a
space for sharing theoretical and personal insights, perceptions, experiences and feelings in
a way that allowed participants to be fully present and learn from each other. Based on the
council methodology (Zimmermann and Coyle, 2009), sessions were conducted in a circle
with a focus on deep listening and understanding. Three guiding questions were dened to
help structure the conversations:
(1) WHY? Why is the consideration of inner dimensions and transformation (not)
relevant for sustainability research, practice and teaching? (Critical assessment of
existing rationales and associated concepts/theories).
(2) WHAT? What is the inuence of inner dimensions and transformation on
sustainability and vice versa? (Critical assessment of mutual inuences and
outcomes at different scales and their relation to the SDGs).
(3) HOW? How can inner dimensions and transformation be considered in
sustainability research, practice and teaching? (Critical assessment of concrete
measures and their potential integration at different scales to support the SDGs).
The conversations were based on:
weekly reading of obligatory course literature;
input from weekly course activities (lectures, seminars and excursions); and
studentspersonal insights and experiences. Regarding the latter, students were
asked to write down their reections at home to share during class.
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
121
Most weekly councils lasted 30-45min. In addition, three 60-min sessions were provided to
allow space for more in-depth discussions on each of the three guiding questions. For these
three sessions, student groups were asked to prepare a short teaser setting out their
understandings, and illustrate them in the form of a mind map, which was then used to
structure the group discussion.
Everyone appreciated the fact that the councils provided a safe place (It was a safe space
to discuss and increase knowledge) and opportunity that made it possible to:
listen to each other (Listening to each other, and creating the time once a week to do
that is excellent).
reect upon and systematize newly gained knowledge (The summing-up and open
dialogue. Great.), which was seen as particularly important as the course took an
innovative approach to sustainability (Be able to express all those things that the
course had set into motion); and
give students agency in their learning process (It felt like we had ownership. This
takes humility and trust in our abilities, thank you for that) and in walking the
talk(It was very useful to bring contemplative practices into practice,Using
knowledge in our own practice, how we talk, listen, work together).
70 per cent of students stated that the weekly councils were of value in their current form.
The other 30 per cent said that they would have liked to:
have more time for the councils;
change the timing (avoid late afternoons and end of the week); and
have a simpler format (e.g. simpler use of mind maps).
3.3 The practice lab: walking the path
Another aspect of the course was a voluntary practice lab[13]. The lab was intended to be an
unconventional classroom component, which disrupts the traditional model of teaching and
learning in the hope of offering something that is more transformative for students and
teachers alike.
The design of the practice lab was mainly based on lessons learned from the
experimental learning lab (cf. Section 2.1). Compared to the rst lab, its focus was more
closely linked to the courses content (i.e. sustainability) and associated elds (e.g. climate
change mitigation and sustainable consumption). Accordingly, sessions built upon each
other, moving from individual, to social and environmental dimensions. Related practices
were based on different sources, such as:
an online tool recommended by the Lund University Student Health Centre, which
provides exercises related to individual and social dimensions (e.g. breathing, body-
scan, compassion and loving-kindness exercises)[14]; and
the Education for Sustainable Consumption through Mindfulness Manual, which
provided exercises related to the environmental dimension (Fritzsche et al., 2018).
Compared to the rst lab, more time and room was allowed for in-depth engagement and
reection (in the form of additional in-class time, at-home exercises and journaling). The rst
few minutes of each session allowed participants to get settled and relax. Then, the next
5 min were allocated to introducing the sessions content/techniques, either by the session
coordinator or through an introductory video. At least 10min were dedicated to the actual
IJSHE
21,1
122
exercise. The last 5 min allowed for silent or group reections. Participants were then asked
to do additional exercises at home (10-15 min per day) and write down their reections.
The evaluation showed that 86 per cent of participants very muchappreciated the
opportunity to participate in the voluntary practice lab and attended most of the sessions. One
student was neutral (preferred to do exercises at home), and one was not particularly interested.
These two students decided not to participate. Time constraints were given as the reason for
not being able to attend all of the sessions or for dedicating less time to at-home exercises.
All participants stated that the lab added value to the course. The reasons were manifold.
Students stated, for instance, that it had initiated or supported their own practice through
providing time and introducing different techniques. This had, in turn, an effect on their
overall well-being and learning processes, in that the regular practice was said to have
increased concentration, self- and group reections:
I could notice the days in class in which we did the practice lab that my attention level was
considerably higher, I felt it was easier to focus in class, and at home on the readings.
Being more patient and thinking before speaking. Better listeningwere effects that were
particularly noted. Students also stated that the lab supported their learning environment, in
that it inuenced their relationships with others.They mentioned that there was a different
atmosphere in the classroom because of it. It also helped to deepen knowledge through their
own experience of how individual social and environmental dimensions are interlinked. One
student stated, for instance, that our behaviour is to a large extent inuenced by our level of
happiness, our fears and needs; these can all be inuenced by mindfulness. Finally, the lab
was seen as important for aligning knowledge with action: Practicing something that we
were theoretically discussing. Walking the talk.
Several students also explicitly expressed their appreciation of the critical mindfulness
perspective that was taken, which was achieved by combining the lab with lectures on
critical mindfulness, well-being and stress, and their relation to sustainability issues, such as
sustainable consumption: I have learned about thehistory, use and misuse of theconcept. It
has been contextualised and brought to a broader relevance.67 per cent of participants also
said that it had inuenced their daily behaviour, while the remainder were neutral. One of
those who gave a neutral response stated that, When I did it regularly, yes [it inuenced my
daily life].
When asked about which aspects of life the lab had most inuence on, the following
answers were given: decreased stress/anxiety (83.3 per cent); increased attention during
class and study (83.3 percent); increased overall well-being (66 per cent); greater compassion
and/or understanding for myself and my work/interests (83.3 per cent); greater compassion
and/or understanding for others (66 per cent); greater compassion for, or connectedness
with, nature (50 per cent); increased awareness of personal (un)sustainable consumption (50
per cent); and increased awareness of others(un)sustainable consumption (50 per cent).
