Version classiqueVersion mobile

Sustainable Development

Oliver Parodi
Ignacio Ayestaran
Gerhard Banse

Part 2. Epistemic Topics, Knowledge and Ethical Dilemmas

Education and Communication as Prerequisites for and Components of Sustainable Development

Reflections for Policies, Conceptual Work, and Theory, Based on Previous Practises

Ute Stoltenberg et Verena Holz

Texte intégral

1More than a decade after the first attempts in the domains of education theory and education policy, whose goals were the comprehensive establishment of an educational programme adhering to the guidelines of Agenda 21, enough experience has been made to formulate several consequences for further work on this task. As expected, from those beginnings to the present day, a lively discourse has developed about the contents and methods of educational offerings, a discourse in which people from a multitude of educational domains and institutions are participating.

2The topics under constant discussion primarily touch on the innovative character and the integrative capacities of an educational programme for sustainable development with regard to social and educational practises. Various interpretations of the concept of sustainability and its relevance for different social realms play an important role here.

3In the following essay, we will sketch out in what way education for sustainable development is present in both society and educational institutions. We will demonstrate approaches for further work based on several telling observations under the headwords: common everyday knowledge and education for sustainable development; foundational value orientation; dealing with complexity and openness.

1 Social Perception and Reception of the Programme of Education for Sustainable Development

4Since 2002, Germany has been following a sustainability strategy with goals, indicators, and initiatives (cf. Die Bundesregierung 2002; RNE 2009). Sustainable development as the model for future policies and social praxis has established itself in political discourse through the programmes of various state institutions with wideranging public relations work and the inclusion of civil society, as well as through initiatives by key players from civil society. Parallel to the public campaigns and initiatives, corresponding educational programmes have been set up, for education plays a key role in the implementation of the central ideas of sustainable development.

  • 1 Cf.

5Education for sustainable development (ESD) is thus more than merely a separate point in the work programme of the Council for Sustainable Development 2010-2013. “Social Understanding”, “Wide-ranging Communication Relating to Sustainability”, and the question of the role of “Knowledge, Science, and Responsibility” are perceived as key problems of fundamental importance.1 Or, to cite the example of a national initiative for sustainable development: The “National Strategy on Biological Diversity” describes education as an important arena (cf. BMU 2007, pp. 87ff.) and names both the measures and the participants that are to be included.

  • 2 Cf.

6With regard to the domain of education itself, initiatives were taken on the national level even before an official vote on a national strategy for sustainability. In 1998, the Bund-Länder Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion (BLK) adopted the framework of “Education for Sustainable Development” and facilitated the practical implementation of the educational goals formulated in Agenda 21 in two programmes that feed into one another: BLK-21 (1999-2004) and the subsequent Transfer-21 (2004-2008). Similarly, the European Rectors’ Conference adopted the COPERNICUS Charter in 1993 in order to emphasize higher education’s responsibilities with regard to sustainable development. Since then, the network of universities which signed the COPERNICUS Charter increased to 326 by the year 2005. After some years of reduced activities and finally a breakup, several universities joined in 2009 to form a Copernicus Network.2 With the memorandum “Rethinking Universities” (cf. Gruppe 2004), the Lübeck declaration “Universities and Sustainability” (Lübecker Erklärung „ Hochschulen und Nachhaltigkeit“2005), and the “Universities for Sustainable Development” declaration adopted at the beginning of 2010 by the German Rectors’ Conference and by the German UNESCO Commission, programmatic statements about the – sustainable – development of universities have become available.

7In Germany, the UN Decade “Education for Sustainable Development” – through its organising via the German National Committee (established in 2004) and via roundtable discussions that have led to working groups on various educational domains and tasks – has been a very important stimulus (cf. UNESCO 2006). Thus, education for sustainable development was seen, for the first time, as a task that also applies to the primary and elementary levels of education (cf. Stoltenberg 2008). The significance of informal education in this domain was also fleshed out (cf. Brodowski et al. 2009). In 2010, the working group on biodiversity, which is composed of experts from various fields, produced a comprehensive educational programme on “Biological Diversity and Education for Sustainable Development” (Biologische Vielfalt 2010).

