Biodiversity: the Educational Challenge
The British Ecological Society Educational Symposium at the VIIth International Congress of Ecology, Florence, Italy
19th-20th July 1998.
The following account of the symposium is reproduced from Perspectives in Ecology: a glance from the VIIth International Conference of Ecology (ISBN 90-5782-041-2) by kind permission of:
Backhuys Publishers, Warmonderwag 80,2341 KZ Oegstgeest,The Nederlands,PO Box 321, 2300 AH,
LEIDEN, The Nederlands. Phone +31-(0)71-5170927
E-mail: backhuys@euronet.nl.
Web: http://www.euronet.nl/users/backhuys/
The above book's 502 pages report 43 symposia together with 5 plenary sessions and 8 workshops and provide a wide ranging and comprehensive world view of ecology at the end of the millennium.
"Biodiversity: the Educational Challenge, was convened by David Slingsby and the following account was co-authored by
DAVID SLINGSBY: British Ecological Society & Wakefield Girls' High school, UK
and
SUSAN BARKER: British Ecological Society & University of Warwick, UK
Preface
A key task for ecologists recognised by Rio 1992 was the conservation of biodiversity. An important aspect of this task is an educational one. Rio 1992 succeeded in making the public familiar with the word 'biodiversity' yet, six years later, public awareness of what it actually means remains vague and the reasons why it is important that it be conserved remain poorly understood. The argument in favour of conserving biodiversity as a matter of urgency is perhaps much harder to put across to the public than is the case for taking steps to reduce ozone depletion, acid rain and global climate change. It is contended, however, that without the informed concern of an ecologically literate public, long term attempts to conserve biodiversity will remain largely cosmetic. In this symposium we aimed to identify the message we need to convey, consider some of the misconceptions widely held by the public and explore ways of facing the educational challenge which Biodiversity offers.
Abstract
The current usage of the term 'biodiversity' and the concept it is used to describe are reviewed. A range of speakers representing a range of perceptions of biodiversity and environmental education took part in the symposium which consisted of a mixture of invited and offered papers. Biodiversity is commonly defined unequivocally in scientific terms but what has become known as 'biodiversity education' appears to have an additional aspect which is value-loaded. Biodiversity as an object of study involves elements of natural history, nature study, ecology and environmental education. The use of the term could be important in fcussing attention on the concept it is used to describe within formal and informal education but it could also create semantic problems which are unhelpful.. It is concluded that to be understood and valued by the general public, biodiversity needs to be experienced at first hand in the local environment from a range of points of view including the scientific, the aesthetic, and the ethical. There is also a need for academic ecologists to communicate more effectively with the public by presenting more concrete and specific examples to illustrate why biodiversity is important.
Introduction
An interest in biological diversity is not new. Knowledge of plants and animals, which were good to eat
and which were dangerous, must have been essential for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The use of plants as food and for medicinal purposes stretches back into prehistory and knowledge of which species of plant could be used to treat which medical condition, and the habitat where such a species could be found, has long been highly valued. In the l8th and l9th centuries, species from all parts of the World were collected, named and classified. Biological diversity led Mendel to establish the principles of genetics and Darwin to propose the theory of Natural Selection. It was also from such an origin that the science of ecology evolved (Sheail,1987). Nor is it a new idea that biological diversity is threatened by human activity. The experience of South American rain forests made the natural historian Waterton (1782-1865) so aware of the ecological degradation around his home in industrial England that he began to manage his estate so as to enhance biodiversity (Blackburn,1989).
The concept of biological diversity may not be a new one but the current use of the terms 'Biological diversity' and 'Biodiversity' is relatively recent and owes much to Wilson and Peters (1988). This was
followed by the signing of the Convention on Biological diversity by more than 150 nations in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Janeiro.
"Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, interalia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems". Convention on Biological Diversity, Earth Summit, Rio 1992 (Hill and Yates (1996).