The reasons given for lower or no perceived inuence were:
irregular personal practice;
the short duration of the course and, thus, the practice lab (11 weeks, with 7 weeks
of in-class practice); and, consequently; and
the limited time dedicated to contextualised exercises (social and ecological
dimensions).
The importance of contextualising contemplative practices in sustainability became apparent
through various statements, such as: To me, the last sessions in which mindfulness was put
in a social and environmental context were the most relevant and valuable ones.
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
123
79 per cent of participants stated in the post-course survey that they planned to continue
with contemplative practices, and those who already had an established practice before the
course were planning to increase the time they dedicated to it. One student justied his
answer by saying: It makes me a more content and better person. Another noted: Be the
change you want to see, indicating its integrated value for both individual and global
sustainability. Finally, all of the target group and 50 per cent of the control group perceived
mindfulness-based, contemplative approaches as being relevant in the context of
sustainability teaching and learning.
4. Conclusions: critical reections and the way forward
Research into ESD points to the need for:
interdisciplinary and systemic teaching approaches (Wals and Jickling, 2002);
the transformation of taken-for-granted assumptions about the scientic
underpinning of different disciplines, and the values they engender (Wals and
Jickling, 2002;OBrien et al., 2013);
a re-orientation towards more experimental, innovative and whole-person approaches that
challenge the fundamental assumptions of mass education (Dawson and Oliviera, 2017),
which, in turn requires;
the incorporation of new pedagogical models, where engaged students become
agents for change in a learning community (Dawson and Oliviera, 2017).
The latter requires learning that builds on experience and emotions that are embodied and
not only embrained and which are therefore better aimed at fostering the behavioural
change needed to act sustainably (Dawson and Oliviera, 2017). Despite recent advancements
in the elds of contemplative and transformative pedagogy (cf. Mezirow, 2000), putting
these principles into practice is still a challenging endeavour.
The reexive case study of the Sustainability and Inner Transformation course is a case
in point. The lessons learned from its development and implementation demonstrate that
embracing the above-mentioned principles is possible and, if realized, are benecial and
highly appreciated by students. In addition, it shows that these principles can be supported
by:
continuous empirical experimentation and validation of new teaching approaches;
the linking of these approaches to research that challenges taken-for-granted
assumptions about the scientic underpinning of different disciplines to allow the
emergence of fundamental new ways of critical thinking and problem-solving; and
their anchoring in an institutional and inter-institutional support system that allows
people to engage in such endeavours and, ultimately, helps them to collectively become
more capable of withstanding setbacks and addressing complex sustainability challenges.
These aspects helped to overcome bureaucratic and institutional obstacles and academic
resistance by starting the process in a spirit of experimentation (here, the rst lab) and then
continuing, step-by-step, to transform existing systems and structures from within (here, the
development of the Contemplative Sustainable Futures Program and associated curriculum
developments), while at the same time creating a supportive community and new paradigms
(here, through developing scholarship and a knowledge network). The recognition of the
course by leading scholars outside ones own structures as being the rst of its kind
(Egan, 2019) can also be a powerful source of change. Creating a supportive community,
IJSHE
21,1
124
while shifting paradigms within the academic discourse (as seen in studies that took up the
outcomes of the Program; e.g. Brown et al.,2019) was crucial to unite efforts and ultimately
create spaces where new approaches to research and learning could take root, be nurtured
and ourish into ways of knowing, being and becoming that serve people, places and the
planet.
The establishment and work of the Program and related curriculum development can be
seen as part of a newly emerging nexus of integral education (Esbjörn-Hargens et al.,2010)
and social change that is based on building a more conscious society, what others have
called meta-modernism(Björkman, 2018), or the interplay between systems, soul and
society (Emerge, 2019;Perspectiva, 2019;Wilber, 1999)[15]. As scholars, researchers and
educators, we can choose how we position our work with respect to (neoliberal) institutional
norms, growing worldwide resistance to these norms, and more integral approaches even
if it means the humility of not knowing.
It may turn out to be the case that some of what is currently proclaimed about inner
dimensions and transformation pathways may be wrong. But we do not (yet) know what is
true.
It is thus crucial to shift the conversation and undertake a critical analysis of what the
potential benets of inner dimensions and transformation are and are not. An increasing
number of authors are seeking to show how contemplative practices can change our minds,
brain and body (Goleman and Davidson, 2017). But such conversations have to be taken
further. Platforms such as the Contemplative Sustainable Futures Program are needed for
related critical enquiry, teaching and learning that can connect current knowledge to
changes on a wider scale. This applies also to the issue of mindfulness and associated
concepts, such as empathy and compassion. While mindfulness is gaining mainstream
acceptance in education, research on mindfulness for education in sustainability is still in its
infancy (Frank et al.,2019;Wamsler et al.,2018). Related explorations require actively
considering and engaging in critical debates and associated challenges. Mindfulness should,
in fact, not be seen as a universal panacea or a one-size-ts allapproach. Instead, any
potential negative applications or impacts need to be actively considered, such as possible
adverse effects (Rocha, 2014), its instrumentalisation for undesirable purposes, or to
reproduce neoliberal self-optimisation ideologies (Reveley, 2016;Walsh, 2016). In addition, it
is important to adapt its use to the context of sustainability and associated elds of
application, rather than automatically assuming a positive effect. The reexive case study
presented here shows that linking mindfulness with sustainability education that addresses
emotional and cognitive capacities and biases is, in this context, a promising way forward.