  • 3 Cf. (...)

8Within the framework of sustainability initiatives of various German federal states, ESD is taken up as its own domain but also as accompanying initiative being supported.3 Political concerns are communicated publicly through forums or conferences on education for sustainable development.

  • 4 Cf.

9On its German website, UNESCO provides information material (some of which is internationally oriented) and also points to networking possibilities4. “Good examples” are published twice a year. In the list of exemplary projects in the domain of education for sustainable development, very different protagonists have been included – from nursery schools (= Kindergarten) to universities, from NGOs and smaller initiatives to cities and districts. In addition to this, a large amount of educational material has been produced and made available free of charge on the websites of Federal Ministries, Federal Offices, UNESCO, Transfer-21, and numerous NGOs as well.

  • 5 Cf.; FONA: Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung/Research for Sustainable Development.

10Businesses (such as the Hipp Group and the OttoGroup) have also begun not only to advertise their commitment to sustainability, but also to make that commitment transparent through information and explanatory material. Activities relating to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are on the increase and are currently orienting themselves towards education for sustainable development. The “FONA” website of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research is a platform for various institutions that take up the concept of sustainability either theoretically or practically.5

11The Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (German Environmental Foundation) is an outstanding organization that encourages sustainable projects in private industry, communities, but also especially in various spheres of education.

12The 2008 UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development in Germany not only called on the media to take up ideas of sustainability more forcefully, but also shifted the focus of the discussion. To cite just one example, the need to train teachers with regards to education for sustainable development was emphasized.

13Moreover, there are now more means than ever of living a sustainable lifestyle – from transportation to organic food to ecological homes.

14The basic conditions for effectively implementing the central ideas of sustainable development in everyday life have never been more favourable. 82% of those polled in a recent representative study on environmental consciousness in Germany (cf. BMU/UBA 2010) associate environmentally friendly behaviour with a better quality of life rather than with personal sacrifice. The percentage of people who recognize the Fair Trade seal, rose from 30% to 56% (cf. BMU/UBA 2010, p. 46). Yet different social milieus also lead to great differences in attitudes towards the environment, and this can be attributed to different levels of income and education.

2 The Institutional Establishment of Education for Sustainable Development in Educational Domains

15The goal of the BLK educational programme for schools was the implementation of education for sustainable development in at least 10% of German schools in 2008. Since then, the programme was introduced in 12.1% of schools, and in some German states the number is even higher (cf. Transfer-21 w/o year). Nevertheless, a large deficit in secondary education has been reported – whether because the classes in grammar school (= Gymnasium) have very specific subject matters and thus provide few opportunities for an integrative approach, or because the approach is seen as being too complex for pupils attending the less academic general secondary school (= Hauptschule).

  • 6 Cf.

16On the level of early education, many new initiatives have been launched, yet they are predominantly classically oriented: examples include “learning democracy” (conceptualized as preventive) or “basic scientific education” (understood as preparation for the classroom). Over the past few years, offers relating specifically to education for sustainable development (e. g., through the ecological programmes of Ökoprojekt Mobilspiel e. V. or S. O. F. Umweltstiftung) which make it easier for nursery schools to adopt the programme through co-operation, training, and consultation have only been available on the regional level. On the national level, an initiative to implement education for sustainable development was started in the realm of early education with the Leuchtpol project.6

17Very few universities have taken up the institutional task of contributing to sustainable development. The Leuphana University Lüneburg is a pioneer here, as it started a programme of sustainable development in 1998 that encompasses all university domains (cf. Michelsen 2009; Stoltenberg 2010). Within the framework of this programme, an introductory semester with a focus on sustainable development is compulsory for all students since 2007. Moreover, in 2010, a new faculty named “Sustainability” was established at the university. The term “sustainability” becomes increasingly part of the names of several academic institutions and is taken as a basis for establishing innovative courses and curricula in Higher Education.