Despite the apparent simplicity of the above definition there remains a lack of consensus about the
meaning of the term 'biodiversity'. Gaston and Spicer (1998) observed that there were 12 formal
published definitions 'at the last count'. This appears to be because implicit in the current use of the term is an extra dimension which tends to make the above definition simplistic and inadequate. Few people would dispute that the 'Earth summit' definition quoted above is a useful statement about what
Biodiversity means, it is the implicit 'extra dimension' where there is a lack of consensus. Does current
usage, however, carry with it assumptions not only about what it is but also why it is important? The
Scottish Biodiversity working group (1997) argued that 'nature' is an abstract idea which carries implicit value judgements about worth, attractiveness and significance of various species and habitats whilst 'biodiversity' is restricted to that which can be measured objectively. This point of view robustly separates biodiversity as a narrowly defined ecological term from the issues, questions of value and applications which arise from it. The UK Government consultation paper (Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 1998) acknowledges that the National Curriculum for England and Wales does not explicitly mention biodiversity but does include biodiversity issues e.g. ecosystems and living things in the environment, within the existing programme. It goes on to describe biodiversity, however, as a 'quality of life issue'. Has 'biodiversity' become a synonym for 'Natural History', a name for one of several branches of ecology to be taught within in a national science programme, or is it emerging as a distinct curriculum'subject'?
Another important question to ask concerns the relationship between 'biodiversity education' and
'environmental education'. The latter is already well established and developing in many parts of the
world usually as a cross-curricular theme .in which scientific knowledge is placed within a context of
values, aesthetics, politics and ethics and seeks to modify attitudes and behaviour of the public towards
one which is sustainable. A consideration of the relationship between scientific ecology and environmental education occupied a previous INTECOL education session (Hale 1993). Within environmental education there has long been tension between the 'technocratic rationality of empirical/analytical science' and a broader view which embraces political, social, emotional and philosophical aspects (Robottom,1993). Is 'biodiversity education' a strand within environmental education focussing on plants and animals, is it an ecological topic within science and geography or is it something with a more discrete identity?
Few people would disagree that human activity, mainly changes in land use and pollution, is currently
causing a rapid rate of species extinction and hence loss of biodiversity. To those familiar with
biodiversity at first hand this may be reason enough to protect endangered species and habitats but a more utilitarian case is needed to influence the wider population. Such cases are summarised by Wilson and Peters 1988; Hill & Yates 1996; Gaston and Spicer 1998). The loss of species by extinction before even being discovered could mean loss of potentially useful medicines and genes for crop breeding or genetic engineering. In some places eco-tourism is a growing form of economic activity. High biodiversity can indicate a 'healthy ecosystem' and this can be useful in monitoring pollution and in determining success in conservation management (Magurran 1988).
But is it true to suggest that the higher the biodiversity the 'healthier' the system? There is general
agreement that a monoculture is often ecological unstable and that the extinction of predators often has
far-reaching 'knock-on effects but is the more simplistic argument true, namely that the higher the
biodiversity the more stable the system? This was the view of Elton (1958) but it has been strongly
disputed by May (1972,1981) as reviewed by Begon, Harper and Townsend (1996). Does the loss of a
particular species make the ecosystem less stable? 'It may or it may not and we may never know' is a much weaker argument than one based on the consequence of a 1oC rise in global temperatures leading to a specific prediction of sea level change.
The articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity (articles 12 and 13) emphasise that education
should be an essential element of any state's action plan. The UK Government (1994) was one of the first states to publish a Biodiversity action plan and education featured as a key objective: " to increase public awareness and involvement in, conservation biodiversity"
Congress Speakers' contribution
In his opening lecture, Prance recognised three aspects of biodiversity, species diversity, habitat diversity and genetic diversity and illustrated them with examples taken from his research in Amazonia. In constructing a case for the need to conserve biodiversity he argued that one of the most compelling reasons for preserving biodiversity was because of its role in overall environmental stability. What was, however, more persuasive was that which was implicit rather than explicit, aesthetic as much as it was scientific. The richness of the message was inseparable from the man himself as he shared his fascination, depth of knowledge and appreciation of his subject. Beside this, utilitarian arguments about new foods, medicines and agricultural chemicals seemed of secondary importance. Prance went on to describe the educational initiatives of The Royal Botanic Gardens and these too are pervaded by the same philosophy which is that to begin to understand the value of biodiversity one must experience it at first hand.