This outcome is supported by other studies in the eld of sustainable governance
(Whitehead et al.,2017;Jupp et al.,2017). It shows the need for further inquiry on this topic
that can assess and continue to develop the evidence base of such approaches, to support
inner-outer sustainability.
By actively considering existing critiques and challenges, individual inner
dimensions and transformation can thus become a vehicle for critical, improved
education and social change (thus being both a means and an end). The eld is clearly
underexplored, but highly relevant in the context of education for sustainability and the
SDGs, particularly the global education goal (SDG 4) and its target to ensure that all
learners are capable of contributing to sustainable development (Target 4.7). This is
supportedbyinuential players such as UNESCO, which has also started to openly
advocate for better recognition of cognitive and socio-emotional dimensions of ESD
(UNESCO, 2017). This case study provides important insights and sets a precedent for
related endeavours.
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
125
Notes
1. Inner transformation through expanded consciousness is an inherent human capacity and is embodied
in notions such as self-awareness, mindfulness, empathy and compassion (Goleman, 2009,2011),
which can be related to cognitive/emotional, religious and indigenous practices or knowledge systems
(Chinn PWU, 2015;OBrien, 2018;Schlitz et al.,2010;Sharma, 2007;Wamsler et al., 2018). Accordingly,
consciousness refers here to the subjective sense of knowing, while expanding consciousness means
then strengthening the experience of knowing strengthening and opening our capacity to be aware.
The latter relates to four categories of knowns: i) our rst ve senses (hearing, sight, smell, taste, and
touch); ii) interior signals of the body (bodily sensations), iii) mental activities (thoughts, feelings and
memories), and iv) sense of connection to other people and to nature (relational sense) (Siegel 2012).
2. This includes a broad range of meditation practices and other interventions/methods linked to
the concept of mindfulness aimed at increasing non-judgmental attentiveness to the present
moment (Chiesa and Malinowski, 2011;Cortland and Davidsson, 2019).
3. It is recognised that contemplative teaching approaches have a long history in dierent
educational settings; this is not the case, however, in mainstream universities, and particularly in
sustainability education, in a context in which we seek to meet the SDGs and address wickedly
complex global issues, such as climate change.
4. Details regarding the lab evaluation can be found in Wamsler et al. (2018).
5. All studies are available at: www.lucsus.lu.se/research/urban-governance/contemplative-sustainable-
futures and https://christinewamsler.wixsite.com/sustainable-futures
6. At the institutional level, the Programs establishment and continuation was also supported by
systematically anchoring it in personal development plans of sta.
7. The emerging recognition for the need for more holistic or integral approaches, which retain both
subjective and objective insights and methods, is spurred by todays context of complex global
issues. Mindfulness is an interesting case in this context. Although it centrally involves
subjectivity, many mindfulness-based interventions, such as mindfulness-based stress reduction
and cognitive therapy, have been carried out in an evidence-based way, including objective
measurement of impacts from the start and in a secular framework (Kabat-Zinn, 1990).
8. The course syllabus is available at www.lumes.lu.se/about/programme-outline/3rd-semester/
sustainability-and-inner-transformation
9. The post-survey was mainly used for evaluation. Comparisons were only possible in cases, where
qualitative comments could provide additional insights (i.e. changes in stress levels and the
value-action gap). Other comparisons were irrelevant (because of limitations regarding the
number of students, potential interaction between the groups and the short-time period between
pre- and post-survey).
10. This result indicates that people with previous experience with contemplative practices might
show more interest in exploring the role of inner dimensions and transformation for sustainability.
However, this did not have implications on the surveys results as the answers of this sub-group
were not signicantly dierent to the other course participants. It should also be noted that the
previous experimental learning lab (cf. Section 2.1) led to similar positive results, although it was
implemented as part of an obligatory course (without the option to select between dierent courses).
11. This statement has to be seen against the background that sustainability education has, so far,
focused on structural dimensions, the external world of ecosystems, wider socioeconomic
structures, technology and governance dynamics (cf. Section 1), which the students had been
focused on for more than one year. It highlights the need for more integral approaches that address
political, practical and personal spheres of transformation and not structural aspects in isolation.
12. A description of the weekly councils is available at: www.lucsus.lu.se/research/urban-governance/
contemplative-sustainable-futures and https://christinewamsler.wixsite.com/sustainable-futures
IJSHE
21,1
126
13. A description of the Practice Lab is available at: https://www.lucsus.lu.se/research/urban-governance/
contemplative-sustainable-futures and https://christinewamsler.wixsite.com/sustainable-futures
14. www.headspace.com
15. This emergent social change is seeking to integrate inner and outer dimensions (and knowledge
systems) and transformation, neither preferring one over the other, nor reducing one to the other,
but nding ethical, skilful and eective ways to improve our capacity to foster sustainability
research, education and practice (cf. footnote 7).
References
Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H.,
Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W. and Lang, D.J. (2017), Leverage points for sustainability
transformation,Ambio, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
ACMHE (2016), Transforming higher education: fostering contemplative inquiry, community, and
social action,The 8th Annual Conference of ACMHE, the Association for Contemplative
Mind in Higher Education, available at: www.peace-ed-campaign.org/event/transforming-
higher-education-fostering-contemplative-inquiry-community-social-action/ (accessed 12
November 2018).
AMRA (2018), “‘Resources and servicesof the American mindfulness research association (AMRA),
available at: https://goamra.org/resources/ (accessed 7 March 2019).
Astin, A.W., Astin, H.S., Chopp, R., Delbanco, A. and Speers, S. (2007), A forum on helpingstudents
engage the big questions’”,Liberal Education, Vol. 93 No. 2, p. 28
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J. and Toney, L. (2006), Using self-report assessment
methods to explore facets of mindfulness,Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-45.
Björkman, T. (2018), The World we Create, Metamoderna Publishing, Sweden.