18Vocational training has taken up the challenges of the programme, in particular through initiatives of the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB), and often in co-operation with practical vocational experience. With regard to adult education in Germany, the programme has not made much headway (cf. Michelsen 2005) – with the exception of individual projects and organizations such as Tu-Was e. V. Large deficits exist in social groups such as parents, early school leavers, migrants, the elderly, employees of public institutions, and also various instructors in educational institutes.

3 Current Challenges and Stimuli for Further Work on Education for Sustainable Development

19With regard to education policy, a key task is to bring about the basic conditions needed to align formal and informal education with a programme of education for sustainable development. This cannot be done by simply “rewriting” current frameworks or curricula. Rather the structure of the entire educational system – where “education” is understood in the sense of lifelong learning – must be altered to do justice to an educational programme that is oriented towards interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary thought and work. Greater weight should be placed on the principles of participation, regional co-operation, and global learning in practical international co-operation. Currently, providing continuing education for sustainable development for instructors at all levels of education should have priority. Separate initiatives and pilot projects should be developed and financed for so far neglected educational domains and target groups.

20These preliminary remarks on educational policy are necessary. In spite of many programmatic declarations professing to orient the educational system towards education for sustainable development, there has yet to be any true support of this programme in practice. Currently, specific political issues like international competitiveness or the abolition of the Hauptschule dominate the discussion without relating them to educational concepts like ESD. It is neither perceived that ESD could be a driving force for structural innovations.

21The challenges for science and educational praxis that we will consider in this article can re-emphasize the potential of education for sustainable development, particularly with regard to an educational policy that is well-equipped for the future.

3.1 Common Knowledge and Education for Sustainable Development

22The terms “sustainable” and “sustainable development” have increasingly become part of common knowledge. On the one hand, this is due to the increased presence of the concept of sustainability in the public domain. On the other hand, the objectives of sustainable development such as “providing a good life”, “social security”, “preserving nature”, or “peaceful coexistence” are very close to people’s own subjective needs. The study that the Federal Environmental Agency regularly conducts on environmental consciousness and questions of sustainable development provides insight into different forms of common everyday knowledge about sustainable development. An integrative understanding of sustainability – one that takes into account the interaction of the economic, ecological, social, and cultural dimension of decisions for sustainable development – is the exception here. It is not surprising that groups of people that have different levels of access to education and financial security also develop different attitudes towards social participation (cf. Bandura 1995). Educational pro-cesses can have a greater impact on people when they take people’s respective views into serious consideration and integrate them into ongoing thought processes and reconceptualizations. We would briefly make note of accounts offered in constructivist epistemology and learning theory (cf. Dewey 1985; Gerstenmeier/Mandel 1995) and in sociological models of understanding differences in attitudes and behaviour (cf. Bernstein 1961; Grundmann et al. 2006; Kuckartz 1999). We know from these theories that common knowledge (in which facts, attitudes, and intentions are bundled together) differs regarding the understanding of sustainable development, the readiness to do something that is considered sustainable, and one’s actual proximity to the concept.

23Only one aspect can be considered here, but it holds significance for all educational target groups. It justifies itself not didactically, but rather via the understanding of education for sustainable development that we have established here. The starting point is the observation that people who already have an initial understanding of sustainable development as well as those who are confronted with the idea for the first time both react in a defensive manner. For example, all students of the Leuphana University Lüneburg attend a course entitled “Academia Bears Responsibility” in their first semester in which, as noted above, they take up the concept of sustainability. Many of the students consider this a form of “top-down indoctrination”. Another example: Hauptschule students as well as parents of kindergarten students (in addition to high school students and teachers – the list could go on and on) often react to the mention of organic food in the following way: “It’s not practical” or “I can’t afford it” (thereby rejecting the entire concept outright). Even when the arguments are quite subtle and have several layers to them, in all cases the idea and the concept of sustainable development is misunderstood as a demand. This is not surprising, since formal educational institutions are generally understood as instructive authorities rather than educational facilities. Education for sustainable development can push back against this. First of all, educational processes should be introduced into real situations and should take up serious tasks that all parties involved can identify with. This requires considerable guidance and assistance, but also the self-organization of the students, the search for partners outside the educational institution, and communication among members of a group that are all tackling the same question. Within the framework of seminars on topics relevant to sustainable development, the Lüneburg students are therefore asked to work in small groups on projects that they choose themselves and whose results could be of importance to others as well (cf. Barth/Godemann 2006). Even Hauptschule students can take courage to face their own future when they realize that “organic” products are within their means, are healthy, and taste good (cf. Stoltenberg et al. 2007). Parents will be won over to ideas of sustainability when they realize how buying seasonal and regional foods benefits both their children and themselves while also supporting regional producers and the regional economy. In all cases, it is not only actions taken that are of significance, but also integrating people’s ideas and attitudes into educational processes, i. e., into information, communication, and reflection processes.