Prance's view of biodiversity embraces a view of ecology which has a strong focus on the biology of
individual plant and animal species as opposed to the more abstract emphasis on systems ecology which became fashionable in the 1960s. Skinner observed that the current British secondary science school curriculum (I I-19) requires very little emphasis on the diversity of life or on the threats to it.
Consequently, learning about the biology of a variety of plants and animals is perceived as an elementarytopic confined to the primary school. He described an initiative at Bedales School (LTK) which was exemplary in that, even within the constraints of a national curriculum, succeeded in making the connection between the study of a local flora and fauna and a global perspective. Morossy observed that there was similar problem in Romania and she went on to describe how it had been addressed by the Natural Science section of the Cris area museum. The museum's programme, developed over a number of years, catered for pupils ranging from Kindergarten to senior secondary school. There was particular emphasis on younger children (3-6 years of age) who were particularly receptive to biodiversity teaching programmes. Such children often became committed to nature conservation and had a significant effect in encouraging environmental awareness in adults.
Bajd described a quantitative study carried out by the Universities of Durham (UK) and Ljubljana
(Slovenia) investigating the knowledge of biodiversity of British and Slovene children in the 4-6 year age group. The study focused on animals of rainforest and polar habitats about which children gained their knowledge from secondary sources. Over 50% of children in this age group do not make the connection between species and habitat. English children were better informed about which animals lived in rainforests and in polar regions than were Slovene children mainly due to school and to TV programmes. The study concluded that the connection between species and particular environments was crucial to biodiversity education. It would be interesting to extend the study to include animals native to the pupils' own countries and to compare urban and rural children in both Slovenia and the UK.
Karopa argued that Biodiversity education had an important psychological componant, a point of view
which was unfamiliar to many of the delegates and which was regarded with interest. Applying the
principles of Belarusian-Russian psychologist Vygotsky (Smith,1997), Karopa proposed that a child's
attitude to the environment was a reflection of the child's relationship with closely related adults,
especially the relationship with his or her mother. In a quantitative study in Belarusian schools, Karopa found that there was little connection between a child's scientific knowledge and his or her degree of
responsible attitude to the environment. Far more important were emotional contacts with the environment together with social, moral and ethical concepts. There can be a connection between a child's attitude to domestic pets and to wild animals and to 'nature' in general. Planting trees has a similar effect in developing respect for the environment but planting trees as part of a team also makes working in the environment a social activity. It would be interesting to know whether the psychological process works in the other direction. Does a child who has learnt to respect biodiversity relate better to other children and to adults?
Franzini proposed a model in which a study of the science behind the growth of a plant could assist the
growth of consciousness in the inner life of a human being. Plant growth is the result of an interplay
between internal biological processes and environmental factors and this led to the idea of 'the gardener of myself. The model proposed by this speaker was a question of metaphor and analogy and it could be argued that it had little to do with biodiversity or environmental education. The scientific connection may indeed be very tenuous indeed. But 'nature' has long been a source of inspiration for poets and mystics and for many contact with living things and the environment can be psychologically therapeutic. Many children are fascinated by germinating beans or the rapid growth of a Sunflower plant even if the science of it hard to cope with. Franzini's approach offers a route into biodiversity for those not normally motivated by conventional science
In her two presentations Totaro illustrated the connection between the scientific study of biodiversity of
the Isola Capo Rizzuto district of Italy and its geographical, cultural, historical and economic context
making up what she termed 'an environmental system'. Her report contains detailed information which
emphasise that her study area has high biodiversity, range of land use and potential for low environmental impact tourism related to biodiversity and landscape quality. Totaro used the word 'biodiversity' in a much broader sense than did Prance, and a way which appeared to be synonymous with 'environmental education'.
Thomas examined the public understanding of ecology of forest fire in Canada and concluded that actual understanding was limited but that public perception (including that of undergraduates) was based on misconceptions and irrational responses. The issues were seen in very simplistic terms - fire was 'bad' because it destroyed things. There was great resistance to the idea that much of the biodiversity in the forest was adapted to survive fire, that burning helped to maintain (indeed increase) biodiversity and that it might also benefit forest management. We who communicate ecology need to take care not to expect many members of the public to have ecology degrees. The presenter concluded by observing that the public were scientifically badly misinformed and drew parallels with the British Bovine Spongiform Encaphalopathy (BSE) crisis. Sensationalism on the part of the media and weaknesses in the educational system must bare some of the blame but a more fundamental problem lay with inability or unwillingness on the part of academic ecologists to communicate effectively with the public.