Boehme, T. Geiger, S. Grossman, P. Schrader, U. and Stanszus, L. (2016), “‘Arbeitsdenition von
achtsamkeit im projekt BiNKA(working denitions of mindfulness in the BiNKA project),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF und Technische Universität Berlin,
available at: http://achtsamkeit-und-konsum.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Arbeitsdenition-
von-Achtsamkeit-im-Projekt-BiNKA-1.pdf (accessed 12 January 2017).
Bourdieu, P. (1988), Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social science,Theory and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 773-787.
Brink, E. and Wamsler, C. (2019), Citizen engagement in climate adaptation surveyed: the role of
values, worldviews, gender and place,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 209, pp. 1342-1353.
Brown, K., Adger, N., Devine-Wright, P., Anderies, J., Barr, S., Bousquet, F., Butler, C., Evans, L.,
Marshall, N. and Quinna, T. (2019), Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability,
Global Environmental Change, Vol. 56, pp. 11-17.
Burchell, J.A., Lee, J.J. and Olson, S.M. (2010), University student affairs staff and their spiritual
discussions with students,Religion and Education, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 114-128.
Chiesa, A. and Malinowski, P. (2011), Mindfulness-based 742 approaches: are they all the same?,
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 404-424.
Chinn PWU (2015), Place and culture-based professional development: cross-hybrid learning and the
construction of ecological mindfulness,Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 10, pp. 121-134.
Cortland, J. and Davidson, R.J. (2019), Mindfulness and the contemplative life: pathways to connection,
insight and purpose,Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 60-64.
Dawson, J. and Oliviera, H. (2017), Bringing the classroom back to life,EarthEd. State of the World,
Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 207-2019.
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
127
Eberth, J. and Sedlmeier, P. (2012), The effects of mindfulness meditation: a meta-analysis,
Mindfulness, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 174-189.
Egan, N. (2019), Undersöker hur inre förändring r människor att leva mer hållbart (analysing the role
of inner transformation for sustainability), Vol. 2, Lund University Research Magazine LUM,
pp. 36-37.
Emerge (2019), Independent, non-prot media platform sowing the seeds of a new civilization,
available at: www.whatisemerging.com/ (accessed 30 March 2019).
Esbjörn-Hargens, S., Reams, J. and Gunnlaugson, O. (Eds) (2010), Integral Education: New Directions
for Higher Learning, Suny press, New York, NY.
Fischer, D., Stanszus,L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P. and Schrader, U. (2017), Mindfulness and sustainable
consumption: a systematic literature review of research approaches and ndings,Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 544-558.
Frank, P., Fischer, D. and Wamsler, C. (2019), Mindfulness, education and sustainable development
goals(SDGs), in Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, Springer, Switzerland.
Fritzsche, J. Fischer, D. Böhme, T. and Grossman, P. (2018), Education for sustainable consumption
through mindfulness, Active Methodology Toolkit 9, PERL (Partnership for Education and
Research about Responsible Living), Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway.
Goleman, D. (2009), Ecological Intelligence: how Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What we Buy Can
Change Everything, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (2011), The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: new Insights, More than Sound, Portland.
Goleman, D. and Davidson, R.J. (2017), Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your
Mind, Brain, and Body, Penguin, New York.
Grossman, P. (2015), Mindfulness: awareness informed by an embodied ethic,Mindfulness, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 17-22.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S. and Walach, H. (2004), Mindfulness-based stress reduction and
health benets,Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Gugerli-Dolder, B. and Frischknecht-Tobler, U. (Eds). (2011), Umweltbildung plus. Impulse zur
bildung für nachhaltige entwicklung,Environmental Edication: Pathways towards Sustainable
Development, Verlag Pestalozzianum, Zürich, Switzerland.
Gugerli-Dolder, B., Traugott, E. and Frischknecht-Tobler, U. (2013), Emotionale kompetenzen in der
bildung für nachhaltige entwicklung,Emotional Capacities in Education for Sustainable
Development, Schweizerische Koordinationskonferenz: bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung,
BNEKonsortium COHEP, Zürich, Switzerland.
Habermas, J. (1981), Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche rationalisierung, theorie des
kommunikativen handels, in McCarthy, T. (Ed.), The Theory of Communicative Action,Suhrkamp
Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.
Hertog, I., Betzler, L., Di Paola and L. (2019), An Exploration of the Role of Inner Dimensions in
Explaining the Value-action Gap Amongst Sustainability Science Students and Researchers, Final
Paper, Sustainability and Inner Transformation Course, Lund University.
Hill, C.L. and Updegraff, J.A. (2012), Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional regulation,
Emotion, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 81-90.
Ives, C., Freeth, R. and Fischer, J. (2019), Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds,Ambio,
pp. 1-10, available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w
Jupp, E., Pykett, J. and Smith, F.M. (Eds) (2017), Emotional States: Sites and Spaces of Affective
Governance, Taylor and Francis, New York, NY.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990), Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress,
Pain and Illness, Delacourt, New York, NY.
IJSHE
21,1
128
Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L. (2009), Immunity to Change: how to Overcome It and Unlock Potential in
Yourself and Your Organization, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Lee, J.J. (2012), Teaching mindfulness at a public research university,Journal of College and
Character, Vol. 13No. 2, pp. 1-6.
Leichenko, R. and ÒBrien, K. (2019), Climate and Society: Transforming the Future, Wiley, Hoboken.
Luberto, C.M., Shinday, N., Song, R., Philpotts, L.L., Park, E.R., Fricchione, G.L. and Yeh, G.Y. (2018), A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of meditation on empathy, compassion, and
prosocial behaviors,Mindfulness, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 708-724.
Meadows, D. (1999), Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System, Sustainability Institute Papers,
Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000), Learning as Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2003), Creating True Peace: Ending Conlict in Yourself, Your Family, Your Community
and the World, Ebury Press, London.