24Secondly, the defensive attitude towards sustainable development can be tackled by providing occasions for informal learning on sustainable development. The sustainable renovation of buildings or responsible use of energy and water can be used as examples. In such situations, one can expect the message to hit its mark when comparisons are made with non-sustainable situations, when access to the necessary information is provided, and when a participatory element is involved.

25Last but not least, education for sustainable development should be understood as political education in the sense of citizenship education and participation. This understanding of the concept should have consequences in educational practice, provided that (constructivist) models of a self-determined education are taken as a basis (cf. Arnstein 1969; Hart 1997). In this case, study settings and educational opportunities need profound restructuring. Yet in the educational institution of the school in particular, the dominant teaching conventions still stand in the way of this. Such a reorientation would also entail rethinking the role of the teacher as well as modifying the existing grading systems.

26Many key decisions about sustainable development are made in political and economic realms. Education for sustainable development cannot simply mean implementing a new programme politically. Access to the concept of sustainable development as well as organizational possibilities and the responsibility that comes with them require an open discussion about the interpretation and acceptance of the value framework. They require knowing one’s own interests, one’s limits, and the degree to which one is affected. They also require knowing the resistance that sustainable development can expect to meet on the individual and societal level. There must be space for all of this – not only through thoughtful and supportive teachers, but also through institutional measures.

3.2 Value Orientation as a Foundation

27People act morally because they are free to choose to do so. They are aware of their responsibilities, whether with regard to their family, or to a particular social group, or to humanity as a whole, or even to other creatures – all of these are decisions that depend on their perception and reflection, and ultimately on how they value the relationships they are part of.

28Human dignity, preserving the environment, and justice – the fundamental values of sustainable development – are very general principles that become more concrete when one asks “What do they mean for us?” “How should we live in the future?” “What coexistence of man and nature is possible on this one planet of ours?”

29Here, too, observations from educational work provide occasions to establish the relations between values and education for sustainable development as a further important field of work. Teachers and instructors, who tend to argue in a moral way, feel responsible for their clients and their clients’ futures. From here, it is easy to arrive at an interpretation of everyday values as rules and norms. A common example is energy conservation in kindergartens and primary schools – conservation that is legitimized through the use of competitions and “energy detectives”. Yet the relation between “energy conservation”, the type of energy used, and the effects of generating that energy, etc. threatens to fall out of the picture. Another example shows insecurities in dealing with values: the current discussion about migration/identity/integration in Europe is an example for changing values. The interpretation of values and the way one deals with them should therefore be an integral component of education for sustainable development. In order to understand and appreciate these relations, we need an exchange of knowledge and an exchange of values and the consequences that result from them.

30Sustainable development is an objective based on certain values, yet it is also a mission that can only be accomplished through a transformation of values. The ethical foundation of sustainable development – and the educational efforts that can contribute to it – is the linking together of human dignity, preservation of nature, and justice with regard to the life opportunities for people today and for future generations. This stakes out a value framework with regard to sustainable development that practically the entire world can agree on. The concretization of these values in the process of sustainable development is an issue that demands for cultural and situational advancement. The international community can already draw on global values that have been concretely formulated and that emerged from a common process of deliberation. This exists as a political foundation in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the “Towards a Global Ethic” declaration by the Parliament of the World’s Religions (in Chicago, 1992). In the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, these values are expressed in the first twenty (inalienable) articles. UN conventions such as those on biodiversity, cultural diversity, and especially on child rights also offer value orientations.