Barker explored further the idea that public perception of ecological phenomena often bore little
relationship to that of an academic by looking at the way her own research student's study of the effect of trampling on Bluebells was reported by the press. The use of headlines like 'It's hell to be a bluebell'
might, at first sight appear to be trivialising that which we take seriously. But, in fact, the press have skills in communicating to the puiblic which academics often lack. Loss of biodiversity in Britain might well include loss of species like the Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and the article referred to above communicated the ecologically important piece of information that Bluebells were threatened by trampling to many more people than did an academic journal. As observed in the previous presentation, the press can be responsible for serious mis-information and this clearly should be avoided. However, the use of an expression like 'it's hell to be a Bluebell' could be deemed acceptable if it changes peoples' behaviour to more sustainable practices. Perhaps the key questions are 'how do we deal with the press?' and 'how can we learn from their communication skills?. Barker concluded by asking what her experiences told us about the effectiveness of environmental education in the LTK and why so many young people were turned off science at school. Facing the environmental challenge of Biodiversity meant trying to understand the public without being patronising, to be less scientifically purist and to recognise that not everyone responds in the same way.
Bogner argued that effective quantitative evaluation was essential not only to ensure progress but to
educate those who determined educational priorities and to win more credibility for environmental
education. He had adapted psychometric techniques and applied them to measure a number of variables
before and after an outdoor ecology programme for secondary school pupils. The empirical testing
instrument demonstrated improvements not only in environmental knowledge but in the attitudes of pupils towards the environment as something to be enjoyed and something to be respected. Bogner's study was based on a large sample (700) and has been extended to a number of european countries. His data were largely derived from self selected samples of pupils who had chosen to attend the ecology course. It would be interesting to extend the study to pupils takling part in such activities as part of their normal school programme. It is possible to have clearly defined educational objectives in matters of attitude, aesthetics and ethics. Bogner has made an important contribution by demonstrating that it is possible to approach such objectives in a way that is rigorous yet not simplistic. In so doing he is opening the way for Environmental Education finally to 'come of age.' as part of the curriculum.
New ways of communicating ecology are required at every level. Moon, working with Biology
undergraduates described her work in developing student-centred learning strategies. She had attempted to reduce by 30-60% the reliance on passive listening to formal lectures and note-taking in favour of small group discussion, field work and extended project work.. Like Franz Bogner she had evaluated the effectiveness of her choice of method. Students accustomed to a traditional teaching style were certainly nor disadvantaged by the new style and in some respects they had a better understanding enabling them to apply knowledge with more confidence.
There is a great need for the development of innovative teaching resources and training courses to meet
the requirements of the biodiversity convention. The following four speakers describe such developments in their own countries. Maciejowska described teaching resources developed to support the recently introduced environmental component in Polish schools including an innovative CD-ROM designed to support environmental protection aspects of the science curnculum. Judd described VEGPAK, a computer package for teaching ecology to undergraduates illustrating a wide range of data handling, statistical analysis and simulations. Kasianenko compared training of Ecologists in a range of European countries and then went on to describe recent developments in Russia. Vojinovic-Milardov described a TEMPUS project whose main objective was to establish an Environmental Engineering curriculum at the University of Novi Sad (Yugoslavia).
Vare considered that since we live in a society in transition an important role of education was to equip
the public to cope with change. This was certainly the case with respect to biodiversity education. The
speaker suggested that the current schooling system was failing in this respect and he suggested that we
needed an educational environrnent rather than environmental education. 'Adjectival educations' such as
'environmental education' had in the past due to the 'missionary zeal' of those who promoted them all too
often 'confused knowledge with information'. Vare reviewed various examples of what used to be called
'alternative education' in diR'erent parts of the World and concluded that learning was more a process
than the mere acquisition of factual knowledge. He saw schools as centres for meeting to share
experiences within a broader education taking place in the environment itself We need to free up the
concept of 'school' but 'we simply don't need another 'something' education'. We need to learn to
understand and value biodiversity as part of what the Scottish environmental education strategy (SOEnD
1993) calls 'Learning for Life' rather than to try to find somewhere to fit 'biodiversity education' into the
curriculum.