OBrien, K. (2018), Is the 1.5 C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation,Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 31,pp. 153-160.
OBrien, K., Reams, J., Caspari, A., Dugmore, A., Faghihimani, M., Fazey, I., Hackmann, H., Manuel-
Navarrete, D., Marks, J., Miller, R., Raivio, K., Romero-Lankao, P., Virji, H., Vogel, C. and
Winiwater, V. (2013), You say you want a revolution? Transforming education and capacity
building in response to global change,Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 48-59.
Parodi, O. and Tamm, K. (2018), Personal Sustainability: Exploring the Far Side of Sustainable
Development, Routledge Studies in Sustainability, Routledge, London.
Perspectiva (2019), Research platform that seeks to build the intellectual foundations for a more
conscious society, available at: www.systems-souls-society.com/ (accessed 30 March 2019).
Reveley, J. (2016), Neoliberal meditations: how mindfulness training medicalizes education and
responsibilizes young people,Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 497-511.
Rocha, T. (2014), The dark knight of the soul: for some, meditation has become more curse than cure,
The Atlantic, June 2014, available at: www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-
knight-of-the-souls/372766/ (accessed 4 April 2019).
Schlitz, M.M., Vieten, C. and Miller, E.M. (2010), Worldview transformation and the development of
social consciousness,Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 17 Nos 7/8, pp. 18-36.
Schoeberlein, D. (2009), Mindful Teaching and Teaching Mindfulness: A Guide for Anyone Who
Teaches, Wisdom Publications, Boston.
Sharma, M. (2007), Personal to planetary transformation,Kosmos Journal, Winter 2007, pp. 31-35,
available at: www.kosmosjournal.org/article/personal-to-planetary-transformation/
Sharma, M. (2018), Radical Transformational Leadership: Strategic Action for Change Agents, North
Atlantic Books, Berkeley.
Siegel, D. (2012), Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation, Bantam Books, NY.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999), Relations between teachersapproaches to
teaching and studentsapproaches to learning,Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 57-70.
UNESCO. (2017), Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives, Rieckmann, M.,
Mindt, L. and Gardiner, S. (Eds), UNESCO Publishing, Paris, France.
United Nations. (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
a/RES/70/1, United Nations, New York, NY.
Van Dam, N.T., van Vugt, M.K., Vago, D.R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C.D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar,
S.W., Kerr, C.E., Gorchov, J., Fox, K.C.R., Field, B.A., Britton, W.B., Brefczynski-Lewis, J.A. and
Meyer, D.E. (2018), Mind the hype: a critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on
mindfulness and meditation,Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 13No. 1, pp. 36-61.
Fostering a
more
conscious
society
129
Wals, A.E. and Jickling, B. (2002), Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak
to critical thinking and meaningful learning,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-232.
Wals, A.E.J. and Corcoran, P.B. (Eds) (2012), Learning for Sustainability in Times of Accelerating
Change, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Walsh, Z. (2016), A meta-critique of mindfulness critiques: from McMindfulness to critical
mindfulness, in Purser, R., Forbes, D. and Burke, A. (Eds), Handbook of Mindfulness: Culture,
Context, and Social Engagement, Springer, Cham.
Walsh, Z., Böhme, J. and Wamsler, C. (2020), Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability
research,Ambio, (forthcoming).
Wamsler, C. (2018), Mind the gap: the role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate
change,Sustainability Science, Vol. 13 No.4, pp. 1121-1135.
Wamsler, C. and Brink, E. (2018), Mindsets for sustainability: exploring the link between mindfulness
and sustainable climate adaptation,Ecological Economics, Vol. 151, pp. 55-61.
Wamsler, C., Brossmann, J., Hendersson, H., Kristjansdottir, R., McDonald, C. and Scarampi, P. (2018),
Mindfulness in sustainability science, practice and teaching,Sustainability Science, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 143-162.
Wamsler, C. and Raggers, S. (2018), Principles for supporting citycitizen commoning for climate
adaptation: from adaptation governance to sustainable transformation,Environmental Science
and Policy, Vol. 85, pp. 81-89.
Wamsler, C., Reeder, L. and Crosweller, M. (2019), The being of urban resilience,Handbook of Urban
Resilience, in Burayidi, M., Allen, A., Twigg, J. and Wamsler, C. (Eds), Routledge, London.
Weber, M. (1966), The Sociology of Religion, Social Science Paperbacks, Tavistock Publications, London.
WEF. (2018), The global risks report, Insight Report, World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva.
Whitehead, M., Jones, R., Lilley, R., Pykett, J. and Howell, R. (2017), Neuroliberalism: behavioural Government in
the Twenty-First Century, see particularly chapter 9 by, in Pykett, J. (Ed.), Routledge, London.
Wilber, K. (1999), The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Random House,
New York, NY.
WWF (2016), Living planet report 2016: risk and resilience in a new era, World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF), Gland.
Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S. and Walach, H. (2014), Mindfulness-based interventions in schools a
systematic review and meta-analysis,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 603, pp. 1-20.
Zimmermann, J. and Coyle, V. (2009), The Way of Council, Bramble Books, Colchester.
About the author
Christine Wamsler is a Professor in Sustainability Science at Lund University Centre for Sustainability
Studies (LUCSUS) in Sweden, former Co-director of the Lund University Centre for Societal Resilience and
Honorary Research Fellow at the Global Development Institute (GDI) of the University of Manchester,
UK. She is an expert in urban sustainability and transformation with focus on climate change adaptation,
climate policy integration, risk reduction and resilience with more than 20 years of experience, both in
theory and practice. Her work has shaped knowledge and international debates on personal, social,
institutional and policy transformations in a context of climate change. Wamsler has led many
international projects and published more than 100 academic papers, book chapters, working papers and
books on these issues. Christine Wamsler can be contacted at: christine.wamsler@lucsus.lu.se
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
IJSHE
21,1
130
... Moreover, stress reduction through the training of mindfulness has the potential to reduce anxiety that may arise from the awareness of sustainability challenges (Schwartz et al., 2022). However, few attempts have been made to empirically explore the interrelatedness between mindfulness and sustainability in educational teaching and training concepts of HEIs (Wamsler, 2020;Frank et al., 2019;Wamsler et al., 2018). Furthermore, currently proven concepts within ESD are rather assessed in only one of its four dimensionseconomic, environmental, social or educational (e.g. ...