31An important foundation for sustainable development and the future of this one planet is the Earth Charter, which began to be drafted in 1994 by civil society groups in a process of international dialogue. It has also had a large influence on the work of UNESCO with regard to the international development of education for sustainable development.

32Values that we adhere to are based on facts that are important to us as humans. When we consider the preservation of the environment as a value, we know about the necessity of ecological balances, about the limits of natural resources, about the significance of biodiversity, and about our basic dependence on nature. When we think about justice, we think about the opportunities that people have for development and co-operation, and about people’s freedom to make choices about their own lives (cf. Nussbaum 2000; Nussbaum/Sen 1993; Sen 1985, 2010).

33Values depend on people’s life experiences: What was preserved? Where did the values prove themselves to be of practical use for social life? Different cultures have developed different answers and therefore different value systems. Some of these value systems are beyond the comprehension of the international community – for example, when the caste system in India includes extreme discrimination, or when women’s participation in politics is condemned as being contrary to traditional values.

34This last example can show us that the transformation of values must be brought about by civil society, and that the courage of individuals can play an immense role here – individuals, who often act against those who were up to that point profiting from the former values. Equal rights between men and women have been written into German law since 1 July 1958. This would not have been possible without the courageous woman Elisabeth Selbert, who fought doggedly – with the support of women’s organizations – to anchor this into the 1948 Constitution, against resistance from within the “Parliamentary Council”, which had drafted Germany’s Constitution. Values are transformed by social developments which we can influence. Values can be transformed if these transformations are justified, and if one has the necessary allies to do so.

35Education for sustainable development can open our eyes to the fact that everyone can contribute to the formation of general values. But it can also show us that many measures must come from politics and private industry, as well as from international agreements. Yet individuals are not only capable of changing things in their own everyday lives; they can also become politically active. Education for sustainable development is always simultaneously a form of political education, and it takes up values that are politically relevant.

36Since values aim at social consensus, since they should be a form of orientation for coexistence, and since they should be subject to change when they are no longer suitable as foundational values, they should always remain subject to scrutiny. The meaning and function of values should be justified and comprehensible, so that people can adopt them. Therefore, the value horizon in which people in an educational institute work is not a question of individual responsibility. Rather, it should be a matter of an agreement among all relevant parties in that institution. This is necessary because an educational institution is always a part of the larger community too, in which it must position and orient itself.

37Values cannot be invented, prescribed, or exercised. Values must be experienced as meaningful orientations in connection with both concrete actions and hard facts. If you prescribe a moral orientation to people, then you can count on resistance (and this applies to older children, young people, and adults). In the educational domain, we should therefore avoid all moral conclusions that are not supported by the facts – for example, the statement, “when we save water, we are helping children in Africa”. Reflecting on values – on those values that enable the international community to develop a common future, on those that bind communities together, and on those that are questionable – is a key component of education for sustainable development.

3.3 Dealing with Complexity and Openness

38An ecological understanding of sustainable development is the one most easily adaptable to everyday ideas and pedagogical programmes. It is heavily inspired by the ideas of protecting the environment and living a healthy life, as well as by an idealized understanding of nature. There is no question that sensitivity to natural processes or awareness of natural resources as a condition for our existence is an important requirement for being able to tackle the challenges of sustainable development. As a field of action, ecology (or rather, environmental education and environmental policy) can obscure our view of many other fields of action that relate to sustainable development, for it cannot do justice to the complex global challenges of sustainable development; this can be clearly seen from Agenda 21.