Slingsby and Barker analysed the various ways in which the public perception of Biodiversity and other
aspects of environmental awareness was moulded. This originated was derived from the research of
academic ecologists yet few members of the public read scientif c journals. The average person's
knowledge and understanding of biodiversity comes through a cocktail of sources including formal
education, environmental pressure groups, commercial and political vested interests, TV documentaries
and the mass media all of which are blended with his or her personal experience. The latter should not be
underestimated - the experience of sitting by a lake on a summer's day watching his or her children
feeding ducks speaks more powerfully than many books and neat and tidy schemes for biodiversity
education.
The authors went on to argue that various interests, from green protesters to ecological apologists for the nuclear industry, competed for the control of the public perception of the environment. Public opinion is the driving force which has the potential to affect governments who, in their turn, can take action. Much of the European and Global legislation and protocols such as the Helsinki Accord of the 1980's were brought about by public pressure inspired by environmental pressure groups in the 1960s and 1970s. The presenters feared that there was no longer the same cutting edge to public concern needed to sustain the pressure on governments in the next millennium. The reasons for this included sensationalisation by pressure groups, manipulation by commercial interests and an institutionalisation of environmental concern. This institutionalisation takes the form of more jobs in the environmental field, larger offices and more international conferences negatively correlated tp the degree of real commitment to action beyond the next election. The presenters concluded by considering that we were perhaps not as green as we used to be. Educational priorities were to enable the public to value biodiversity both by enjoying it at a personal level and by evaluating critically what others had to say.
The final speaker, Campbell, a medical biochemist, argued that biodiversity was not only important for
number of utilitarian, aesthetic and ethical reasons but was crucial as a stimulus and source of ideas for
breaking new ground in Life Sciences. There was a need to put the 'bio' back into biology and to recognise its essential unity. The speaker illustrated this from his own research in which a fascination for bioluminescence which began with the collection of Obelia on the beach in his childhood led to research on the biochemical basis of the process. What started as pure research led to the patenting of a leader in the billion dollar market of diagnostic medicine. An appreciation of biodiversity can provide as much now as in the past a stimulus to both excite and challenge us and thus provide a new vision for Life Sciences- in research, teaching and in its presentation to the general public. Like our opening speaker, Prance, Campbell is an outstanding and successful scientist who shared not only his knowledge and his own scientific philosophy (Campbell,1994) but his enthusiasm and fascination. With him there is no distinction between pure and applied science, the utilitarian and the aesthetic, science and poetry, biochemistry and Natural History, nor economic necessity and the power of the human imagination.
Discussion
What is biodiversity? Biodiversity could essentially mean little more than that there are many different species of living organisms on the Earth. Prance extended this to include habitats and genetic diversity within and between species. Biodiversity is also something threatened by human influences and there is general agreement that species are currently becoming extinct faster than new ones are evolving. Global climate change is likely to accelerate this process.
The study of biodiversity has a great deal in common with taxonomy or classification and also with
Natural History. Natural historians in the past observed biodiversity out of personal interest, named and
classified species (many were also taxonomists) and studied species in an ecological context before
ecology per se had emerged. The emphasis on systems ecology of the past few decades, the concern over Animal Welfare and Health and Safety issues in biological education and lack of funding for field studies have combined to restrict the study of plants and animals to the primary school. Biodiversity may be a new name for Natural History but perhaps the time has come to re-assert its importance and give it a new image. This development is to be welcomed provided that the re-emphasis has substance and is more than mere image.
Biodiversity at first hand
There was general agreement that biodiversity needs to be experienced before it can be appreciated. Whena child sees a wood full of bluebells, an old haymeadow with 40 species of Flowering Plant per square metre or sees a variety of freshwater animals in a white tray whilst ponding dipping, then he or she has seen biodiversity. As soon as he or she becomes fascinated by the differences, says 'aren't there a lot of different ones?', wants to count species and to identify them, then he or she has begun to appreciate biodiversity. But many children have never experienced biodiversity at first hand. Field experience in the pupil's own locality at some stage of his or her education is essential because it links reality with animals in books and in TV programmes and dogmatic statements in examination syllabuses about rain forests.