... First, the paper responds to the calls of several researchers (e.g. Libertson, 2023;Wamsler, 2020;Frank et al., 2019;Shephard et al., 2018;Lozano et al., 2017) to prove new teaching and training concepts for ESD, particularly addressing inner development (Denton et al., 2022;Thiermann and Sheate, 2021;Brown et al., 2019). Thereby, the paper adds to the debate on how future professionals can train such inner development (Pacis and VanWynsberghe, 2020;Shephard et al., 2018;Lozano et al., 2017) and confirms the positive influence of mindfulness by increasing the overall ASD. ...
Purpose The paper aims to examine mindfulness as innovative approach to foster the attitudes toward sustainable development among future professionals within higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper highlights a quasi-experiment with 36 future professionals to explore the interrelatedness of mindfulness with attitudes toward sustainable development. This included an eight-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction course with a pre-, post- and longitudinal test. Findings The study revealed that the training of mindfulness significantly increased the dispositional mindfulness and the overall attitude toward sustainable development of future professionals. Furthermore, their slope of state mindfulness significantly predicted this increase. Originality/value The novelty of the paper lays within the operationalization of mindfulness which aims to train the inner development instead of solely imparting knowledge about education for sustainable development.
... Long-term sustainability is crucial for an educational institution as it ensures its ability to fulfill its mission and provide the quality education through positive transformations (Wamsler, 2020). Sustainable practices bring financial stability, infrastructure improvement, and faculty development, enhancing the learning environment for training future experts (Holst, 2023). ...
... Additionally, change management facilitates equity and inclusion through the creation of supportive educational process (Ainscow, 2020). When educational institutions can manage changes effectively, they can adapt to these challenges and ensure their long-term sustainability (Wamsler, 2020). This might involve introducing new teaching methods (Tsekhmister, 2009), incorporating technology into the curriculum (Yuhan, 2017), or promoting innovative organizational culture within learning environment (Torres, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The research analyzes change management within the learning environment considering effective educational leadership and progressive innovative management. The following research tasks are derived from the research aim and they deal with the analysis of the effect of leadership upon change management; the relationships between change management and innovative management; and the design of optimal model of change management within the learning environment. The combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. The qualitative phase involved interviews, focus groups, and observations to collect the data on the respondents’ perceptions towards the change process. The quantitative phase included surveys to gather data on specific aspects of the change process. To conduct the investigation, 119 instructors, administrators, and students in five educational institutions of Ukraine were selected. The survey was conducted between October 1, 2023 and December 12, 2023. To verify the hypotheses, ANOVA principle was applied. The outcomes demonstrated that change management is closely related to leadership and innovative management. The survey enabled to develop the optimal model of change management within the learning environment which included change vision, effective leadership style, innovative management practice, change planning, and building an organizational culture oriented towards changes. The scientific sources stress that in a long-term perspective the optimal model of change management will contribute the sustainable development of the educational institution. The results can be used to develop the education policies and curriculum as well as to train future leaders for different sectors of economy.
... Third, education plays a role in transferring the values of unity in maintaining the integrity of society and the state [10], [11]. There are points two and three which mean that education provides meaning not only in providing knowledge but also in providing life values [12]- [14]. Thus, education can be a helper for humans. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study was to develop STEAM-based learning videos using the CapCut application on Colloid material at the high school level. Methodology: This study is a development research using the Lee & Owens development model. The research instruments used were interview guidelines and questionnaires. The development products were validated by media experts and material experts, practitioner assessments were carried out by teachers and then tested in small groups. The data analysis techniques used were qualitative data analysis (comments and suggestions) and quantitative data analysis (average score of answers and percentage of questionnaires). Main Findings: The results of this study were obtained from material experts and media experts with an average score of 4.58 and 4.75 in the Very Eligible category. Furthermore, a practitioner’s assessment by chemistry teachers was obtained with an average score of 4.8 (very feasible), and received a very good response from students with a percentage of 93.5%. Novelty/Originality of this study: This study introduces a novel approach by integrating STEAM principles into the development of learning videos on colloid materials, leveraging the CapCut application to enhance creativity and interactivity in high school education. Unlike traditional teaching methods, this research combines technology-driven video editing with STEAM-based learning to foster critical thinking, collaboration, and practical application of scientific concepts in an engaging multimedia format.
... And, finally, education institutions can take IDGs as a guide to develop their students' values and skills. It has long been acknowledged that education is among "the most powerful and proven vehicles for sustainable development" (Wamsler, 2020), that starts from socially responsible individuals (López-Fresno, 2024b). editor@iaeme.com ...