39Rather than an observation, current empirical findings will be our starting point here. A comprehensive quantitative study of educational institutes (non-formal sector) in Germany – institutes that are raising awareness of sustainable development policies – shows how widespread the ecological approach still is in educational work: 55% of those surveyed consider their work to be rooted in environmental education, followed by 33% that view their work as coming out of Agenda 21 and thus see themselves as representatives of education for sustainable development, and 32% who consider themselves to be working in the domain of general education (cf. Rode/Wendler 2009, p. 4). The over-representation of institutions that position themselves within the realm of environmental education leads one to suspect that this orientation is also present in the content of their course offerings. Indeed, the fields of nature and technology are by far the most listed in terms of content (cf. Rode/Wendler 2009, p. 16). The further development of the education programme of sustainable development should not remain a culturally specific field, and by this we mean that each individual institution should refrain from taking up and teaching only those topics of sustainable development that are relevant to their specific academic focuses. Antoinetta di Giulio also attests to this: Many “programmes define the skills to be developed not on the basis of the idea itself, but on the basis of concrete targets of sustainable development without critically reflecting on the underlying function of education in the context of sustainable development” (Giulio 2006, p. 62). The often-raised objection that the programme is too complex can be relativized. The aforementioned study also shows that after engaging with the programme in a long-term and comprehensive manner, the hurdles associated with its implementation are viewed as significantly less problematic (cf. Rode/Wendler 2009, p. 12).

40The potential of the sustainability programme lies in the consideration of complex interdependencies of different dimensions of social action. They should be identified on the local/regional and global levels, as well as in the crossover between these levels. In order to analyse these relations in educational processes, a model is used that attempts to bring to the fore the economic, social, cultural, and ecological dimensions of a particular set of problems (cf. Stoltenberg 2009; Stoltenberg/Michelsen 1999). In those dimensions, certain protagonists with (often contradictory) interests can be identified. These fields should also be understood as fields of action in a common sustainability strategy: One can therefore ask, for example, what dealing sustainably with the soil could mean in its ecological, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. Negotiation processes (and with them the concretization of values) are oriented towards the value framework of sustainable development (discussed earlier in this article) that is non-negotiable with regard to its principles: human dignity, preserving natural resources, and fair life opportunities for all people. One question that could be negotiated in this realm would be whether one should start from an anthropocentric worldview or a biocentric worldview, and what justifications can be given for one perspective or the other. Even the question of universal criteria for human dignity and human rights often leads to controversial discussions on Eurocentrism and provides an occasion to reflect on global social transformation. Such reflection processes are a prerequisite for adopting one’s own viewpoints; they are a part of educational processes and also a part of the social communication that is necessary for sustainable development (cf. Holz 2010). We therefore call upon educational institutions to organize their engagement with sustainable development as part of a critical public as well.

41On the organizational level, one could counter the inadequate complexity of educational approaches with strengthened co-operation among education providers. They could work together on one topic from different sustainability perspectives, yet still communicate the integrative approach through information exchanges and complementary course offerings. Such thematic educational networks (cf. Stoltenberg 2009) could make the integration of actions relating to sustainable development comprehensible, and also trace out possible lines of conflict among protagonists.

42In the theoretical work on the programme of education for sustainable development, great significance is attached to the underlying understanding of nature on the one hand, and to understanding sustainable development as a cultural project on the other hand.

43Education for sustainable development can contribute to a reassessment of the supposed opposition between man and nature that has taken root in everyday understanding and in less enlightened milieus. Correspondingly, a critical examination of the supposed opposition between nature and culture can cast light on cultural diversity and its significance for sustainable development as well as the relation between nature and culture that we ourselves must take responsibility for.

44The cultural dimension of sustainable development (which usually comes up in models of sustainable development in its “socio-cultural” dimension) offers theoretical constructs and methods of analysing non-sustainable developments and drafting sustainability strategies (cf. Holz/Stoltenberg 2011). It outlines a system of meanings, knowledge, worldviews, lifestyles, and material concerns that can effectively organize social life within a framework of values. Thus, the cultural dimension of sustainable development can play a role in critical-constructivist analysis; such a perspective is indispensable in view of the current challenges of the discourses surrounding religious freedom, “cosmopolitan culture” (cf. Beck 2000), “mondialité” (cf. Glissant et al. 2010, cited in Naiir 2010, p. 17). Yet it can also be viewed as a specific level of action and organization, if one considers cultural forms of expression that reveal the complexity of the concept of sustainable development. This is possible through aesthetic education and joint projects with artists.