Why do we need to conserve biodiversity?
It is easy to convince the public that a lake suffering the effect of eutrophication or children the effects ofair pollution mean that action should be taken, even if there is a cost to the tax payer. Some of the more extravagant predictions of the possible consequences of global warming are sufficiently like a disaster movie to cause concern. But why should we conserve wild plants and animals? Is the reason that the public has never really understood why it is so important because the threat is too subtle for all but an expert to understand, because the real argument is not being put or because no such argument exists? There are many examples, such as predator-prey, where interactions between species maintain habitat stability but this is not the same as saying that biodiversity sensu lato is essential to maintain ecological stability of the planet. The extinction of rain forest species which takes place daily is less likely to affect a person in the UK than the air pollution from traffic and nitrate in drinking water. There is a great need '
for more teaching material containing specific, concrete examples which illustrate why we need
biodiversity to keep the ecosystem stable: Similarly we need to see more concrete examples of useful
products discovered in rain forest species which would have been lost had the species become extinct.
Prance described some exciting work at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (UKj aimed at doing this. These utilitarian arguments often appear weak in school text books and if we are to use this argument we must make underpin it with more precise, explicit and sound examples. Campbell's research successes offers a very robust illustration.
The main reason why people want to conserve biodiversity is because it is there, it is beautiful and that
they believe it is wrong to destroy it. Why are we so afraid of arguing this? By means of effective
education and by providing the means for the public to enjoy bird biodiversity, the UK Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has given rise to a powerful lobby group of people who believe that bird
biodiversity matters.
What is the difference between environmental and ecological education?
Environmental Education is broadly based and addresses the whole person in a variety of ways including the aesthetic, the moral, the artistic, the spiritual, the political, the recreational and the scientific. Ecology, on the other hand, is more narrowly defined as a scientif c discipline with a strong biological knowledge base. We would like to argue that blurring the differences between the two concepts is unhelpful. It is important to recognise the distinctions between them before it is possible to appreciate how they relate together.To caracature the dichotomy, ecological scientists often regard environmental education as sloppy and superficial and in which factual material becomes confused with political idealism. Environmental educationalists, on the other hand might regard an ecological scientist as clinging to the dubious notion of value-free science, caring only for narrow factual knowledge and being too arrgant or out of touch to communicate with ordinary people.
There is a need for scientists to develop ways to communicate more effectively with the public either
directly or indirectly through school teachers and writers of text books. To suggest that factual information is unecessary or unimportant is as wrong as suggesting that learning facts is the main focus of studying environmental education, ecology or biology. Environmental education is interdisciplinery and biological knowledge is but one of several aspects. Pupils need to be aware when they are approaching a problem from a scientific point of view and when they are dealing with values, aesthetics and politics. Integratingdifferent ways of looking at a question is not the same thing as confusing them.
An important educational priority is to define the range of objectives, to develop strategies of teaching to develop attitudes and to cope with bias in what other people say. A further priority is to test the
effectiveness of these strategies and to modify them in the light of such evaluation using approaches such as those of Bolger and Bajd. Both our keynote speakers were rigorous scientists with a depth of factual knowledge but they obviously enjoyed biodiversity aesthetically as well as finding it intellectually stimulating. They were also committed to its conservation from an ethical point of view as much as anyone else.
Does Biodiversity Education exist?
Vare, in his presentation, concluded that we 'don't need another 'something' education' and one wonders whether Biodiversity education is a fashionable example of such a 'something'. Biodiversity is a useful focus within Biology and environmental education which tends to redress the imbalance in favour of systems ecology. It is a useful point of integration within a multi-disciplinery approach. but it will achieve this more effectively if it does not develop a false mystique of its own.
List of contributors in the order in which they are referred to in the text rather than the order in which they appeared in the programme.
Professor Sir Ghillean T. Prance, Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK
What is Biodiversity and why does it matter? Keynote address
Gary Skinner, Bedales School, UK Biodiversity against the odds.
