Education for Sustainable Lifestyles—ESL

2021 ◽  
pp. 122-130
Author(s):  
Lutz Meyer-Ohlendorf ◽  
Fritz Reusswig
interactions ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 56-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian K. Clear ◽  
Kirstie O'Neill ◽  
Adrian Friday

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Van Den Hazel

Abstract The impacts of climate change are not distributed equally. Some people will experience natural disasters first hand, some will be affected more gradually over time, and some will experience only indirect impacts. There are data from the United nations that show the interest of youth on climate change. Close to half a million youth around the world have taken action on climate change through SGP [small grants programmes] projects in their homes, schools and communities. (UNDP, 2015). 84% of the surveyed young people agree that they need more information to prevent climate change. (UNEP, 2011). Furthermore, about 73% of surveyed youth say they currently feel the effects climate change. (UNEP, GlobeScan Survey, 2008). Some 89% of youth respondents say young people can make a difference on climate change. [UNEP, 2008]. But only 9% of youth are very confident the world will act quickly enough to address climate change. [UNEP, 2008]. Young people are key actors in raising awareness, running educational programmes, promoting sustainable lifestyles, conserving nature, supporting renewable energy, adopting environmentally-friendly practices and implementing adaptation and mitigation projects[UNFCCC]. Action by youth, as protest school strikes or speeches to the UN by Greta Thunberg, urge immediate action from governments, business leaders and school leaders. There are different reasons for this action by youth. The psycho-social impacts of a changing climate are generally under lighted in these reasons. Are the responses by society enough to minimize suffering and promote resilience of youth in the face of the challenging impacts of climate change? Or do governments and businesses enough while they increasingly seem to be moving toward action on climate change, as they proclaim to cut their own emissions or be active in their energy transition? It is not clear whether those actions are enough to satisfy the next generation of customers, employees and decision makers.


2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Shirani ◽  
Catherine Butler ◽  
Karen Henwood ◽  
Karen Parkhill ◽  
Nick Pidgeon

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 3011-3029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Barr ◽  
Gareth Shaw ◽  
Tim Coles

Proenvironmental behaviour change remains a high priority for many governments and agencies and there are now numerous programmes aimed at encouraging citizens to adopt sustainable forms of living. However, although programmes for addressing behaviour change in and around the home are well developed, there has been significantly less attention paid to activities beyond this site of practice. This is despite the environmental implications of consumption choices for leisure, tourism, and work-related activities. Through focusing on sites of practice as a key framing device, this paper uses data from a series of in-depth interviews to identify three major challenges for academics and practitioners concerned with understanding and promoting more environmentally responsible behaviour. First, attention must shift beyond the home as a site of environmental practice to consider the ways in which individuals respond to exhortations towards ‘greener’ lifestyles in other high-consumption and carbon-intensive settings, Second, in broadening the scope of environmental practice, policy makers need to revisit their reliance on segmentation models and related social marketing approaches. This is in the light of data that suggest those with strong environmental commitments in the home are often reluctant to engage in similar commitments in other sites of practice. Third, researchers and policy makers therefore need to move beyond the traditional ‘siting’ of environmental practice towards a spatially sophisticated conceptualisation that accounts for the multiple settings of consumption through mapping the relationships that exist between sites of practice.


2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 976
Author(s):  
Barbara Lino ◽  
Annalisa Contato ◽  
Mauro Ferrante ◽  
Giovanni Frazzica ◽  
Luciana Macaluso ◽  
...  

The Italian debate on the so-called ‘inner areas’ has received a much-needed boost, following the COVID-19 pandemic, which has further highlighted the differences between metropolitan and inner areas. While the progressive depopulation of inner areas is a worrying phenomenon, the limits of incessant urbanisation and the concentration of settlement and infrastructure policies in large conurbations have become evident. Departing from the framework of the B4R-Branding4Resilience research project of national interest and, by continuing in the furrow initiated by the SNAI, but also surpassing it, the aim of the University of Palermo’s research is to define the requirement for a more inclusive settlement model in the Sicani area in Sicily (Italy) to re-balance existing asymmetries by recharging peripheral areas with new centrality. The aims of the research are to demonstrate that inner areas could be an engine for innovation, thereby outlining a roadmap through which to encourage the resilience of new sustainable lifestyles. These aims would be achieved by working on new perspectives and projects, which are capable of radically modifying production, consumption, and tourism dynamics and work/life models, and which are gleaned from a study regarding the Sicani area in Sicily. The paper discusses case study quantitative and qualitative analyses and first results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document