4 Concluding Remarks

45For the further development of the educational programme, we will list three starting points here that, against the backdrop of efforts towards education for sustainable development, should be given more prominence as elements of the educational programme – in all educational domains and for all target groups. First of all, we need to confront the common understanding of “sustainability” and the defensive attitude that people often have towards it, which in the realm of education is due to the false belief that “sustainable development” is a prescriptive task, whose parameters are set in stone. Another misinterpretation that educational practice can correct lies in the interpretation of values as norms and regulations. Finally, by focusing on ecology as the field of action and analysis, the general understanding of sustainability is narrowed and diminished. These developments are certainly comprehensible, for sustainable development is an open process, and there are many different points of view as to how it should be structured. It is thus even more important for education for sustainable development to make accessible the undoubted framework of values, as well as the knowledge about the guardrails of our action insofar as they exist through insights into and open questions about the ecological, economic, social, and cultural aspects of problems. In addition, educational processes should provide spaces for organization and the exchange of experiences that would allow for a responsible discussion of values, and that would turn the organizational views of all individuals (at all levels of action) as well as those of the community and national and international institutions and organizations – with all their limits and opportunities – into objects of reflection.



Arnstein, Sh. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, No. 4, pp. 216-224

Bandura, A. (ed.) (1995): Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge

Barth, M.; Godemann, J. (2006): Study Programme Sustainability – a Way to Impart Competencies for Handling Sustainability? In: Adomssent, M.; Godemann, J.; Leicht, A.; Busch, A. (eds.): Higher Education for Sustainability. New Challenges from a Global Perspective. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 198-207

Beck, U. (2000): The Cosmopolitan Perspective. Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity. In: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 79-105

Bernstein, B. (1961): Social Structure, Language and Learning. In: Journal of Educational Research, No. 3, pp. 163-176

Biologische Vielfalt und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (2010), erarbeitet von der Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Vielfalt; edited by: Die deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e. V. Bonn (in German)

BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2007): Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Berlin (in German)

BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit; UBA – Umweltbundesamt (eds.) (2010): Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2010. Berlin/Dessau-Roßlau (in German)

Brodowski, M.; Devers-Kanoglu, U.; Overwien, B.; Rohs, M.; Salinger, S.; Walser, M. (eds.) (2009): Informelles Lernen und Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Beiträge aus Theorie und Praxis. Opladen/Farmington Hills (in German)

Bundesregierung (2002): Perspektiven für Deutschland. Unsere Strategie für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Berlin (in German)

Dewey, J. (1985): Democracy and Education. In: Dewey, J.: The Middle Works 1899 – 1924. Carbondale/Edwardsville, SI, Vol. 9, pp. 4-58; 331-355

Gerstenmaier, J.; Mandl, H. (1995): Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 867-888 (in German)

Giulio, A. di (2006): Education for Sustainable Development – What Does it Mean and What Should Students Learn? In: Adomssent, M.; Godemann, J.; Leicht, A.; Busch, A. (eds.) (2006): Higher Education for Sustainability. New Challenges from a Global Perspective. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 60-66

Glissant, É.; Séma, S.; Thill, B. (2010): Das magnetische Land. Die Irrfahrt der Osterinsel Rapa Nui. Heidelberg (in German)

Grundmann, M.; Bittlingmayer, U. H.; Dravenau, D.; Edelstein, W. (eds.) (2006): Bildungsmilieus und Handlungsbefähigung. Zur Analyse milieuspezifischer Alltagspraktiken und ihrer Ungleichheitsrelevanz. Münster (in German)

Gruppe 2004 (2004): Hochschule neu denken. Neuorientierung im Horizont der Nachhaltigkeit. Ein Memorandum. Frankfurt am Main (in German)

Hart, R. (1997): Children’s Participation. The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. New York (Unicef [et al.])