Anna Marossy, Societatea Romania de Ecologie, Romania.
Kindergarten and Museum: a partnership for developing environmental awareness.
Barbara Bajd, Manti, D., Skribe, D.D., Razpet, N., Palmer, J., Suggate, J.
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and University of Durham, UK
Animals living in different environments: early ideas at ages 4 to 6.
Gennady Karopa, Belarussian Green Class Association and University of Gomel, Belarus
The Psychological aspect of environmental education
E. Franzeni Earth Programme & Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Vienna, Austria
Nature'as Teacher: correspondences between the growth of plants in nature and the growth of
consciousness in the Inner Life as a Human Being
E Aloj Totaro, Sannio University, Benevento, Italy: The Art Environment Project: an Innovative Strategy of Environmental Education
E. Aloj Totaro, M. Adimari, E. Zazzaro, L. Napoli, C. Falcone Sannio University, Benevento, Italy
A new stratey for Environmental Education: The Environmental System in Isola Capo Rizzuto
(Crotone, Italy)
Peter Thomas, University of Keele, UK Lies told about fire and biodiversity
Susan Barker, University of Warwick, UK. Biodiversity and the mass media
F. X. Bogner, Pad Hochschule, Ludwigsburg, Germany:
Empirical Evaluation of Outdoor Ecoloy Education
B. Moon, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, Canada
Enhancing Undergraduate Student learning of ecology.
Iwona Maciejowska & Lopata Krystyna, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
Supporting Polish classroom teachers in the successJul delivery of Ecological Education.
Terry Judd and Mark Adams, University of Western Australia
Vegpak: a computer Aided learning package Jor plant ecology
A. A. Kasienenko & P. Koslov Yu., Russian People's Friendship University, Moscow, Russia. The
training of experts on ecology and environmental protection in Russia and other European countries.
Miloradov M, Vojinovic-Miloradov, M. & Skrbic B, Tempus Centre, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia.
The Education of Environmental Engineers
Paul Vare, International Centre for Conseivation Education UK
School for Transition: A view from environmental education
David Slingsby, Wakefield Girls' High School, UK & Susan Barker, University of Warwick, UK
Are we as green as we used to be?
Anthony Campbell University of Cardiff and Darwin Centre, UK Concluding address.
Molecules and Life - universality versus individuality.
References
Begon,M, Townsend, Harper, J.L. & Townsend, C.R (1996). Ecology: individuals, populations and
Communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Blackburn, J. (1989). Charles Waterton, Traveller and Conservationist. The Bodley Head, London
Campbell, A.K. (1994). Rubicon: the fifth dimension in biology. Duckworth, London
Department of Environment Transport and Regions (1998). Making Biodiversity Happen. A
supplementary consulation paper to Opportunities for change CP 98EP0071 HMSO London
Elton, C.S. (1958).The Ecology of Invasions by animals and plants. Methuan, London
Gaston, J. & Spicer, J.I. (1998) Biodiversity: an introduction Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Hale, M. (ed)(1993). Ecology in Education. Cambridge University Press Cambridge
Hill, D and Yates, T.(eds) (1996) Actions for Biodiversity in the UK: approaches in UK to implementing the Convention on Biodiversity.Ecological Issues No. 6.British Ecological Society.
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, London
May, RM. (1972) Will a large complex model be stable? Nature, 238:413-414
May, RM. (1981) Patterns in multi-species communities. In Theoretical Ecology: principles
and applications 2nd edition Ed May, R.M. pp197-227. Blackwell, Oxford.
Robottom, I. (1993) The role of ecology in education: an Australian perspective. In Ecology in
Education, Ed Hale, M. pp 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Scottish Biodiversity Group (1997). Biodiversity for All: A Toolkit. Unpublished report.
Sheail, J. (1987). Seventy-five years in ecology: The British Ecological Society.
Blackwell Scientific. Oxford.
Smith, L (ed) (1997) Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond: central issues in developmental psychology.
Routledge, New York and London
UK Government (1994). Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan. CM 2428, HMSO, London.
Wilson, E.O. & Peter, F.M. (eds) (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington,D.C.
| 