... The students' increased awareness aligns with findings in ESD literature, which emphasizes that awareness is foundational for fostering sustainable behaviors [6], [57], [58]. By instilling awareness of environmental issues, the lessons align with the goals of sustainability education to inspire students toward lifelong ecological consciousness [59], [60]. Furthermore, Olsson et al. [7] noted that ESD positively impacts students' perceived action competence, although it may require sustained reinforcement over time. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of the study: This study investigated the impact of sustainability-integrated lessons in ecology on Grade 11 students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and perceptions toward sustainable development. Methodology: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, involving quantitative data collection followed by qualitative exploration. A purposive sampling technique was used to select one intact class of 38 Grade 11 students, ensuring that both male and female students were represented. Pre- and post-tests assessed students' conceptual understanding, while attitude scales measured shifts in sustainability attitudes. Qualitative data, gathered from student-written journals, provided insights into personal reflections and behavioral intentions. Main Findings: Results demonstrated significant (p<0.001) gains in students' conceptual understanding and attitudes toward sustainability, regardless of gender. Qualitative analysis revealed students' increased sense of personal responsibility, community involvement, and environmental awareness. Novelty/Originality of this study: The present study addresses a gap in the local curriculum by investigating the impact of lessons that integrate sustainability principles into ecology education. The study findings underscore the value of embedding sustainability concepts in ecology education through active and experiential learning, fostering knowledge, positive attitudes, and a commitment to sustainable practices among students, empowering them to be proactive environmental stewards in their communities.
... Therefore, higher education must be closely integrated with the modernization needs of the country, cultivating students' thirst for knowledge and curiosity through education, and stimulating students' thinking about the development goals of higher education. Universities should cultivate students' ability to think independently and have an innovative spirit, enabling them to contribute to the sustainable development of the country and the global society [7]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Internationalization of education has received widespread attention from various countries, and with the diversification of international education, necessitating a heightened emphasis on diversity and characteristic development amidst the proliferation of international educational models. The development of diversified and distinctive education has become increasingly important. In the face of an "internationally standardized education system", it is necessary to maintain educational distinctiveness and integrate diversity with distinctiveness to provide students with more effective educational paths. This article analyzes the balanced development of educational diversification and distinctiveness under the background of educational internationalization and delves into achieving a balanced development between diversity and characteristic education within the internationalization context, arguing that such equilibrium is imperative. Countries should drive educational reforms, offering quality and diverse educational opportunities to achieve sustainable development and global cooperation. It is necessary for countries to promote educational reform, provide high-quality and diversified education, and achieve the goals of sustainable development and global cooperation. Suggestions are put forward for Chinese students' new pursuit of diversified educational experiences under the changing international situation.
Purpose Based on the values of the students and the work carried out by the university to publicise the sustainable development goals (SDGs), this study aims to analyse how the university can influence the sustainable behaviour of students. Design/methodology/approach The study is quantitative research based on a survey of 814 students with a degree in business administration and management. An ad hoc instrument was designed for the study, consisting of 14 values and 13 sustainable behaviours, considering the three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. The students answered the survey at two points, at the beginning and end of the semester. Data analysis was based on the SmartPLS structural equation model. Findings The results showed that the role of values is more decisive than SDGs knowledge in explaining sustainable behaviour. SDGs knowledge initially has an explanatory role in sustainable behaviour and a mediating role between values and sustainable behaviour. More excellent SDG knowledge does not change sustainable behaviour but it helps students to have a more critical view of their sustainable behaviours. Practical implications Practical implications are drawn for designing university actions that reinforce the change in sustainable behaviour to contribute to sustainable development, considering their greater capacity to influence instrumental values. Originality/value As far as the authors have been able to investigate, no studies have addressed the research objectives that the authors raise in this paper. The short-term longitudinal analysis allows for the conclusion of the intervention’s impact and effectiveness at the university.
Article
Flourishing‐for‐all as emerged as a concept to respond to the apparent lack of capacity to translate the sustainability discourse into actual practices conducive to more sustainable societies. In this special issue, we assert that flourishing‐for‐all addresses the gap identified in the sustainability discourse that still needs conversion into practice, and that processes for catalyzing this necessary transformation need to be identified and implemented. The eight papers in this special issue address flourishing‐for‐all from different ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives, demonstrating a wide interest in the topic, and the shared belief that both academia and practice must go beyond sustainability to embrace flourishing‐for‐all. They bring to the fore three important features of a flourishing‐for‐all approach: First, it allows for a more profound analysis of systemic sustainability‐related problems; secondly, it highlights new relationships among the problem‐related variables; thirdly, it extends the repertory and reach of possible solutions.
Article
Full-text available
Relational thinking has recently gained increasing prominence across academic disciplines in an attempt to understand complex phenomena in terms of constitutive processes and relations. Interdisciplinary fields of study, such as science and technology studies (STS), the environmental humanities, and the posthumanities, for example, have started to reformulate academic understanding of nature-cultures based on relational thinking. Although the sustainability crisis serves as a contemporary backdrop and in fact calls for such innovative forms of interdisciplinary scholarship, the field of sustainability research has not yet tapped into the rich possibilities offered by relational thinking. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to identify relational approaches to ontology, epistemology, and ethics which are relevant to sustainability research. More specifically, we analyze how relational approaches have been understood and conceptualized across a broad range of disciplines and contexts relevant to sustainability to identify and harness connections and contributions for future sustainability-related work. Our results highlight common themes and patterns across relational approaches, helping to identify and characterize a relational paradigm within sustainability research. On this basis, we conclude with a call to action for sustainability researchers to co-develop a research agenda for advancing this relational paradigm within sustainability research, practice, and education.
Chapter
Full-text available
In this chapter, we critically assess the connection between mindfulness, education, and ESD. The aim is to explore the potential of mindfulness as an educational innovation in the context of the SDGs, in particular SDG 4. After providing some background to the philosophy and practice of mindfulness (section “Mindfulness”), we systematically analyze and present its linkages with education in general (section “Mindfulness and Education”) and, subsequently, with education for sustainability in particular (section “Mindfulness in Education for Sustainable Development”). In this context, two highly relevant fields of application in ESD are discussed in greater depth: climate change and resilience (section “Field of Application: Education for Sustainable Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation, and Resilience”) and consumption (section “Field of Application: Education for Sustainable Consumption”). We conclude with some critical perspectives and possible ways forward (section “Critical Reflections and Ways Forward”).