Holz, V. (2010): Transkulturalität, Hybridität und neue Ethnizitäten im Spiegel der Diskussion um “Kulturelle Vielfalt” im Rahmen einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Parodi, O.; Banse, G.; Schaffer, A. (eds.): Wechselspiele. Kultur und Nachhaltigkeit. Annäherungen an ein Spannungsfeld. Berlin, pp. 275-291 (in German)

Holz, V.; Stoltenberg, U. (2011): Mit dem kulturellen Blick auf den Weg zu einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. In: Sorgo, G.; Forum Umweltbildung (eds.): Die unsichtbare Dimension. Die Bedeutung impliziter Kulturalität für eine Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Wien (in print) (in German)

Kuckartz, U. (1999): Lebensstile und Umweltbildung. Folgerungen aus der Lebensstilforschung. In: NNA-Berichte, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 14-20 (in German)

Lübecker Erklärung „ Hochschulen und Nachhaltigkeit“ (2005), verabschiedet im Rahmen der Konferenz der Norddeutschen Partnerschaft zur Unterstützung der UN-Dekade Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) 2005-1014 (NUN) in Lübeck (in German)

Michelsen, G. (2005): Verpasst die Weiterbildung einen wichtigen Diskurs? Erwachsenenbildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: DIE Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung, Vol. 4, pp. 31-34 (in German)

Michelsen, G. (2009): Hochschulen im Horizont einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Kerschner, F.; Büchl-Krammerstätter, K.; Funk, B.-Chr.; Priewasser, R. (eds.): Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Manz/Wien, pp. 3-18 (in German)

Naiir, S. (2010): Europa wird mestizisch. In: Lettre international, No. 91, pp. 15-20 (in German)

Nussbaum, M. (2000): Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, MA

Nussbaum, M.; Sen, A. (eds.) (1993): The Quality of Life. Oxford

RNE – Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (ed.) (2009): Peer Review der deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspolitik. Berlin (in German)

Rode, H.; Wendler, M. (2009): „ Früher nannten wir es Umwelterziehung“. Kommentierte Grundauszählung zur quantitativen Befragung zur außerschulischen Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung – ausgewählte Ergebnisse (as yet unpublished) (in German)

Sen, A. (1985): Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford

Sen, A. (2010): Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München (in German)

Stoltenberg, U. (2008): Bildungspläne im Elementarbereich. Ein Beitrag zur Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung? Bonn (Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission) (in German), p. 2

Stoltenberg, U. (2009): Mensch und Wald. Theorie und Praxis einer Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung am Beispiel des Themenfelds Wald. München (in German)

Stoltenberg, U. (2010): Sustainable Development Discourse – Challenges for Universities. In: Akdemir, A.; Koc, O. (ed.): Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University: 2010 World Universities Congress. Proceedings I. Canakkale, Turkey, pp. 327-342

Stoltenberg, U.; Bartsch, A.; Wüllner, C. (2007): Zukunftscamp Future Now. Lüneburg (in German)

Stoltenberg, U.; Michelsen, G. (1999): Lernen nach der Agenda 21. Überlegungen zu einem Bildungskonzept für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Stoltenberg, U.; Michelsen, G.; Schreiner, J. (eds.): Umweltbildung – den Möglichkeitssinn wecken. NNA Berichte. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 45-54 (in German)

Transfer-21 (w/o year): Programm Transfer-21. Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Abschlussbericht des Programmträgers. Berlin (in German)

UNESCO (2006): UN-Dekade „ Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung“. In: UNESCO heute, Vol. 1


1 Cf.

2 Cf.

3 Cf.

4 Cf.

5 Cf.; FONA: Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung/Research for Sustainable Development.

6 Cf.


Professor Dr.; Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Institut für integrative Studien (infis) / Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Institute of Integrative Studies (infis); Lüneburg, Germany;

MA; Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Institut für integrative Studien (infis)/Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Institute of Integrative Studies (infis); Lüneburg, Germany;


Open access

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search