Article
Full-text available
In the context of continuing ecosystem degradation and deepening socio-economic inequality, sustainability scientists must question the adequacy of current scholarship and practice. We argue that pre-occupation with external phenomena and collective social structures has led to the neglect of people’s ‘inner worlds’—their emotions, thoughts, identities and beliefs. These lie at the heart of actions for sustainability, and have powerful transformative capacity for system change. The condition of people’s inner worlds ought to also be considered a dimension of sustainability itself. Compassion, empathy and generosity, for example, are personal characteristics that mark individual expressions of sustainability. Sustainability science must take inner life more seriously by considering how language shapes and is shaped by paradigms about the world, prioritising enquiry into how spirituality, contemplation and sustainability transformation relate, and encouraging scholars and practitioners to intentionally cultivate their inner worlds to strengthen inner resources necessary for addressing sustainability challenges.
Article
Full-text available
Local governments’ limited mandate and capacity to adequately deal with increasing climate risk and impacts means that citizen engagement is becoming increasingly important for adapting to hazards such as floods and storms. Stronger collaborative approaches are urgently needed. At the same time, there is little research and hardly any empirical evidence on what inspires adaptation engagement in different citizen groups. Against this background, this paper examines the external/ material (e.g., resources, hazards, public support) and internal aspects (e.g., values and worldviews) that shape people’s engagement in and for adaptation. Based on a survey of Swedish citizens at risk from severe climate events, we show that engagement is a gendered process, which is mediated by personal values, worldviews and place—aspects rarely considered in public adaptation. While a high level of diverse citizen action is often related to past experiences of hazards, motivation to adapt goes beyond the idea of acting out of rational self-interest. Economic considerations (e.g., low cost) are not the only motivation to adapt; the potential of an adaptation action to contribute to green, thriving surroundings and mitigate global climate change was found nearly as (and among female respondents, more) motivating. Women were also found to be more motivated to engage in adaptation if this supports other community members at risk. At the same time, past adaptation action could not be linked to motivation to adapt, and was found to be negatively correlated with communitarian and ecological values or worldviews. This confirms that motivation to adapt does not automatically translate into action, and indicates a ‘mitigation–adaptation gap’ in people’s climate awareness, which can lead to ineffective climate responses. Given these findings, we discuss alternative approaches to support increased citizen engagement and more effective and transformative climate action. We end with a call for public adaptation and risk communication that takes greater account of inner/ subjective dimensions.
Book
Full-text available
Consumption is one of the greatest challenges for sustainable development. However, many of our daily consumer activities are routines and habits. Questioning these and establishing alternatives requires that we interrupt our automatic patterns and habits and explore what we want, what is good for us and how we want to deal with others and the surrounding environment. Opening up opportunities to develop new attitudes and behaviours in this regard is a major challenge for educators working to promote sustainable consumption and responsible lifestyles. The practice of mindfulness can be a helpful approach to partially meet this challenge. This toolkit derives from the three-year research project BiNKA (www.mindfulness-and-consumption.de) that investigated to what extent practices and philosophy of mindfulness may contribute to education for sustainable consumption. The toolkit offers a variety of ideas and suggestions for teachers, trainers and other pedagogical professionals who, together with those they teach or train, want to experience and try out mindfulness exercises related to sustainable consumption.
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines whether or not specific forms of adaptation governance that involve city administrations and citizens can help (or hinder) creating a foundation for more sustainable climate adaptation and transformation. Based on the analysis of recurring patterns of social adaptation dilemmas (caused by the interdependencies between adaptation providers and beneficiaries), associated actor constellations, policy approaches, and gaps, this paper presents principles for supporting city–citizen commoning for climate adaptation (i.e. joint actions needed to create systems to manage ‘shared’ adaptation resources). The presented principles can assist in facilitating the management of public goods for adaptation, including privately-provided adaptation goods, and relate to four strategic aims: i) the effective management of collective and individual resources; ii) comprehensive risk reduction; iii) sustained local–institutional linkages (mainstreaming); and iv) matching different actors’ views, efforts and capacities. The principles synthesise and extend the literature by considering, and providing space for, a comprehensive understanding of risk and its root causes, and for alternative rationalities or (‘nonrational’) behaviours intended to address them. The latter takes account of the subjectivities (e.g. emotional attachments to resources and seascapes), which are as important as power structures with respect to how climate adaptation is managed. In fact, subjectivities are central to the operation of city administrations as they are an integral part of how people understand their relationship to others. In an adaptation context, this means focusing on practices and interactions that are required for taking adaptation actions, and how they can both promote and frustrate attempts to collaborate. We conclude that the developed principles can support more sustainable climate adaptation and transformation by holistically addressing existing adaptation dilemmas, actor constellations, and the associated policy gaps that make current approaches ineffective.
Article
Full-text available
Growing globalisation and climate change are challenging the sustainability of our societies. It is now clear that climate change and its devastating impacts cannot be resolved by new technology or governance alone. They require a broader, cultural shift. As a result, the role of human beings' 'inner dimensions' and related transformations is attracting increased attention from researchers. Recent advances in neuroscience suggest for instance that mindfulness can open new pathways towards sustainability. However, the role of mindfulness in climate adaptation has been largely ignored. This paper is the first exploratory empirical investigation into linking individuals' intrinsic mindfulness (as opposed to outside mindfulness interventions) to pro-and reactive climate adaptation. Based on a survey of citizens at risk from severe climate events, we explore if, and how individual mindfulness is correlated with climate adaptation at different scales. The results show that individual mindfulness coincides with higher motivation to take climate adaptation actions or to support them, especially actions that are 'other-focused' or support pro-environmental behaviour. Mindfulness may also corroborate the acknowledgement of climate change and associated risk perception, and it may steer people away from fatalistic attitudes. We conclude with a call for more research into the relationship between human beings' inner dimensions and climate adaptation in the wider public domain.